as this is the one area of the site that does provide safe ingress and egress above the
base flood elevation you can see that the sidewalk here i have the survey as well which
which Matt can also go through, comes out at 49 feet. The landing's at 52.29 feet.
And again, our corridor's at 46.5. So we're going to be coming upstairs to access through
this landing and then back down some stairs to get above this BFE. So there is safe ingress
and egress for all of these units. The other request was that we modify this existing staircase
that you can see right here that was the other second means of egress for the entire building
and reconfigure this landing to connect to this new corridor that we are creating above
the place flood elevation and then remove this door which would exit you out to a walkway next
to a vehicular zone so we agreed to shut this off connect to this new corridor above the bfe
that we're creating, which provides all residents in the building, not only these three additional
units that we're proposing, to be able to have access out to Leverington Avenue for ingress and
regress purposes. Can you also just go through the additional flood mitigation? I think there
I think there was pumps and some damage resistant materials and some of the absolutely absolutely so we met with flood protection free up preliminarily got some advising from L and I on what flood measures they would see doable here and what best practice would be they advise that they would like to see a wet flood proofing approach which basically means we're adding engineered flood events along two of the sides.
There was pumps and some damage resistant materials and some of the
of the building um we had talked to them about proposing along this side on the snowman side of
the sheet and then the southern side of the sheet uh which they did agree to obviously you know the
we will engineer those openings appropriately at the the proper stage uh but they found that that
would be the the best scenario um also you know we'll go through a little bit more of that
engineering they also wanted to make sure that all the materials that we are uh proposing to
raise this floor structure were of flood resistant materials which we also agreed to being that
those measures would be all concrete in nature and any of the joists that would be kind of utilized
to raise that floor structure would be of of a metal floor joist to provide again flood resistant
materials in that event and they did seem to agree that that was the the best option given that it
is a residential use in a residential building um and we also did meet with the office of
sustainability uh as well to review kind of our approach and plan in that understanding we also
met with flood protection um and they did also uh seem to agree with that methodology and that
that would be the best practice from a flood mitigation perspective thanks scott yep i don't
I don't know if we want to bring on Matt Kurse just to...
Who was the person again?
Matt Kurse, K-E-A-R-S-E, Matt.
Matthew Kurse, please raise your virtual hand.
that should be coming back in as a panel shortly thank you
good evening good evening sir could you please state your name and then spell for the sonographer
Matthew Kearse. M-A-T-T-H-E-W-K-E-A-R-S-E. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do. Council? Thanks, Matt. I just wanted you to
provide any additional comments that you had given you're the civil engineer for the project.
You've dealt with flood issues and in this project in particular, we're not asking for any
waivers or variances related to any flood or waterfront setbacks, but just wanted you to also
put your testimony on the record and also related to the conversations we had with L&I
and the steps we'll have to take going forward if we are able to have the board's approval and
move towards the building permit phase. Yeah, absolutely. As Scott outlined, we've taken
considerable measures above and beyond what would typically be considered at the zoning stage.
Typically, these conversations with L&I and Office of Sustainability would occur after we get zoning approval, but we felt it was important based upon the neighbor's input, the board's input, that we address these concerns and get a hold of them now.
So I'm confident in my professional opinion that we are complying with the regulations. Obviously, we'll have to go through the formal application process with the city and the floodplain officers to get their formal approval at building permit stage.
But, again, in my professional opinion, I feel very confident we're complying with the regulations and providing safe ingress and egress during a flooding event.
Thank you.
I just want to lastly just mention, you know, just about the hardship, just obviously given this is a variance hearing.
As I may have mentioned, we're not here for any waivers or variances related to flooding or waterfront setbacks or any of that.
we're here to expand the residential use in an already residential building.
Just to mention, the property is just uniquely constrained here by its historic designation,
which limits exterior alterations, as you saw from the exterior windows. It's an industrial
era design, including limited ground floor fenestration and constrained layouts, the physical conditions.
including limited ground floor fenestration and constrained layouts, the physical conditions,
including adjacency to the Maniac Canal and SEPTA infrastructure, and the longstanding
residential conversion and limited remaining commercial footprint. So this, we believe,
is the least modification of the code possible under Pennsylvania law and under the zoning code
here in Philadelphia. And so that we've shared with both the prior hearing and hopefully this,
that the evidence shows that we can't really reasonably use this property for the permitted
industrial commercial purposes. You know, it was important to us, given the last conversations
and the last hearing went, to make sure to go above and beyond to address the concerns
that were had, whether premature or not. It was important to undergo at this stage and
also truly help the project move forward on better footing and also will set us up for
success going forward so it was definitely a worthwhile exercise and we're happy to
sort of incorporate as best we can in the record these plans the testimony that we've
given and the proviso to reduce from four units to three units and happy to answer any
questions i'll do you want to bring on our client do you want to yeah i'll bring on please um sure
mac grossman or stephen kramer
Matt Grossman will be rejoining as appendix short
can you hear me i can could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer yes
Yes, Matthew, M-A-T-T-H-E-W, Grossman, G-R-O-S-S-M-A-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Counsel?
Matthew, have you heard my testimony today?
Do you believe it to be true and accurate, and do you adopt it as your own?
Is there anything else you'd like to add?
You know, the only thing, and it's really just to echo, Rachel, much of what you've said,
I think, you know, since we have had the denial issued over the last number of weeks and months, we've taken really sort of painstaking efforts in our collaboration and our dialogue, most notably with the RCO, to really address, you know, the concerns head on.
You know, and I think in opening up the Leverington Avenue access point, reducing our unit count from four to three with no interior bedrooms and better light and air and access and the raising of the base floor elevation across the space.
uh it's really been a very collaborative and productive effort to what we believe you know
presents a design and a schematic that is safe practical and and accessible so yeah you know
thank you and we we appreciate the consideration thank you questions from the board i have a
question. So, what, if any, impact does this have to the ceiling height of the units?
Sure. So, the existing ceiling heights are, I believe, 12 plus. They might be 12, 6, 13 feet.
So, we're going to be raising another 30 inches. So, we'll still have
more than eight feet, eight to nine feet, that'll be able to be in there.
So the nice thing, being an industrial building, we do have those tall ceiling heights
at our disposal to raise the floor level.
The questions.
So question, the 30 inches is from, so what's the difference in finish or floor height
from the gray area to one of the units.
What's the difference in floor?
So the difference from our slab, current slab,
to the new proposed is 30 inches.
So it'll be 2 foot 6 above the existing floor level,
which is 18 inches above the base flood elevation.
Okay, so the gray area is already 18 inches above
the flood area is that you want this am i correct yes uh-huh this area is the still at the existing
floor elevation this entry of 44.2 feet okay and so from there to the the raised area for the
There's a 30 inch difference or is it 30 plus? 18? No, 30. 30 is a 30 inch difference.
units is 30
there's a 30 inch difference or is it 30 plus
18 no 30
And so you have a 30 foot ramp. Correct.
Okay, the questions.
I know there were some concerns about like a severe flood to give it because the previous business.
had been um the vet and that you know there weren't people on that floor sort of continuously
i think you've addressed sort of being above the flood plain but is there any additional provisions
that have happened to the structure that take into effect sort of you know 100 year or more flood
events so we had conversations that maybe scott we can address we had conversations with um
I'm trying to remember the official title, Program Manager for Flood Resilience and Compliance
Strategy.
And one of the things we talked about was posting like flood evacuation plans the same
way you're seeing, you know, commercial and residential buildings in addition to.
They have monitors on the Schuylkill River where you can get text alerts to when there's
potentially a flood event.
So we have talked through with them some of those additional mitigating factors outside
of the raising the floor level and opening the different egresses because that was kind of the
the biggest concern was let making sure people know about it and then making sure they can quickly
evacuate um so that's from a notification standpoint but is there any provisions being
done with the building systems to address it in the event that that happens i know some of just
from seeing a lot of these floodplain cases some of the other buildings in like on that maniunk
corridor have other systems they put in place like as just in case belts and suspenders
like a warning system like uh like sump pumps like french trains and all like you know like
just additional so we we did discuss that with um the office of floodplain management flood
protection uh they advised because it's a residential structure that that those would
be wet flood proofing measures and they advise that would um those would be dry flood proofing
measures sorry they would advise doing wet flood proofing measures which would be to allow the
safe passage of water into the structure and out of the structure um in that event we were open to
any of those strategies if they did think that they were warranted um and would be would be
worthwhile though okay and then i think the second question i have is just you know as a renter and
rental units typically when this is the instance for buildings it does have an
increased carrying cost to the resident and like as the operators of the
building has there been any discussion around like how that's going to be
measured to messaged to potential tenants like revolving things like flood
insurance or like because that is slightly different it's a low risk but
but it's a slightly different risk than you'd carry in like a different location.
Matthew Grossman, are you able to answer that?
You know, I mean, look, we haven't, I look at that as really, you know, being an onus on ownership.
You know, like we have, you know, flood, excessive flood coverage, you know, in place today for the building.
We will maintain that.
You know, in terms of the rental income and what we're going out on on these units, it's going to be in line with the rest of the building.
I wouldn't see any additional outlay of expense or cost, you know, to the to the tenancy.
OK, so you don't think that because of the location that they might have like a higher renter's insurance or.
I don't. I don't. Yeah.
questions from our attorney not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual
audience chair i do not see any further hands planning commission amy boyd with the planning
committee do you want to change your position or yeah um in light of the revised plans we have some
new statements to make thank you um amy war with planning commission the comprehensive plan
recommends a change in zoning at this location from i2 medium industrial to r1 residential
multifamily this property was granted a variance in 2012 for animal hospital on the ground floor
and 20 units the property is located in the special flood hazard area section 14-704 sub 4.
the proposal to convert the commercial space on the ground floor into dwelling units will
endanger the public health safety and welfare and increased flood danger and
and increased flood danger and the likelihood of loss of property. The property has a history
the likelihood of loss of property the property
of flooding. The zoning code requires residential development in the floodplain
to be elevated to the design flood elevation which is 18 inches above the blaze flood elevation.
The revised proposal to raise the elevation 30 inches is not enforceable by L&I and is not
included in stamped zoning plans without the following provisor. First floor elevation
to be located above the regulatory flood elevation with flood protection designed to
address enclosed uninhabitable areas located below the first floor elevation the planning
commission recommends that the board deny their requested variance for three additional dwelling
units thank you and just respond to that yeah sure i'm just i'm just confused um so the the
request is or the recommendation is to rezone to RM1 which would allow ground floor residential
which we're providing and then it would it now would meet the 30 inches plus 18 above BFE which
we're also providing so I believe that we did discuss the on the rec putting this on the record
the submission of the letter from Maniac Neighbors Council and our testimony that we would
comply and agree with those. I did discuss with Ms. Emerson the ability to put whatever we could
as far as a proviso, and so we're willing to do that on the record and, you know, whatever is
actually enforceable, but I can assure you we wouldn't have gone through all this effort
to not follow exactly those considerations. Hillary, we spoke about this. Where do we stand?
yeah so unfortunately so rachel and i talked through this couple different ways because
what's challenging about this application is that it's a change of use so there was not plan review
so we are not permitted to stamp plans for it um we talked about putting in a proviso
regarding the first floor corridor but because there's being a new first floor corridor created
you kind of need plans to show where that is so we we unfortunately cannot um put in a proviso
related to um how the uh the new height in the new portion of the corridor so um but we you know we
understand everything that's you know on record and we have all of the documentation to support
that so okay so um mi 20 26 0011984 leverington avenue i vote yes with proviso 23 total dwelling
units michael johns my vote is yes with proviso cheryl guest and my vote is yes with proviso
Tenetta Graham my vote is yes with proviso Ryan McAdams my vote is yes with proviso
hi Owen my vote is yes with proviso thank you council thank you thank you
is there anyone in the audience who their two o'clock case has not been called
I do not see any hands raised Mr. Chair okay so we're going to move to the 3 30 list
Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this meeting of the Philadelphia Zoning Board. With me is our Board Vice Chair, Tenetta Graham.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Board Secretary is Cheryl L. Gaston.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Board Member Michael Johns.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Board Member Ty Wynn.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
And Board Member Ryan McAdams.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Also present is our attorney, Hillary Emerson, our zoning board director, Ian Haggerty, and our board administrator, Lakeisha Dandy.
Recording of this hearing will be posted on the ZBA website.
By participating, you consent to be recorded.