I went. Msr's Hauptman and Cole spoke briefly. Then I spoke at length. Then another resident/SSHD member/Business owner spoke. Then some of my comments were called into question as were the other resident's. Particularly my claims about the sunset clause being a dangerous provision and also my belief that the current legislation and any amendments down the road would be pushed to council "quietly" and that the process was somehow questionable. I didn't mean to imply that this was a closed door session like the state's ruling on casinos.....rather, that a select few wrote the legislation and it was never put to the neighborhood for a vote. And I do believe that any amendments down the line will be as well.

Then Hauptman and Cole were called back up....at which point they had the nerve to claim that "the legislation does not in any way dictate architectural style or design."

In addition they claimed that at the numerous QVNA meetings their proposal was always overwhelmingly supported. Shosh then spoke very briefly to dispute the claim that meetings were all supportive. Then it was over.

They had 5-6 other bills to read and discuss including one that was expected to take a while. I didn't bother to stick around. The result seemed pre-determined. I don't even think they voted yet, but DiCicco's aide seemed to think it was a done deal.

My only saving grace is that in the final variation, the boundary definitions were adjusted to exclude my street....so I can do what I want. Nevertheless, this will still affect me down the road. As a testified today, adding restrictions and steps to the process will only serve to make QV a less desirable place for developers, builders, rehabbers and residents simply because of the limitations and the added cost and time to get approvals.

Queen Village has done remarkably well over the last decade (and more but especially lately) without the "help" of an NCD. Free market conditions would have continued this trend. Alas, I feel that this legislation will only hurt it.

Yes, that's about right. Tim and "the other resident/SSHD/etc." both spoke quite well and thoughtfully although no one but Anna Verna and DiCicco were paying the most remote bit of attention to what was being said. DiCicco took great offense to one of Tim's remarks, which ended up being used as an excuse to divert the whole process from "what's wrong with this bill" to "how dare you attack me, the great DiCicco, when I have nothing but love and good will for the people of QV, particularly those on the QVNA board who work so very, very, very hard, and are of course all volunteers, and so work very, very, very hard on their own time for the neighborhood, yadda, yadda, yadda."

What was really amazing is that Hauptmann, Cole and DiCicco essentially admitted that, AT MOST, 2,800 of the roughly 3,900(I think that's the number) property owners in QV received notices (somehow the esimate of how many notices were sent rose from 2000 to 3000, with 200 returns); nevertheless, they seem to feel that there's some "good faith" exception to the notice requirements such that you can disenfranchise about 1/3 of the QV property owners and still get away with passing this legislation.

BTW, Tim, I know that you got a copy of the amendments ... I didn't ... could you summarize them for us?

__________________
---Shosh

I finally got ahold of your other squak box, and I'm not exactly thrilled with what they told me. Is it true that qvna tried to say that there's no historic district in place already? That's a total lie- I nvite them to type an adress into the city's zoning map. Try 200 bainbridge. You will quickly see that its covered by the southwark historic district.

just a quick slightly off-topic ?, can you have a house registered as historical but not be in a historic district? because the house i almost bought on the 200 block of christian is 'historic.'

Yes. Conversely, a structure in a historic district isn't necessarily considered historic; the term for such a building is non-contributing.

__________________
Cheers,
Jayfar
--
“I am indeed well aware of the history of Conventional (sic) Hall, both globally and locally, and can assure you that we are carefully exploring avenues for its future.” -- Penn President Amy Gutmann 5 days before demolition began.

That is true. Your source indeed stated for the record that the NCD would overlay part of an existing historic district and that it would not be legal to pass this bill for that reason. One of the two (Hauptman or Cole) did indeed get back to the table and state that there is NO historic district that conflicts with the NCD. As I said, he also claimed the legislation doesn't dictate architectural design or style either....

Also, I just got word that the bill passed the rules committee and will go to full council now for a vote where it is most assuredly going to pass unanimously. I think it will take at least 2 weeks before it can get voted in full council.

Amending Title 14 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled “Zoning and Planning,” by adding a new Section 14-908, entitled “Queen Village Neighborhood Conservation District.”


THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA HEREBY ORDAINS:


SECTION 1. Title 14 of The Philadelphia Code is hereby amended to read as follows:


TITLE 14. ZONING AND PLANNING.




§14-908. Queen Village Neighborhood Conservation District.



(1) Legislative Findings. The Council finds that the requirements of Code Section 14-903(1)-(6) for submission of a proposed Neighborhood Conservation District have been met for the proposed Queen Village Neighborhood Conservation District.


(2) District Boundaries. For the purposes of this Chapter, The Queen Village Neighborhood Conservation District shall be bounded by: the north side of Washington Avenue, the properties on the north side of Bainbridge Street the south side of Lombard Street, the east side of 6th Street and the west side of Front Street Delaware River, except for any property located within the boundaries of the South Street/Headhouse Square Special Services District.


(3) Area Regulations - Residential Structures. These regulations shall include properties both residentially zoned, regardless of use, and properties that are permitted by the Department for exclusive residential use.


(a) Building Set-back Line. Buildings with legal street frontage shall have no front set-back except that buildings with a street frontage of 20 feet or more on a single street and corner lots may have front set-backs from all street frontages only if a fence wall is constructed upon the property line where the set-back is used, and the space between the fence wall and the building contains at least one tree as approved in the official Philadelphia City Planning Commission plantings list.



(b) Height Regulations. On streets with a width of 21 feet or less, including the cartway and legal sidewalks, new construction shall not exceed 22 feet in height to a cornice line, before either:


(.1) Recessing on a plane, a minimum of 45 degrees, to the maximum height allowable in the underlying zoning district, or;


(.2) Stepping back from the front property line 8 feet to a vertical wall that may extend to the maximum height allowable in the underlying zoning district.


(4) Design Guidelines – Residential Structures.


(a) Requirements for both New Construction and Alterations.


(.1) Where street frontage of a new building exceeds 20 feet on a single street or where an existing building is extended to exceed 20 feet on a single street, the façade facing that street shall be broken up by offset planes, roofline variations or other architectural features including, but not limited to, bay windows or set-backs.


(.2) Residential buildings must have a habitable room on the front of the first floor.


(.3) Exterior security grills are not permitted on windows and doors.


(.4) New doors shall be placed at least one foot above the sidewalk.


(.45) New utility meters shall be hidden from view from the street frontage.


(.56) Fences and fence walls. New fences and fence walls must be in compliance with Section 14-231(4) of the Code.


(.67) Fenestration. Windows of first floor habitable rooms shall:


(.a) Have a maximum height of 4 feet 6 inches from the bottom windowsill to the sidewalk;


(.b) The overall window height shall be at least 4 feet from sill to head, and;


(.c) The minimum aggregate width of the window(s), in lineal feet, shall be at least 33% of the total lineal frontage of the first floor.


(.78) Parking.

(.a) Front garages will only be permitted where there is a habitable room on the first floor and the fenestration requirements for that habitable room are met.


(.b) Open-air parking spaces shall not be visible from the street frontage.


(.c) New curb cuts shall not exceed 10 feet in width for a single space, 20 feet for a double space.


(.d) For new construction of two or more units within a row, parking spaces or garages should be placed directly adjacent to one another, wherever possible.


(.e) Exterior parking areas shall have a requirement of 10 percent of their total area to be landscaped with plants to come from the approved Planning Commission list.


(.89) Roof Decks. Roof decks must be set-back at least 8 feet from the front property line, or a parapet to enclose the front of the deck must be used and be at least 42 inches high.


(.910) Materials.


(.a) No vinyl, stucco or cement board siding can be used on the front façade of a building, not including garage doors, man doors and fenestration.


(.b) Projecting bay windows that face a street shall not be constructed of stucco.


(.c) New open-air parking spaces and lots shall not be constructed of asphalt or slab concrete paving materials.


(.d) Rear walls of buildings shall be faced with masonry materials, including stucco, if the rear of a structure is visible from a street, a material consistent with the front façade of the building shall be used.


(.e) Railings for roof decks shall be a maximum of 50 percent opaque and may not be constructed of unfinished wood.
(.f) Fences may not be constructed of unfinished wood or chain link fencing materials.


(.g) For all newly constructed front facades, a light illuminating the sidewalk shall be installed adjacent to the front door and the illumination shall be controlled via a timer.






(5) Area Regulations – Commercial and Industrial Structures.


(a) Building Set-back Line. Buildings with legal street frontage shall have no front set-back.


(6) Design guidelines – Commercially Zoned and Industrially Zoned Structures.


(a) Requirements for both New Construction and Alterations.


(.1) Parking and Loading. New off street parking and loading areas shall be hidden from the main street frontage.


(.2) Materials. The materials used in the construction of a new structure or façade shall be consistent with those used on the adjacent residential structures fronting on the same street as the property under review.

1. Non-conforming Structures. The Commission and its staff may grant exceptions to the requirements of this Section if it determines that the structure, or aspects thereof, are legally non-conforming.

1. The provisions of this Section shall expire one year after the date that this Section becomes law.

SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately.

What happened to the e-mailed promised changes that removed the provision about security bars and grandfathered in existing structures?

QVNA is a bunch of ....

__________________
---Shosh

Looks like the STRIKEOUT text was not carried in when I cut and pasted....

I'll try to go back and correct it... all the text that was supposed to be struck now appears in RED.

Sorry for the confusion...


The "grandfathering" was never something I expected to see them include. Afterall, as I pointed out today, there are few (if any) buildable lots in QV. This legislation ends up targeting those of us (well, those of you since my street is excluded) who already live here. If they took out existing structures they would have nothing left!

>>No vinyl, stucco or cement board siding can be used on the front façade of a building, not including garage doors, man doors and fenestration.<<

There is no legitimate purpose for such a provision. QVNA apparently has made the misjudgment that buildings formed of these materials are by definition aesthetically inferior to those composed of brick, stone, wood, tile or other materials. This is a matter of personal taste, and reasonable people can disagree about the desirability of particular materials. Within reason, it is for the property owner to decide his or her own aesthetic and preferences when building a home.