and really no issues with light and air access i will also note that we are proposing a side yard
that is two feet greater than what is um on this new construction house next door
That was permitted and built in 2007. Well, the variance was granted in 2017, and they only have a three-foot setback. So we're actually proposing something that's significantly bigger percentage-wise than what has been allowed and granted on the property next door here.
um we did talk to the neighbors about whether we could make this edition code compliant
And the reason that this was chose to make these dimensions of this 18 by 18 square, this allowed for configuration that while not meeting the technical necessities of the code, actually has the least impact on the adjoining neighbors.
and the reason that this was chose to make these dimensions
Because you can see here, in terms of coming out in the side yard, we already have this sort of narrow side yard going through both of these properties, largely because of existing conditions of both the grandfathered in five foot setback on the front, and then the recently granted three foot setback to the adjoining property.
And by condensing the length of it and keeping it this square, it's actually limiting that time where you have that narrow, unusable side yard for both properties and makes a larger rear yard, which creates more light and air access, while maintaining the square footage necessary to have these handicap accessible spaces.
The other thing is when I was talking to the architects, when you have these dimensions, you have this nice sloped roof in the back, which we typically see in rear additions of homes in Philadelphia, that really minimizes the impact to the adjoining twin, because you're having it sloped down.
And you're also keeping the amount that's attached to that property line small as possible.
So if you went for something longer and narrower, it changes how you have to configure that roof.
And so now you're having the highest point of the roof on the property line with a greater impact to the adjoining neighbor at 125, sloping down to the side yard.
So really, while this is not technically code compliant, it was designed in mind to have the minimum impact on both adjoining neighbors.
All right, so let's see.
And then I want to go into the parking space.
So as you are already aware, parking, off-street parking is allowed in RSA 3.
And in fact, if this was a new home, and we were knocking this down and building it again, that parking space would be required.
However, let's just go to the picture. One second.
However, here, because of the physical dimensions and existing conditions of this property, the only place where you can put a parking space is in the required front yard.
So it's going to be going, you know, essentially on the right side of the property, there'll be a parking spot put in.
And it's going to look very, very similar to what's next door, which is this.
So this is 121.
This is the adjacent property.
And they have this off-street parking spot to the left of their property.
um so we also uh i wanted to come back to the um so again it's we're only looking for a variance
for the location of the off-street parking not the off-street parking itself um as rsa3 not
only allows but now requires off-street parking for new housing uh and there's no other place
we can put it so i want to go to the parking survey that east mount area has put together
because it's actually very explanatory of what's going on on this block.
So there are 36 houses on this block.
26 of them already have off-street parking.
So the majority of this block has off-street parking,
many of them with two or three off-street parking spots.
And of those 26 houses,
at least 13 of them have parking in the required front or side yard.
We can look here and they did a chart of where this is located.
but you can really see in these views
that this is not uncommon.
You have 101, 103, 105,
they all have parking in the front yard,
116, 118, 120, 122, 126.
And then of course, immediately adjacent to 121.
So this is not out of character for this neighborhood.
We have a neighborhood that has off-street parking.
This block has off-street parking
and the majority of cars have that.
And now if you want to look at also availability of on-street parking here, they did a survey and they found that there are, in addition to these, to the majority of the 36 houses having off-street parking, many of them multiple cars, there's an additional 27 spots of on-street parking.
so there is accessible parking on this block.
But more importantly, if we look at the alignment,
this is my client's house 125 and where the cars are parking.
and where the cars are parking. When we add in the driveway on the right-hand side, the space
When we add in the driveway on the right...
between 121's driveway and our driveway is going to be like 21, 22 feet. And so right now, you can
pretty much only put one car in that space anyway, and we're maintaining that one parking space on
the street while bringing the Harley family's car off the street. So it really has a minimum
impact on the near neighbors and parking availability on this street while giving a
great service to this family to have easier access to their home. We did discuss putting a handicap
clockwork in front of the house. And as it turns out, if you did that, you're basically taking away
two parking spots and not getting a car off the street because the handicap spot will require the
entire front of 123. And then you would not have another space to put another car between the
driveway of 121 and where the handicap placard was. So it actually maintains better parking ratios
by putting the driveway on the street rather than having that handicap placard.
So like I said, we met with East Mount Erie. We had two meetings they do, one that is an
an informational meeting, and then a second voting meeting. And at the end of the voting meeting,
they voted to support the variances. The only thing they asked us to do was to consider permeable
pavement for the parking. And we have not made any decisions on that, and we'll absolutely explore
that. But this was the vote. So there was five in support, one opposed, and two in non-opposition.
So, again, I just wanted to summarize that here we have an addition and an off-street parking space that will allow Mr. Harley and his mother to stay safe in their home, safely age in place in this house that his family's had for generations and loved very dearly, with minimum impact to the near neighbors and in a fashion that is consistent with the character of the neighborhood.
So is your client here?
I believe so. Mr. Harley, if you're here, can you raise your hand?
There's a button at the bottom of the screen to raise your hand.
I know he's on the call. I just don't know if he knows how to do this.
He's been allowed to speak.
Mr. Harley, could you state your name and spell it, please, for the court reporter?
Mr. Harley?
Are you muted? You may have to unmute yourself.
Yes, please unmute yourself, Mr. Harley.
There we go.
Stacey Harley.
Stacey Harley.
Okay, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Stacey Harley.
S-T-A-C-E-Y.
I'm sorry.
Do you have on two devices, sir?
it's been
a better time
so council
you're an officer of the court I will accept
your testimony thank you
questions
questions from the board
no Mr. Board no Mr. Chair
no Mr. Chairman
questions or comments
from the virtual audience
don't see any answer Mr. Chair
planning commission
Thank you, Chair Bergman, Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
Board members, comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing RSA 3 single-family zoning at this location.
With regard to the dimensional variance, the proposed variance is minimal, and we feel it doesn't conflict with the purpose and spirit of the zoning code.
And with regard to the use variance for parking, the proposed use is consistent with adjacent nonconformities on this block.
and we agree represents the minimum variance needed to meet the off-street parking requirement
for the zoning district city planning commission recommends that the board grant the variances
thank you MI 2022-005-573-123 East Gorgas Lane 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 so much
Okay, we're moving to number 11, MI-2022-005-446, 1200608, Busselton Avenue. Adam Laver is the attorney.
Letter of support from the Somerton Civic Association.
Letter of support from the Somerton Civic Association.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Adam Laver, L-A-V-E-R.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
The Vice Chair has just a few questions.
Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Good morning, Mr. Vice Chairman. Yes, I do.
Counsel, have you emailed all of the required exhibits and documents five days in advance to our offices?
Yes, Mr. Shahid.
Thank you. Please proceed. Mr. Shahid, speak.
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, members of the board, I'm here this morning on behalf of Avelina Management LLC
and its principal, Dr. Violeta Berdichevskaya. Dr. V, as she's known, is a well-respected
family medicine practitioner in Northeast Philadelphia. Also with us this morning
virtually from Harman Deutsch-Oller Architecture is Ryan Solomeo. I have submitted an exhibit
package with 13 exhibits, along with an updated revised proviso plan, which is in line with what
we shared with the community and with Councilman O'Neill's office. I'm not sure if I heard correctly,
Mr. Chairman, but I wanted to state at the outset that in addition to the coordinating RCO support,
there is a letter of support from Councilman O'Neill, which has been submitted and I'll share
with you in due course. Hillary, do we have that? I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. Yes, can you hear me?
We received it as part of the exhibit packet. Okay, thank you. Excellent. Dr. B purchased the
property that's up on your screen just to help situate this. You can see Game Fix and Beauty
House. These are two retail businesses that exist on the parcel itself. She purchased this property
within the last year. Her practice is currently located at 2375 Woodward Street in Northeast
Philadelphia, where she rents. And her hope is that with her vision realized at this Busselton
Avenue site, she would close that location and move to this location. Here are some additional
photographs. You can see on the left in red the subject property. It's a large property with those
two front-facing retail businesses on Busselton Avenue. Here again, an overhead. On the left
is the subject property. You'll see a mix of businesses along Busselton Avenue, but also
it's worth noting, and I'll get into this later, that there's actually a lot of residential right
across the street as well. And another photograph. On the screen before you is the zoning map.
The subject property is zoned CA1 auto-oriented commercial. It's also subject to several overlays,
namely the Northeast Overlay District Map B, which prohibits medical practitioner use.
It's worth noting, Mr. Chairman and members of the board, that if this overlay was not in place,
the underlying zoning district, CA1, would permit the medical office that we are proposing.
At the time of purchase, the subject property was approved for the two businesses that you saw a
moment ago, along with a residential dwelling and 11 parking spaces. There is a hairdresser
located 12008 Busselton Avenue. That lease ends in October of this year. And the game fix retail
that you saw in some of the photographs a moment ago at 12006 has closed. It's not operational.
In the last year, five family medicine physicians in the community have retired,
and there's a need for a medical office to serve this community.
Dr. B proudly serves as the chief medical officer for Veterans Affairs for the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. And the proposal for this location would be for a solo practitioner's family medical
practice. One doctor, one administrative assistant, three residential units above,
three residential units above, and an increase to 15 parking spaces. No other businesses would
and an increase to 15 parking spaces.
continue at this property once the medical practice is built. On the screen before you
is the notice of refusal. Number one, residential is not permitted. However, this is an existing
non-conforming use, and furthermore, it's in line with the surrounding area. If we go across
the site, you can see these condominiums right across Busselton Avenue.
The overlay district also prohibits the medical practitioner use, which would otherwise be
permitted within CA1, and the support of the community and the council member speak to the
appropriateness of this use in addition to the need from other retiring practices. The rebalance
of the refusals concern de minimis parking space dimensional relief, and we are seeking to increase
the amount of parking on the site to 15 on-site parking spaces. You'll see that those dimensional
issues are quite minor in terms of the space for each of the stalls. And finally,
the existing side yard at the property is non-conforming, and this would be an extension of
that. Dr. B's practice focuses on nutrition, physical fitness, weight loss, whole health.
She also serves a number of nursing home residents outpatient, which speaks to the low intensity
of this on-site use.
On the screen in front of you, you can see conceptual renderings of what would replace
those two retail businesses with one medical practice with the residences above.
Ground floor would be the medical practice, second floor, three residences, and the floor
above, which really isn't a floor, it would be a non-habitable attic. The overall height is under
32 feet, which fits into the surrounding area. A zoning site plan and floor plans follow.
Here you can see at the ground floor, which is entirely the medical practice,
three exam rooms, again, only one doctor and one administrative assistant.
Dr. B has been in touch with the neighboring restaurant right over here. Uzbekistan Restaurant
has permitted Dr. B and her patients to have additional parking there until 6 p.m. if needed.
This is in addition to the 15 spaces that you can see on site. Her proposed hours would be Monday
through Friday, 9 to 5, with the exception of evening hours on Wednesday nights until 8 p.m.,
And commercial trash pickup, of course, is an important part of the plan.
The basement area, the cellar area, has additional space for wellness and storage.
The ground floor we went through a moment ago.
And the upper floor, the second floor, has three residential apartments.
One, one bedroom, one bath.
Two, two bedroom, two baths.
the somerton civic association we're very grateful for the close working relationship with them
the sca's position is one of support for the requested variances per the revised proviso
plan that does clarify the intention which is for a total of three residential units
and the very comprehensive letter that's been submitted from the coordinating rco
goes through all of the commitments that Dr. B is prepared to make through a private binding
deed restriction. I've highlighted for the board just a sentence or two stating the building and
landscape improvements did not appear at odds with the surroundings or threatened to worsen
the appearance of the property. The plans appear to show that a substantial investment in a property
near the busiest intersection in the neighborhood was being made and the most significant
result of the development would be that a new medical practice would exist to serve residents.
In addition, on the screen is Councilman Brian J. O'Neill's letter I've highlighted. He wrote,