site sits within the 100-year floodplain, which equates to a 1% chance of flooding,
while another portion of the property sits within the 500-year floodplain, which
equates to a 0.2% chance of flooding, while the entire property is outside of the floodway.
And the flood elevation for the 100-year storm event is at elevation 45.
And the lowest residential piece of the property is, or where we're proposing the residential, is at elevation 44.2.
So just slightly under where the flood elevation is, that's where the commercial tenants sit today.
As Rachel noted, it's a vacant space.
our client has had troubles filling the vacant space, not a very suitable space for anything
other than the residential. And the residential is in character with not just this property,
but the surrounding properties. And I know the RCO raised concerns over the flood elevations
and the mitigation. And as part of our next steps is developing a floodplain application
through L&I to review their own building permit. We will have to comply with all the floodplain
regulations. We will have to raise the floor. We will put flood proofing mitigation measures in
there. And our client is also connected with a flood proofing expert to really hone in on what
is the best application or best products for this location in this building in particular.
So with all that, I'm confident and comfortable with the use. It's in line with what's there
today and what's surrounding. There's already two existing residential units there. And I do not
believe adding these two residential units in conjunction with complying with all of
L&I's floodplain regulations, that it will have any detriment to the community or the
surrounding uses.
I just, thank you, Matt. I just also want to mention just in the RCO letter, they mentioned the Project 3900 Main Street, which was in front of this board, I guess a little while back, this board granted a variance for height. You handled that, the civil engineering for that project, correct, Matt?
I just thank you.
I just also want to mention just in the.
That's correct.
okay and obviously we're not asking for any setbacks from the waterfront setback or
or height that's correct yes this is an existing building not proposing any additions or or moving
the building any shape or form 3900 main street application was for a newly constructed building
and in the rco letter they mention um putting you know it being 18 inches above bfe we will be doing
that correct per the building code correct we'll have to comply with their regulations and that is
one of them okay thank you um the only other last thing i wanted to bring to the board's attention
related to the rco was that there were 16 people in attendance at the rco meeting yet they only
counted the vote of eight people all of which were from the maniunk members so i guess from the
the board of the RCO. As mentioned prior, we do have a letter of support. The only directly
adjacent neighbor is the condos directly behind the structure, and we have a letter of support
from them as well. There really are no other, that's on your screen, there really are no other
directly adjacent neighbors, just given the location of this project. Directly adjacent
neighbors further down Leverington, that's 60 units, and they got an administrative permit to
remove commercial. There is other large mixed use, commercial mixed use, residential multifamily
behind the property and across the canal and then 3900 Main Street. Again, that's a brand
new construction. So a lot of the considerations brought up for that project are irrelevant here
given this is not new construction. I just want to talk a little bit about the hardship
and then can take a breath for a minute. As mentioned, I'm just going to go back to the
photos of the property if I can. As mentioned, we assert that literal enforcement of the code
and denial of the variance would result in an unnecessary hardship. There are unique
physical circumstances or conditions such as irregularity, narrowness, shallowness of the size
of the lot, and other physical conditions that make it so that the provisions of the zoning code
cannot be complied with. As mentioned, the property is over 150 years old, according to
the City of Philadelphia records. It was constructed in 1877 as an industrial mill-style building.
It's listed on the city's register, which again makes the alterations to the exterior of the
property significantly restricted and requires preservation of the property under specific
standards, terms, and conditions. The formerly G2, currently I2 property has not provided any
industrial or significantly viable commercial uses since at least 1988, in which, again,
it was used to store vehicles. Since the early 2000s, it was converted to multifamily residential
And also given the historic context on uneven windows and small size and scale, its location abutting the Manion Canal, and given it's only 3,000 square feet, it's really limiting from an industrial commercial perspective.
Again, some of the uses that would be permitted like transit station, utilities and services, wireless facility, building supplies and equipment, commercial vehicle repair are all not applicable and not viable for this space.
In addition to those considerations, because the site is zoned I-2, despite it being mostly residential, if not all residential at this point besides vacant space, the city's provision for Section 146027, which is an exception to use tables for certain historic structures, doesn't apply to this property because unfortunately it's still zoned I-2.
It only avails itself for CMX1, CMX2, and CMX2.5, which would have allowed this by right, had this been zoned more closely to what it's received variances for since 2012, it might have been zoned CMX2 or CMX2.5, which would have allowed...
It might have been zoned CMX 2 or CMX 2.5, which would have allowed a CMX 3 use given its historic designation, which would have been by right, again, for just an additional four units directly adjacent to the current two units that are there.
But given the base zoning of I-2, it prohibits the building from benefiting from this exception.
Again, just lastly, the building owners for the last since 2022 through 2024, we have in here listing agreements for two different brokerages where they went and engaged two different real estate brokers to list and market the property to obtain a commercial or industrial tenant for the remaining ground floor space.
again at 3,000 square feet. Despite those efforts, there were zero successful opportunities
to use the remaining space in strict conformity with the code. The vacant ground floor space,
when occupied, brought in $6,200 a month or $75,000 a year to support the operation and
maintenance of this property. And so the last couple of years, without the additional revenue
from a viable use of the ground floor, the building continues to diminish in value and
It cannot cover the financial obligations of the loan and operating expenses for the
property.
Again, it has two residential units at the ground floor, and so we're just looking for
authorization to add additional units, which will help limit the diminishing value of this
property.
Lastly, I just want to go through, again, as Matt mentioned, and I've mentioned a few
times that there's a lot of directly adjacent buildings that have similar or same uses and we
also included letters i won't go through them into in depth from those brokerages both delphi
property group and also mpn who spent significant time trying to market these properties made good
faith efforts and were both unable to secure a tenant for the ground floor space
this is just acknowledgement that it's on the city's historic register and then this I just
wanted to go through some of the adjacent properties given that this will not if the
board approves this variance it will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or
the district in which the property is located or significantly or permanently impair the
appropriate use or development of adjacent properties as they're already developed
specifically 1602 canton street is a four to five story building zoned i2 it is 36 units we're asking
for a total of 24 and a parking garage with no commercial space and received an administrative
permit number 988708 i previously required commercial but it was admin had used received
an administrative permit to remove the commercial to leverington again directly adjacent on sort of
The other side is zoned RSA 5, but it consists of 60 dwelling units and no commercial space as of Zoning Permit 401-228.
Across the canal is Apex Manium condo buildings.
That's what you see in front of you.
That's 4601 Flat Rock Road.
This development approved for 160 residential units under Zoning Permit 438-481.
And so the presence of these sort of sizable residential communities, again, just a map of where our property is and some of those adjacent ones, would make it so that it's not out of character for the neighborhood.
And none of these, even ones like this that have a way visibly more viable commercial opportunity here in our new construction, where ours is historic from 1877, are not permitted or not required and have received relief to not have a ground floor commercial or do not have ground floor commercial.
Last, I know I keep saying lastly, but I forgot how much detail is in here. I just want to mention that under the Pennsylvania regulatory takings doctrine, a regulatory taking may occur when a government regulation like a zoning ordinance or strict application thereof deprives a property of substantially all economic use or value.
The I-2 zoning of this property is such that no permitted use yields any reasonable return,
and the denial of the relief request would block every economic benefit option.
And so, as such, our last option has been to come in front of this board to ask for
that relief, just again, just a use variance for those four units.
We also believe that this proposal aligns closely with the Philadelphia 2035 comprehensive plan,
particularly with recommendations outlining zoning to enhance the plan on page 83 and
suggest converting i2 zoning in this area to at least irmx in order to encourage a mix of
residential and if viable commercial located adjacent to targeted sections of the property
again this property is still zoned i2 so it limits any viable uses again for that 3 000 square feet
any viable uses again for that 3 000 square feet um if we could bring on scott woodruff to just go
through the um plans architectural plans um and then happy to bring my clients on and i'll pause
rachel how much longer do you think you're gonna i'm done as once but i mean your whole
presentation? Five minutes. Okay. Bring them on. Scott? Scott? Scott has been promoted. Thank you.
you're welcome scott could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
thank you hi could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer yes scott woodruff
s-c-o-t-t woodruff w-o-o-d-r-u-f-f do you swear or affirm to tell the truth told
truth nothing but the truth i do counsel god could you just go through the architectural
plans for the board sure no problem so on the uh plan left side that is main street
or leverington rather that corners to main street um kind of dead ends there uh main
street dead ends to leverington the main access of the property is within the property um which
access through the drive aisle on sidewalks as Rachel had sent before and there's double doors
at the right side currently you enter into a lobby space the two residential units that are existing
on the bottom right side of the plan the color portion is kind of the the part that's in scope
being four residential units so we're utilizing a new corridor that gets to all of these units
as well as connects to the second means of egress staircase that's at the bottom side of the plan
so each unit will have two means of egress um and is not required to exit uh through any of
these windows so all exits are kind of through enclosed two-hour stairs per code we're planning
on creating this corridor ramping up and raising the floor structure of these units as matt had
stated previously, all the units are kind of loft style, one bedroom units, all with kind of outside
windows that are facing here. And currently the ceiling heights of the first floor is right around
12 and a half feet. So we'll be raising them up, which will still allow for about a 10 foot floor
to floor um roughly for all of these units so they'll still feel fairly spacious um and obviously
with that loft kind of industrial uh type aesthetic since the buildings um as stated
you know under 150 years old uh but all buildings will be all all the units will be one bedroom one
bathroom thank you um if i could chairman just bring on my clients um matt grossman and stephen
Kramer you want both of them sworn in please okay
they have both been promoted thank you could you both state your name please
a spell for the stenographer
s-t-e-p-h-e-n-k-r-a-m-e-r do you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth i do
matthew grossman m-a-t-t-h-e-w g-r-o-s-s-m-a-n
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth told you it's nothing but the truth
i do counsel yeah matt um i'll just ask you matt um have you heard my testimony do you believe it
to be true and accurate and do you adopt it as your own i do is there anything else you'd like
to add for the board um i think you've done a very very good job rachel in explaining it i mean i
just would reaffirm you know what you've said um you know it really is a very dire set of
circumstances at the asset level today we've taken really every exhaustive measure to try to really
We've taken really every exhaustive measure to try to release this space over the better part of two, two and a half years.
Effectively, every type of commercial industrial use in the marketplace, and we have not been successful.
We armed our brokers with the ability to offer concessions, free rent, build out costs.
and quite frankly we had very little to no substantive negotiations on the space
so you know really as a matter of the modest adaptive reuse that we're presenting here I
really think it is the best fit in character for the building and community and and and also just
you know going back to Rachel's point in regards to the flood we certainly have well noted the
concerns of the community we we will proactively address that through the permitting and building
phase and we will take every measure beyond that to ensure you know the safety and the well-being
of the residents for the apartments that we are going to build here steven anything on your end
Just quickly, I was going to say, as Rachel mentioned, our retail tenant was paying $6,200
monthly. These residential units will replace that income deficiency. And without having that
income, we were not able to pay our debt service and also maintain the building to the standard
that we hold it to. So that's imperative to us. That's all I have to add.
uh and just just to acknowledge again there you have two units already at the first floor level
and you've been able to deal with through hurricane ida mitigate any issues that you've had
with those current tenants and those are those units are occupied is that correct that's correct
yes okay chairman nothing further from me anybody adopt your testimony whether or did i or not yes
uh matthew adopted my question questions from the board these existing existing two
units on the first floor can you go back to the plan or which ones are they
Scott are we where are we showing the we don't we didn't have the document we didn't do the
existing conditions of those units as they're they're occupied at the moment it's that kind
of gray section in the bottom right hand corner of those so that gray area is that are the existing
two those are the existing two units correct and these are the additional four correct
three four okay who so then the question is it says you were permitted to have 20 units
so do you have 20 total or do you have 22 total at this there's 20 total units so we're asking
for four additional units there are two units of that 20 units two of them are on the first floor
The remaining 18 are in the additional floors.
So we're asking for a total of 24, but there's already 20 there.
The questions?
Yeah, I guess I'm having a little trouble here.
You have 20 other units.
Is the building fully occupied?
or yes the building is fully occupied except for 3 000 square feet which is the subject of this
appeal which is that vacant commercial space and you're saying that without these four units
you can't afford to have the rest of the building with the 20 units yeah you have 3 000 yeah 3 000
square feet of the whole front of this property is vacant because the commercial tenant the
animal hospital that was put in place back in 2012 left um given they were acquired by a
private equity company and left the building and so the okay the owners have tried to rent it out
for three years two and a half years and haven't been successful the 20 other units how many square
feet does the other 20 units occupy i mean the question is are they all occupied the other 20
units yeah so yeah how many square square feet are we talking about for the 20 units
20,000 square feet so 23,000 and change square foot
20 000 square feet so 23 000 and change square foot building the the other the the 20 existing
residential units comprise about 14 to 14 and a half thousand square feet rentable
okay right not including stairways and hallways and that kind of stuff correct
but your argument is that you can't afford to have the building unless you can have these
the argument is that 3 000 square feet the argument is that the building is zoned i2
industrial so it doesn't provide the ability to have any multi-family in general and so
they went out and tried to seek any commercial or industrial options for the space that's been
vacant since 2021, 22, and the market is not yielding any commercial use or industrial use
for the space. So in order to not have 3,000 square feet of empty, useless space in a building
like this residential additional residential in a building that already has residential
is the least modification needed to have a viable and economic use of the space
nobody would want to leave three thousand square feet of a building empty that was revenue
generating it would just you know what i mean there's no value to that but given the hardship
of the i2 zoning and the fact that this is historic and the location it just we can't
get another tenant in there if they could get a commercial industrial tenant we wouldn't be here
okay thank you does that make sense
no i'm sorry you you you're saying you've got how many square feet did you say you had
with the 20 other units you had are you asking what the rent role is though as well no no but