Ah, of course, what was I thinking!?!! I see the light now. Mea culpa. I stand corrected.

So, who was at the meeting last night & can report on what happened?...

I think the most significant objections to this project have to do with the relatively small first-floor commercial space, compared with the size of the footprint of the building. In my opinion, the zoning requirements for a C-2 commercial district are too weak to ensure good commercial development. When the Zoning Code is revised, I hope the requirements for commercial development will be strengthened, so that we have a better chance of getting quality commercial development. Here are my comments, based on the Osun Village proposal, but focussed more generally on how poorly the current code provides for commercial development.

1. Given the procedural history of this project, and the impression (right or wrong) that certain aspects of the project were already approved and not subject to review, there was actually very little chance that input from SOSNA as a result of Wednesday's meeting would influence the project in any meaningful way. This was especially true because Osun Village was not looking to make any revisions, and didn't seem open to any significant changes. Only one matter discussed at the meeting had any chance of being incorporated into the decision: the recommendation that the first-floor "alley" should be formally recorded in some way, so that a future owner could not enclose it, leaving no way out of the rear yard except through the building.
2. To achieve a fair appraisal of the impact of this plan on the development of the relatively small Grey's Ferry commercial corridor, we may need to evaluate the proposed commercial space independently of the potentially complicating factors regarding the height of the building, and also independently of any consideration of what specific organizations (Odunde) that might be housed in the building.
3. For the sake of argument, let's assume that these four contiguous properties were acquired by the same owner, and that the owner wanted to develop the property with a combination of commercial and residential uses, as allowed in a C-2 zoning district. Let's assume that the project was for three stories, with no variances for building height, open area, etc. Let's assume that the owner dedicated a large amount of space on the first floor to a fitness center that was for the use of building residents only. Let's assume also that there were two "commercial" spaces defined on the first floor -- one larger commercial space with an accessory non-contiguous storage area designated for the use of the tenant of that space, and a smaller "commercial" space that the owner wanted to use as an office for the management of the property. My guess is that plan could be implemented with over-the-counter permits under current C-2 zoning requirements. There is a commercial component as required, and the there is a residential component as allowed by code.
4. In a commercial corridor that is relatively small, but important because of its strategic location, I do not think the plan described in #3 would even begin to satisfy what I presume is the intent of the C-2 zoning, which is to maintain a viable commercial corridor. The C-2 designation, as I understand it, is intended to benefit from relatively high traffic: sale of good are to be at retail, and provision of services is to be with the ultimate consumer.
5. The fundamental problem here is that the C-2 code is dismally weak and ineffectual to protect the community's interest in maintaining viable commercial corridors. This is especially true when economic factors make residential development seem more lucrative than commercial development. If I were to re-write the C-2 code, my revisions would include these requirements: for new construction in a C-2 district, all first floor commercial spaces must be accessible via an at-grade entrance; all first-floor commercial space should have a minimum ceiling height of 12 feet; no more than 20% of the first-floor building footprint should be dedicated to access to the non-commercial portions of the building; at least 80% of the first floor area should be dedicated to the commercial use. Without stronger provisions to protect existing commercial spaces, and encourage the development of new commercial spaces, we may see the availability of commercial spaces diminish significantly...

It is my sense from the meeting on Wednesday night, that given the minimal amount of commercial space dedicated to the ground floor (apart from the dedicated office space to Odunde) that the occupant of the space has already been engaged and will be an Odunde related business, as in African-American arts and crafts, etc. Of course, I could be totally wrong!

__________________
"In order to be irreplaceable one must always be different." Coco Chanel

Just so I don't forever hold the wrong impression, but if they had been allowed to build 6 stories would it have been likely to get them to have all first floor retail in exchange for that variance?

There was no chance of improving the project or reaching compromise at the SOSNA hearing. When the earlier (3 parcel) version of the project was presented, it was rejected by the SOSNA meeting. The developer negotiated with a group of neighbors, but never came back to SOSNA. Normally, that neighborhood opposition would have carried significant weight with the ZBA. In this case Anna Verna wrote a letter to the ZBA supporting the project and suggesting that Wednesday's meeting should only be for neighborhood review of the design -- not approval. That letter turned the SOSNA zoning hearing into a dog and pony show. Despite a room full of neighbors intent on reaching the best possible result, there was no opportunity for meaningful compromise. What remains to be seen is whether the ZBA schedules a final hearing or rules on the record as it now stands.

My sense is yes, had the height not been such a big deal for the immediate neighbors & those on the "task force" then they could have built a, say, 5-story building where the community room could have been located above the ground floor, leaving the ground floor for much closer to 100% commercial/retail.