This is an application at the corner of 16th and Master Street.
This is an RM1 zone district.
And what we're asking is to essentially demolish an existing structure to erect a new structure to be used as a six-family dwelling along with two surface parking spaces.
to be used as a six family dwelling along with two surface parking spaces in the back. Now these are
because of the corner property the parking spaces are actually accessed from the side of the
property and not the rear as required. As you can see the parking refusals mostly are triggered due
to the district and the location of the parking port. In addition we're asking for a use refusal
variance for the number of units. We met with the RCO and received their support in this matter.
The RCO of this area realized that, of course, this property, like many in the area,
are surrounded by student housing. In fact, we are also surrounded on both 16th and Master Street
by generally student housing. Across the street on the corner, that's a large 48-unit plus
community center. That is also across the street from this property. Because of that, the larger
units, which would happen if we were to try to go for three units, was something the community
actually had more concerns with than what we are actually proposing. We're proposing to build a new
structure and split the units, in essence, front and back, but they're individually much smaller
units. Each unit would be essentially a one-bedroom unit accessed through a central stairwell.
There is trash management in the rear yard. There's actually trash storage areas that is
built into the plans. Again, it's all accessible from the side of the building, and we're providing
two off-street parking spaces as a way to also help with the parking issue that would normally
come with the additional units. As a result, the community is generally in support of this use.
They actually have no issue with the idea of the units because of the bedroom setups. I'm going to
move to the, I'm sorry, I have to scroll down, but I'm going to move to the actual
plan of the units. I think it's easier to go this way. So as you can see, these are one-bedroom
units that we're proposing, and they're basically smaller units. This avoids one of the biggest
concerns of the community, which is having people come in, occupy a unit, and then hold parties.
Initially, the RCO also had concerns with the roof deck. However, we worked out a CBA with the community, and they understood that the roof deck is a small deck that only applies to the upper floor one bedroom unit.
therefore it's not a openly accessible roof deck that all units can go up to and it alleviates
again the concern of the partying that is one of the biggest issues in the area so with the
trash management the additional parking spaces as well as the minimized decks the community
gave us their support in this particular application because we are also across the
street from a very dense development. And we're surrounded also by student housing. A six unit,
smaller unit design in this area, I believe would be a fitting use and would not negatively impact
the area. The smaller units individually also would generate less concerns with safety,
noise, and general cleanliness and trash. We are working also in addition, as part of the CBA,
we're going to be working on trash cleanup with the community on a regular basis as an owner to
make sure and the owner herself actually grew up in the community so she is familiar with the area
and this is through a lot of discussion with her architect and also her understanding of how
the community would prefer having the smaller units and this is why this particular application
was brought forth in this manner and that is essentially why we're asking the board's favorable
review of these particular variances to point out the two parking spaces in the back are mostly
refused due to the access and the width of the lot being 17 foot rather than 18 foot which is
the normally required depth for a parking space so the two spaces in the back essentially are a
little bit smaller one foot shorter than what is normally required and the handicap accessibility
which was raised as an item is also an issue because if we do try to make it handicap accessible
we would have to make it only one parking space rather than two and getting the two cars off the
street is actually more preferred by the community than having the handicap accessible parking
more preferred by the community than having the handicap accessible parking space, one single space of that nature.
So I'm happy to answer any questions from the board and certainly I can redirect to any part of the presentation if the board would like to see it again.
Question from the board for the council?
I'm sorry?
I'm saying question is from the board for council.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, you have five use refusals, that's a lot of use refusal for this one lot, so I think it's an overuse of the lot, and I don't think that smaller units is going to reduce partying.
Thank you.
Mr. Holliman, I do want to point out that four of the four refusals is related to one
item, which is actually the two parking spaces.
So the use refusal itself is for the number of units, but majority of the refusals actually
relates to the layout of the actual parking spaces.
Any other questions from the board?
Thank you.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Mr. Chair, excuse me, this is Hillary.
I did have a brief question for Mr. Jin.
Mr. Jin, at the beginning of your presentation,
you noted that the existing structure would be demolished,
but the refusal reads that there's going to be
an addition to the existing structure.
My apologies.
Did something change?
No, no, then it would be an addition.
My apologies, that was my mistake.
Okay, I just wanted to clarify and make sure the refusal was correct.
Thank you.
Questions or comments in the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Plato Maranacos.
Mr. Maranacos, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Good morning.
Could you state your name and spell, please, for the court reporter?
Yeah, Plato A. Maranacos, Jr. architect of this application,
107 South 2nd Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19106.
Could you spell your name for the record, please?
M-A-R-I-N-A-K-O-S.
You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do.
Proceed.
I don't have anything to add.
I mean, Zen covered it well.
I was here as the architect if there's any questions for me.
We're fine at this point.
Thank you, sir.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman, and good morning, David Fecto with the City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential multifamily zoning at this location.
There is no unique physical condition or circumstance of the property that would prevent it from being used in conformance with the zoning code.
The applicant has not shown why six dwelling units required to afford relief instead of the allowable three.
They have only stated the additional units as a preference.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Board deny the variances for dwelling units and parking.
Thank you.
MI 2022-006903-1619 Master Street.
I vote yes with proviso.
Proviso.
Hold on a minute.
With proviso.
No rooftop deck. Maximum three units.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with provisos.
James Snell, my vote is yes with provisos.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is no.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Council. Number seven, MI-2022-006-843-706 North 5th Street. Verne Anastasio is the attorney.
I've revised proposals going back to Northern Liberties Neighbors Association on June 5th.
we will have a resumptive hearing on june 14th run could you identify yourself for the court
and for the record and spell your name please certainly it's burn anastasio that's v-e-r-n
last name is a-n-a-s-t-a-s-i-o representing the somoza family um for 706 north 5th street
you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Our vice chair has just a few questions for you, sir.
Our vice chair has just a few questions for you, sir.
Good morning, counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
I have.
Thank you.
Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
MR. CHAIR, AS YOU MENTIONED, WE ARE REQUESTING A RESUMTION HEARING.
WE HAVE MET WITH NORTHERN LIBERTY'S NEIGHBORS ASSOCIATION.
WE ARE GOING TO GO BACK IN GOOD FAITH ONE LAST TIME FOR A REVISED PLAN.
SO WITH THAT, I WILL NOW SHARE MY SCREEN.
okay coming up yep i got a few i have a few binders so i had to get through them okay great
706 north 5th is the application was for was for a six family dwelling in an existing structure
the property had presents itself as a six family dwelling my clients upon purchase
physically saw it as a six-family dwelling. The history of the property, however,
was that it was a legal four-family dwelling. And at some point prior to purchase and prior
to being listed for sale, the property was outfitted for six. However, we are no longer
looking for six units. We're looking for five. We're going to consolidate two of the units
so there will be five units instead of six. It's an existing property, as I said.
Now let me get to some of the interior so you can see at least the current condition.
and it's nothing but mechanicals. I have photo evidence of multiple utilities,
both electric and gas. We have two units on the first floor.
We have two units above on the second
and two units on the third. The third floor front is a bi-level unit. Again,
what we're proposing is five family dwelling, no more than five. And by the way, and we will get
into this just briefly for the benefit of the board, the property will be primarily owner
owner-occupied. It's a unique situation where the family owns this property. Two of the daughters,
and you'll hear testimony today, have cerebral palsy and are quadriplegic,
and they're hoping to use the two first-floor units for ADA-compliant living spaces.
two of the units are I'm sorry the parents are already occupying the property and that's it just
them and then the two other children would also one other child will occupy and caregiver so what
we're looking to do here in the five family dwelling is to occupy it primarily with family
members uh caregivers uh and parents of the two daughters who are uh disabled so let me show and
share some of the pictures of the property there is a side entrance that will make ada
entrance and exit feasible here's some interior photos from the mls listing
As you can see, there's the multiple electric meters, there's a fire system, there's proof
of posting. We also, as I said, we met with the registered community organization and
we mailed in notification 107 individual households, the notice of not only the RCO meeting,
but today's hearing. According, by the way, I want to take note of page 87 of the Philadelphia
2035 plan from the Planning Commission. Note for the record that according to the plan,
this block is earmarked for medium residential density,
which is 100% consistent with the five-family dwelling in this property.
which is 100% consistent with the five-family dwelling in this property.
Again, this is 706.
702 is a multifamily.
704 is a multifamily.
700 is a mixed-use, commercial mixed-use.
719 is a multifamily.
717 is a multifamily.
And, of course, Liberty Lofts is on one corner, which is lots of apartment buildings.
and 723, 725, 727, and 729, all multifamily.
So just for the record, I want to make sure that you understand
that what we're asking for here today is completely consistent,
not only with the Planning Commission's plan for 2035 via page 87,
but also existing conditions of similarly situated properties on the block.
The property is just under 5,000 square feet.
And I did explain to you the plan for owner occupancy,
looking for four plus one,
which would be five units total,
four units plus one caregiver unit.
And that is, I believe, I think,
and I hope that you'll see that one additional unit
as a reasonable accommodation pursuant to section 504.
to allow for the ADA caregiver
so that these two women can not only live
in a compatible sort of units,
but that any income generated in the future
would go towards their care, long-term care,
when they, you know,
assuming that their parents pre-deceased them.
And with that, I'd like to ask Mary Somoza to raise her hand and be recognized to accept my presentation as her own.
Here we have Gerardo Somoza.
Mr. Samozo, unmute yourself and wait for the chair, please.