when I say identical, but wait until you see a picture of it a second. And really the main
difference between what's there now and what we're proposing is that the proposed building
will have two units instead of one. We also drew a dimensional refusal for the front setback,
but that is going to match the home that's currently there. Talk about that more in a moment.
And we drew a refusal for a side yard setback, but we are actually going to make the side yard
setback bigger than what it is now it's it's just still going to fall a little short of the required
five feet um more on that in a moment um so let me show you the zoning map which is exhibit five
um slightly zoomed out image on top zoomed in image in the bottom but like many of the lots
in the sort of historic central part of germantown this is a very skinny and narrow lot so it's only
17 and a half feet wide, but it's 150 feet deep. And I sort of just bring that up and show you
the image of the rectangle here, because we'll be able to talk about that issue in a moment.
At Exhibit 7 are zoning posters, and that's a good opportunity to show you
the structure that's there now. So the structure that's there now, according to records at li.philo.gov,
has been vacant since 2007. And there was a catastrophic fire in 2010. So at this point,
it has not been inhabited in over 15 years. My client purchased it recently, and is basically
has fully determined, I think, after careful study, that the structure cannot be salvaged,
It must be demolished for safety. It's a, you know, I think a three-story structure with a
small third floor. Let me just jump to an image of what we're proposing to build.
So this is a poster board that my client David made and we showed
This is a poster board that my client David made and we showed at the RCO meeting, and it really was meant to evidence his sincere intent to match what's there now.
So this on the right is, you know, a rendering of the front facade of what he's proposing to build all the way down to the same color of the window frames, the size of the dormer on the third floor and the location of the chimney.
Pete, this is sort of text that David put together, but it talks about the fire damage to the existing structure, because we really wanted to make clear to the community that we honor the sort of historic fabric of this block.
But this building simply couldn't be saved, unfortunately.
There is also a set of floor plans that were part of this set that went to the RCOs.
I should say RCOs because more than one RCO attended this meeting.
And it's really, I think, not an attempt to be greedy with the number of units.
It's just two.
Two, David felt, was the minimum number of units that he has to build in order to get financing to demolish and clean up the fire damaged house and rebuild.
The lower floor is going to be its own unit.
It would be a thousand square feet, roughly.
Oh, sorry, I'm going the wrong way here.
And I believe that that is really not elevated off of the ground so much that it'd be maybe
not ADA accessible in a literal sense, but at least pretty easy to get into for someone
with disabilities.
The second and third floor would be the other unit combined.
um that they come in i think at a little over 1500 square feet and the third floor is is sort
of modest it just occupies the front of the structure um this is a a property that is 2600
square feet so um to go back for one second of the zoning map what's interesting and i don't
really know the reason for this to be honest but um we're on like what you would call the unit block
the zero block of East Springhurst. The next block is the 200 block, and it's largely zoned
RM1, even though it looks really like identical to our block. So if we were on that block,
if we were RM1, we would have the right to build six units here. We're not even coming close to
that, but just to sort of throw that out there. And I think that the RCOs felt that this was
sort of a tasteful reserved request. This is the meeting summary by the coordinating RCO,
which was the Wakefield 49ers. No letter here, but one of the affected RCOs, Solo Germantown,
did write a letter and sort of, I think, walks through some of the same points I'm going to make
in my presentation, so I won't summarize it. But I see here it says to preserve, quote,
as many original architectural artifacts, end quote, as possible. Just to talk a little bit
about the block, and then I'll wrap up. At exhibit six of our packet was a satellite image and a
parcel map, but it just, it came out really blurry when I compressed this. So I'm going to show you
the same thing on Atlas's website. And first, I just want to talk about that refusal for
the front of the structure. If you zoom in really close here, this TAM box reflects the house that's
there now. And you'll see that our structure is seven feet from the street, whereas the adjacent
structure is, I think, nine feet and change. And the way the zoning code works here is that we're
supposed to match the closest structure if there's only a structure on one side. So the rule is we
had to build a nine plus feet setback. But what we proposed and explained this to the RCOs is we
want to leave it where it is now. And where it is now matches up with the buildings on the other
side. So there's no uniform pattern of setbacks on this block. You can readily see that. Some of
of no setbacks at all, just to sort of preserve rear yard space. And because there's no porches
on most of these houses, so the space in the front is sort of dead space. We didn't want to go to
nine, nine and a half feet. We just want to keep it where it is now at seven, and it'll fit in
perfectly with our neighbors to the Northeast. And I would call that a de minimis variance.
So under that argument, the hardship is not even needed for that particular issue.
The other dimensional variance is side yard setback.
Right now, there is a very code non-conforming,
Right now, there is a very code non-conforming, I would argue dangerous alley between us and our neighbor to the southwest.
I would argue dang
It's only about a foot, maybe a foot and a half wide. So we're going to improve on that.
We're going to make it three feet. Three feet will allow it to be considered an emergency egress under the building code.
It's it's enough space that we're not going to be sort of bringing up structural concerns.
we it's enough space that we won't disturb our historic neighbor here when we're doing our
building so we definitely didn't want to be attached even though the code would have allowed
that um and and finally you know if we had gone with five feet the code says you're either attached
which we didn't want to do for safety or five feet and if you're if we had done five feet
our house would have been i guess 12 and a half feet or less once you include the thickness of
the walls inside. That's a really narrow row home. That's too narrow to be saleable. A typical
Philadelphia row home, I would say, are 15, 16 feet in width. So having the three feet side yard
instead of five will allow us to have sort of a normal feeling product, but still it's safe.
It's going to meet building code requirements for emergency regress. And then finally,
It just came up in my last hearing. I know the board takes an interest in whether there's other multifamily on the block.
So I did find licenses for duplexes at 58 East Bringhurst, 60 East Bringhurst and 66 East Bringhurst.
And we're 54. So they're right down the block from us. Those are all duplexes.
And we're not aware of any construction whatsoever on this block since 2004.
So that's just to say that the economics are that it's really hard to get financing to build anything here.
And two units was the minimum that, you know, David feels like he can engage with commercial lenders and get something going here.
So let me check my notes. I think. Yep. That's going to conclude my testimony.
Why don't you bring your client on and adopt your testimony?
Okay. David Redenbaugh is his name.
They've been allowed to speak.
Sir, could you state your name and spell it for the court's stenographer?
Sure. David Redenbaugh. R-E-D-E-N-B-A-U-G-H.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes. Proceed, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
David, are you authorized to speak on behalf of Red Brick Builders, LLC?
Yes, I am.
Did you hear my testimony in your zoning case this afternoon?
I did.
Was it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief?
How about what I had to say about the fire in the structure?
Was that accurate to the best of your knowledge in particular?
Yes, absolutely.
And would you, therefore, adopt all of my testimony as if it had been your own?
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
mr chair i have charles richardson with his with their hand raised i have allowed them to speak at
this time hi mr richardson just state your name please you've already been sworn
charles richardson office of councilwoman cindy bass room 508 city hall councilwoman has no
objection to granting the variance thank you very much is there anyone else in the virtual audience
i do not see any further hands mr chair
Hi, Planning Commission.
Excuse me, Mr. Chair, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I have one more hand up from Rosalind McKelvey.
Do you want another person to speak?
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Good afternoon.
My name is Rosalind McKelvey, R-O-S-A-L-I-N-D, McKelvey, M as in Mary, C-K-E-L-V as in Victor, E-Y.
Right. Do you swear or affirm that tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Please proceed.
On behalf of the Wakefield 49ers and the neighbors that attended the meeting, they were very pleased to hear that there was going to be something done with this property.
As far as there being two oppositions, one was because they weren't sure where the property line ended, and the applicant supplied everything we asked for, plus evidence that it didn't interfere with their property.
everything we asked for, plus evidence that it didn't interfere with their property.
So the community has no problem.
As far as there being a proviso, that was not put up by the neighbors.
The neighbors are perfectly satisfied with everything presented.
So we have no problem and ask that it go forward.
Thank you.
Thank you so much for taking the time to call us.
We appreciate it.
And, you know, we pay attention to what you have to say.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
no further answer mr chair planning commission
good afternoon chair peter bernard for the planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing rsa five residential single
family zoning at this location we feel the applicant has demonstrated sufficient hardship
and that the proposal represents the minimum necessary variances accordingly the planning
Commission recommends the Board grant the proposed variance for two dwelling units and the proposed
variances for side yard setback and front facade setback. Thank you. MI 2023-005-036-54 East
Wright-Hurst Street, I vote yes. Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
Number eight, MI 2022-005-928-4829 Haverford Avenue.
Alan Notkinson is the attorney.
There is a letter of opposition from Mill Creek Advisory Council.
there will be rejoining as a panel thank you
mr knockamson
it appears
mr goldberg has his hand up um
okay i'm sure you most certainly
they'll be doing this panelist soon okay
to Goldberg
oh oh there's a okay could you uh state your name and i think if i remember correctly
sometime this morning i swore you in once before yes uh this is alan knockamson of knockamson pc
at a-l-a-n last name knockamson n-o-c-h-u-m-s-o-n um i apologize literally my computer died as soon
as I entered into the virtual panel audience.
So I met Mr. Goldberg.
We've all experienced that.
Yeah, so I'm going to be a little slow on the trigger here.
Could you identify your client
and their relationship to the property?
Yeah, 4829 Haverford.
That would be Pebble Development LLC.
And the virtual audience is Mustafa Askan.
And our vice chair has a few questions for you.
Good afternoon, counsel.
or do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal
or stipulate towards accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents
and exhibits that is needed and required to proceed
with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, I have.
Thank you.
Please proceed.
Thank you.
I do apologize if I'm a little slow here.
This is Mr. Goldberg's computer,
a little different than mine.
All right, so I'm going to present 4829 Haverford Avenue.
I did hear that there was, you know, a reference to opposition to our project.
This was not a well-attended meeting.
And in actuality, what we experienced was, well, this has been a vacant lot for such a long time.
We love the open area.
Even if you proposed a single-family lot, we would be opposed to that.