I can't speak for the entire board,
but in terms of my sense of having it at least conform
with the plane of the bulk of the rest of the properties
on the block, it makes sense that it be set back.
Also, in addition, it makes sense to have a porch too,
but that's, can't make you do that.
So we do certainly have the room in the back. I'm not sure why it's the side yard issue. We have the room to move it further in the back. So if the board would consider granting this, if we just move the property back to be in line with the neighboring properties, we would be happy to accept that.
I think we need to see what it looks like to be able to say that with conviction. I mean, a question I have for you is, given the side yard is an issue, was there any consideration to not do three units to make and to leave a little bit more of a side yard?
typical width of a building in Philadelphia of a single family home or even a duplex is
anywhere from 13 to 15 feet wide which would have gotten you much closer to the side yard
of the eight feet versus the three feet that you currently have due to the bulk of this property
had it been considered to just reduce the scale and scope. Our feeling on it was either way you
be generating a side yard refusal while i agree it would be less of one because at 15 feet we'd
be at five feet versus the three however that creates really really narrow units and with the
the necessity of a staircase in order to allow for any kind of multi-fam whether it be two units or
three it still just leaves units that are very very um narrow and and the floor plans would not
kind of accommodate especially the larger one the the three bedroom would not accommodate
bedrooms of any kind of reasonable size nor living spaces so that that was a consideration
certainly but because of the stairwell that's really where we ran into the um width issue and
we figured as i said because it was generating a refusal for side yard anyway um we thought it was
better to offer a larger unit size especially in this you know somewhat single family neighborhood
so we're hoping families would be living in these properties as well what's what's your uh
your what's your what's your building height the building height is 30 feet so oh yeah 30 feet so
max is 38 what's your uh top of slab below grade in other words what's your basement slab height
below grade right right here if you can see it three so you're so you're you're the ceiling
height your your grade is at minus three from from your first floor correct and then your basement
is minus eight so minus minus nine so you're like six feet below grade which is kind of low
I would argue that you've got room
in terms of the height to raise the basement up
as much as possible
I'm sorry
the consideration was to not be too far
above the neighboring two-story properties
so while we could have gone to 38 feet and yes
create you know done a little different of a analysis with the basement the thought was that
analysis with the basement the thought was that if we're going to be next to these two-story
if we're going to
properties we don't want to be significantly above them yeah i definitely is already pretty
significant so i mean i feel like i hear the argument but i don't know that that visually
is in line with what we're seeing particularly if particularly if you if the building moved back
yeah you've got a lot of backyard i think also you have a really rich site you have like a
you have an opportunity to do a deep side yard which would allow you to have a window well to
actually allow light into the basement especially considering at this point you have an occupied
basement um so we do we do have some some light obviously coming into the the basement through
the front window and the back um being exposed but just unfortunately if you go to the if you go to
your can you go to the floor plans for a second you've got the bonus room that's in the basement
that has no light right so and so to um to um board member ty is a point um if there was more
of a setback of course from the side you'd be able to get probably a window into that space
can i see this second well that's the basement can i see this first floor plan
also just the thing i mean as a designer i would not put a wall on the bonus room i think one is
misleading. It makes people think it's a bedroom when it isn't. It makes people, especially when
they're renting, operate it and use it as a bedroom, which causes lots of safety concerns
in basements, in a space where that's already something that's generally contested by neighbors.
It's misleading to tenants.
That's certainly understandable. And I do thank the board for its suggestions here.
Can you show the second floor? I just saw the first floor. I didn't see the second floor. So that's the first floor. And then the second. Is there roof access? Is there a roof deck?
There's no plan for any kind of roof access here.
Gotcha.
Thank you.
Other questions from the board?
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
not at this time mr chair comments from the virtual audience yes mr chair i have a hand
up from charles richardson i have allowed them to speak
mr richardson how are you good could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
Certainly. Charles Richardson, R-I-C-H-A-R-D-S-O-N, Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass, room 508 City Hall.
We're referring to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
The Councilwoman joins with the RCO in rejecting this request for a variance.
the statement of irrationality and things along those lines were kind of you know misleading
folks don't always come out to community meetings in that area and at times the RCO does have to
step in and do a you know do their due diligence for the community as far as that goes so you know
Whatever the perception was that might have been taken away from that, it kind of makes it, you know, a little bit deceptive because that's not how it is.
Councilwoman stands firmly with the RCO and asks that you deny this variance.
Sure, sure.
Can I, hold on.
Let me see if there's anyone else in the audience that has comments, then you can respond to that.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience who has a comment?
Mr. Chair, I don't see any further hands.
I'll proceed.
Mr. Chair, I would ask, given some of the recommendations of this board, if at this
point the board would allow us to potentially continue this matter and submit some revised
plans, given some of the board's recommendations into account, and if we feel that Ms. Wynn's
suggestion, for instance, which would generate a different refusal, we will withdraw and resubmit
this application. But we do think we can make some adjustments that would speak to the board's
concerns and perhaps be back before the board to review this once again. Planning commission.
um so i hillary i'd like to ask then should i go on the record as the planes stay now okay
As the plans stay now?
um also amy board with it
Also, Amy board with the Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change in zoning at this location from the existing single-family residential RSA 3.
The properties on the side of the block base were built as twins with side yards and no parking.
The appellant has not shown that an economic detriment would occur if they were to comply with the side yard requirement.
We are aware of five legal multifamily dwellings on this block base, but most of the twin homes are single-family.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant the requested use variance for parking, but deny the requested use variance for three dwelling units and for the dimensional variance for side yard.
Thank you. MI 2024-003-002, 3612 North 16th Street, I vote no.
michael johns my vote is no cheryl gaston my vote is no tanetta graham my vote is no
iowen my vote is no dismal shaheed my vote is no thank you sir thank you members of the board
okay um we're going to hear number four and
MI 2024-003-186-226 Manheim Street and MI 2024-003-187-222 Manheim Street.
Rachel Pritzker is the attorney.
There are letters of opposition from 13th Democratic Award and also Solo Germantown.
Good evening.
Hi, counsel.
Yes, still in the afternoon.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Rachel, R-A-C-H-A-E-L, Pritzker, P-R-I-T-Z-K-E-R.
Referring to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client and the relationship to the property?
yeah so one of the husband and wife couple a team presley and rishonda um alexander
our vice chair has a few questions sure good afternoon council do you agree to wait the
reading of the refusal or stipulate towards accuracy yes i've emailed in all the required
documents and exhibits that's needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing
yes thank you council please proceed and share your screen okay
can you see my screen we can okay it's a little bit of a complicated matter so bear with me and
i'll do my best to not over complicate it um 222 west manheim and 222 226 west manheim i'm gonna
try to present them together they're similar some slightly differences but for the most part
but they're similar. I'm going to start with the refusal.
They're both zoned RSA 3. The refusal is just for three units in existing structure.
As you can see, this board has already granted a variance back in 2017. It was approved in 2020,
issued in 2020, the zoning permit for multifamily household for three dwelling units. These
properties both have histories of being three units. You can look in the zoning archive which
we've attached to these applications. I'm going to go through sort of the detailed facts as best
as I can for this project. So 222 West Mannheim is an existing structure. So is 226. You can see
from my screen, existing structures, three-store existing structures, longstanding.
There were various work that has been done to the property since 222 West Mannheim was
purchased in 2009, 2226 was purchased in 2016, and substantial work related to a make-safe
was issued and complied with on both of these properties.
So there's been a lot of structural work that's gone in since the acquisition of these properties.
In February 18th, 2020, a variance was granted for three units for 222 Mannheim and 226 Mannheim already has zoning records for three units back since 1962.
During the process of getting these make-safes done, both properties had violations for vacant structures, so vacant structure permits were received and issued on the property, so to comply with the violations.
so to comply with the violations. As the board knows, if you have a variance on a property or
As the board knows, one...
have an existing non-conforming use, anytime you get a vacant property license, it wipes away any
of the prior uses. So you have to go back through the process again to get multifamily if it's
zoned RSA 3 or whatever. In this case, there's a zoned RSA 3. So we are bringing this all the
back through. In the meantime, around 2023-ish, I wasn't involved with this as a different lawyer,
members of one of the non-coordinating RCOs and a developer and a church organization
submitted for Act 135 conservatorship. These two properties have been in litigation for Act 135
conservatorship up until one is resolved in the favor of the owners that I represent here today.
The other one will be shortly resolved to the same extent, but it's not finalized yet.
So being careful, kind of what I say around that as well.
During the time that the permit was issued for the zoning permit that was issued back in 2017, it was issued in 2020.
All this litigate, the make safe happened.
We cleaned the violations up and then the Act 135 conservatorship went on.
So that was really the focus was litigating through Act 135 conservatorship, which is, like I said, almost been resolved.
already resolved on 2222. As a result of the vacant structure licenses, those and the
Act 135, the building permit that was issued to start building some of these out, which I'll show
you the interior photos, had lapsed. And so then we had to go all the way back through this process
again to request exactly the same thing, which is just three units and existing structures.
These structures are like 2,592 square feet on 2,000 square foot lots. There are directly
adjacent properties um on that are three and four family two two two eight uh west manheim is four
units two two two zero so our two two zero is four units two one two is three units and two one five
is three units this is not out of character for this block in particular as you can see it's close
to wayne avenue which is a commercial corridor which despite its commercial nature it's littered
with RSA 5, RSA 3 properties.
And again, these properties had already been granted
and were already existing three-unit buildings.
I'm gonna go through the RCO.
This is the zoning posters.
We went to the RCO first back in July
and what it was not known to me at the time that one of a couple of the members of the not
coordinating RCO were actually involved in testifying against the current owner related
to Act 135. Most of the meeting was related to that which was a huge conflict of interest and
not appropriate for an RCO meeting setting. As a result of that meeting we asked for another
meeting where they would recuse themselves and or limit the conversation to being about
the zoning variance.
The coordinating RCO was kind enough to allow for another meeting, which was difficult to
say the least.
And I do these three, four times a week.
And this was unbelievably difficult.
As you can see from this meeting notice, there were 58 people in attendance at this
meeting.
Some people were not let in the meeting. Some people were let in the meeting.
The chair of the RCO did as best of a job as he could with support from the council office staff to kind of keep this meeting moving.
And ultimately, what you see here is two people that were opposed to it.
11 people, so two people opposed to it, 11 people somehow opposed to it that included
Faith and Solo Germantown, which includes members who have been litigating against this property
for years or helping to support the litigation. And really seven letters of seven votes in support
from directly affected near neighbors. Most of the meeting, although 58 people attended,
there was maybe seven to 10 people that actually lived near there that got notices that spoke in
non-opposition of the project. So what you're noticing in opposition is people connected with
the neighbor, the RCO that was not the coordinating RCO, not actual near neighbors for this project.
This is exemplified in whatever this was that was submitted by Solo Germantown, which I can't even
begin to read it so i'm not going to waste the board's time i'm not sure what this really means
I'm not going to waste the board's time. I'm not sure what this really means, what the asterisks and the slashes, but the coordinating RCO, it's closer to realistic as to what happened.
with the asterisks and the slashes.
Even again, there's 58 people there. And again, this is the second meeting.
I will just also share this that was sent to the council office where there was a ton of people that were near neighbors that had attended the meeting that reached out to me that said we couldn't get in the meeting.
We didn't know what the forum vote was. They did it on a forum. It was disorganized. They said to put it in the chat. And we were kicked off the meeting at this point. So this is just what other folks had been saying. And then there was some confusion about who could vote and who couldn't vote and how many people.
and mostly what I heard was that was really inaccurate and people that actually lived there
couldn't get in to voice their support. Again, I had reached out to the council office and he
provided me in green the actual near neighbors who voted or didn't get to vote but had showed up,
through Zoom or whatever, however this meeting was held. So if you can see a lot of the people
in green were actually people that lived there and people who supported the project. Most of the rest
of the individuals didn't live anywhere near here, didn't share their address, or some provided
opposition because they wanted a condo in an existing building, which is kind of irrelevant
for zoning. This was also a list that was provided just to show how many people were at this meeting,
You know, some people that didn't have anything to do with the area, didn't live anywhere near there.