because we've met the burden of demonstrating that our operation will be no more impactful
than an operation like this should be expected to impact the community.
And because of our willingness to continue to collaborate
and use our sound mitigation report that we've invested in
to build the foundation of a community benefits agreement.
Thank you.
For all those reasons, we ask that the special exception be granted.
Thank you.
all right planning commission good afternoon mr chair dan powers the city planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the irmx industrial and residential mixed
use zoning at this location the city changed the zoning in this part of south kensington in 2017
the city changed the zoning in this part of south kensington in 2017 in a community supported map
in a community support.
change the appellant has shown that the proposed assembly and entertainment will have no detrimental
impacts beyond what might be expected the city planning commission recommends that the board
grant the proposed special exception for assembly and entertainment thank you hillary where do we
we're just going to move on with this and we'll go once they get it we'll come back or what do we
going to do um so it's technically a hear and hold how and that was the request however
we can just hold the vote pending receipt um of the documents um the cba has been executed
between the parties not that again that affects us but at the request of the parties we can hold
the vote for that and then right um excuse me and then otherwise close close the record because i
think we've heard from everyone today except for the vote when we receive what we need yeah so
we'll just hold we'll hold the vote till we were till we receive that thank you thank you
number 15 mi 2024 005 530 335 poplar street joseph consul is the attorney
there's support from northern liberties letter non-opposition from council member young
Mr. Consul, can you please state your name
as spelled for the stenographer?
Yeah, Joseph Consul. It's J-O-S-C-P-H.
Last name, C-O-N-S-O-L-E.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Do you identify your clients and the relationship to the property?
Yeah, it's Pablo Mancino, and he's the owner.
Do you stipulate to the reading of the refusal?
and uh agree with its accuracy i do there was an amended refusal that i believe was issued this
morning which just corrected the address and the the top whatever but yes the amended refusal we
stipulated please proceed sir um first i didn't hear did councilman young what did he take a
Non-opposition?
Non-opposition.
Oh, okay.
Great.
All right.
I'm going to share my screen.
Joseph Consul here on 335 and 337 rear poplar.
What you're looking at is the entrance to these two lots.
The entrance is currently owned by 335 Poplar.
337 rear Poplar is in the back, and this drive aisle is the only way to get to it.
There is a home built on 335, and 337 rear is an empty lot.
I'll just go through those pictures.
Well, first I'll tell you that my client's plan is to relocate the lot lines to, as it looks now, 337 rear is 682 square feet.
And 335, which includes a drive aisle and an existing three-story single-family home, is 2,572 square feet.
So the goal is to split these properties up and this was one of the ones that had some comments on it, but it hasn't changed.
This is split it up into two lots. The 337 rear would be 1,000, I believe that's 605 square feet, and the 335 would go down to 1,199 square feet and would still contain the building.
In addition, there would be common area, 450 square feet, which would accommodate two cars to park at the outset of the drive aisle there.
So we received an amended refusal today for the adjustment of lot lines to create the common area and the two adjusted lot lines in the back.
My client is not proposing to build on 337 rear at this time.
He understands that there will likely be variances required for building anything on 337 rear.
But his goal right now is to separate the two properties into two lots and have a nice size lot for 337 rear that he can then attempt to build on.
And so we're just seeking the subdivision of those lots and the lot line relocation.
we're just seeking the subdivision of the of those lots and the lot line relocation
now we had originally had a refusal which we got a new refusal today that corrected the addressing
in the paragraph here and yeah we go a little further
that's the original refusal no longer relevant that's our proof of mailing
I'll show you some more pictures of everything.
Again, that's the access point.
This gives you an idea.
You drive in, and to the right is the existing three-story building, which I'll show you in a second, and to the left is 337 rear.
The neighbors specifically requested that no cars, that they'd be able to park two car width, it's 18 feet, and so not to be able to pull the cars all the way to the back.
And so that's, my client came up with the compromise to make it so he could park two cars in the front side by side versus in the back there, as was being done in this photo.
Great question.
This is just showing you a 337 rear.
There's the 335, that's the three-story single-family home, that property's been there forever.
It was my client's primary residence.
Just give you an idea of the space.
here's the parking plan that was submitted
showing space to park two cars it's in compliance 18 feet
see those two right there the RCO specifically asked for that to have it so the cars would not
be able to drive all the way to the back of the property
So our tax clearance certificate is deed in the project information form.
I think the hardship exists in the sense that 337 rear is not, it's landlocked, you can't
access it.
This drive aisle has always been the accessibility point for 337 rear.
And at 600 and some square feet, it's not really a buildable lot. By shifting the lot lines here, the resulting lots are both ample size, one of which has a property already on it, and the resulting lot for 337 rear would be then become potentially functionable, obviously, with other variances required for someone to build on and for eventually a new owner.
um as mentioned we got the rco support we met with them three times uh and eventually got their
support so if i could call my client mr consul mr consul hold on one minute so i have a little
note here the plan attached to the rco letter does not match what applicants submitted to cba
l and i only reviewed the lot line adjustment plan parking space is not at the parking space
is not shown on the plan reviewed by l and i are you aware of that in the district plan third
yeah i i don't think i don't know if the reason
i was like
yeah uh yeah i don't believe that my client had applied for that although parking was previously
granted under which is mentioned on the refusal um i don't think so hillary we're gonna we'll go
through this but we're gonna have to hold this well no so here let me let me let me clarify so
the only thing that was before that was in the application was the the lot line adjustment while
there is in the while there is a use for non-accessory parking on there the actual
parking spaces location and size are not part of this application because that's the only thing
that the L&I has is the subdivision plan. So what the RCO saw and what was in the applicant's
proposal were not before L&I. So I just wanted to clarify that while the use has been approved,
the actual spaces have not been. Well, the amended refusal does cite non-accessory surface
parking with two parking spaces. I know. I'm still a little bit confused by that because
they do not have a plan that shows two parking spaces. Yeah, me too. This came through this
morning um i believe it's in line with the rco once and with what my client
I believe it's in line with the RCO once and with my client, you know, but I don't know the specific way to codify all of it.
Right. Well, I think you might, I don't know what's, cause you probably, well, I think the curb cut was existing, then you wouldn't, I don't know if you would need streets for you for that.
I'm not sure if you had streets approval and what streets reviewed, but there was also the issue of the RCO submitted a plan attached to their letter that showed some additional markup on the plan that was in your packet, so it was a little bit confusing as to what they thought was okay and what the applicant was actually doing, because neither of those plans were reviewed by L&I.
I got you. My client agreed to build a small barrier there. Like that wouldn't that wouldn't have been something we put on the plan to prevent the cars from driving in the back. And that's what they had shown on their plan, which is this barrier here.
Got you. So they they added so they added that to their point.
That's correct. OK. OK. All right. Thank you.
So, Hillary, are we going to hold this?
no we we have the we have the amended refusal um the two i don't know if the two parking spaces
are something that were previously approved and that's why they put two there because there was
already parking but the configuration that's being proposed with the two side by side side spaces
was not reviewed by l and i because plans weren't submitted for that just for the
lot line adjustment right so they previously approved three parking spaces and now we're
asking for two as non-accessory surface parking right it's got to be non-accessory because it's
on a separate lot right i understand right so yeah so i i think they're just recognizing the
existence of parking spots that were already there but now it's just two so i'm just saying
that because i'm not i don't know that like i said that the plans that lni has to not show the
parking spaces like laid out where you had them so just you know wanted you to be aware of that
i don't know if that would cause an issue later on the refusal we have now i think is the the best
that um we're going to get at this time so okay so questions from the board yes um mr council can
you pull up the site plan again it was a little cut off I'm trying to see what the bounds of the
three new lots like what the exact bounds are and then I have a question about the drive aisle is
there an existing easement that's already been recorded the uh so because the three parking
spaces were granted in 2005 to my client for three lots. For 335, there would not have been
an easement at that time. The ZBA in 2005 granted three off-street open-air parking spaces. As you
can see, under the first note on this amended refusal, it was for a deck and three open-air
OFF STREET PARKING SPACES. SO THERE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN AN EASEMENT THAT WE NEEDED AT THAT TIME.
THERE WILL BE ONE RECORDED NOW TO THE BENEFIT OF EACH OF THE TWO OWNERS FOR THE LOTS IN THE BACK.
BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE UNDER THE PURVIEW WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE.
OKAY. AND THEN I KNOW THAT THERE'S CURRENTLY, IT'S A VACANT LOT, BUT WHAT WOULD BE
the plan for the the two vacant lots in the future has there been even well the ones just
just for the two the two cars uh but the the property in the back my client's here he can
speak to it i know i believe he just raised his hand and then just to be clear just for my own
clarity here there's going to be one lot that is mostly the drive aisle and what is like sort of
the offshoot that is 337 rear currently then there would be one lot that is the house and the deck
and then one lot that is currently sort of the open space adjacent to the deck oh correct yeah
like where the well so 335 has the home which 335 currently has the home yes a side yard
essentially for all intents and purposes and the drive aisle and the three parking spaces
Yeah, so now it's going to have that side yard, what I guess is the front yard where this tree is, and the access to poplar.
Okay, and then 337 rear would sort of be an additional space to...
Correct. It'll be this lot and then half of this where the cars are here.
Correct. It'll be this lot and then half of this where the cars are here.
Okay. Any other questions from the board?
Did you want my client to address his intended use?
Is your client here, Joe?
I thought I heard him raise his hand, but was that not him?
Pablo Mianchino has been promoted to penalist.
Why could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Are you there, Pablo?
Do we see him?
i see him it's just not
pablo please unmute yourself
he's got his hand raised again okay can you hear me yeah please hi could you please state your name
is spelled for the stenographer it's p-a-b-l-o-m-c-h-e-n-o pablo manchino all right do you
swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes i do please proceed
counsel um pablo uh um one of the board members had a question about uh the proposed use of the
337 rear are you able to address that yes there's no uh construction in the near future we just
solving this for future
Pablo, could you turn your
video on?
Yeah, one second. I'm looking for the video.
Yes, thank you.
Yeah, there's no plans for future construction in the near future, but there'll be a future development later on.
So we're just dividing this, subdividing to, you know, to save some time when it happens.
Can you walk me through the decision to subdivide out the front parking pad as opposed to consider a different configuration like either condos or using a planned unit development for future development?
yeah so there will be two properties so it will be a common area because as you can see the entrance
is just one aisle and that will have to be shared by the two properties the common area is now a
third lot so i guess i'm i'm just trying to understand why the decision to create a third
lot instead of leave the common area attached to one of the other two properties and just have an
easement? Yeah, when I was talking with the city surveyor, you mentioned something that
it's usually some of the properties in Philadelphia are doing that. And I thought it would be a good
idea to have a common area for the two properties that they can use to, you know, they can park the
cars, bring the trash in, and just use it as a common area. Instead of just having a narrow
entrance on one side and a wider
entrance on the other will be available
for both.
That was the idea.
Okay. Thank you.
Any other questions?
Is anyone
in the virtual audience relative to this?
Planning commission.
good afternoon dan powers of the planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends
no change to the rsa 5 residential single-family zoning at this location the appellant currently
has a single-family home on their lot that includes a side yard and rear parking accessed
from poplar street this lot is unusually shaped but that does not prevent the appellant from
deriving value from the lot as is there is no unique physical condition or circumstance of
this property that would prevent it from being from continuing to be used a single family home
with off-street accessory parking nor has the appellant shown that they would suffer an economic
detriment if the dimensional variances were disapproved the city planning commission
recommends that the board deny the proposed common area non-accessory parking and the
proposed dimensional variances for minimum lot size lot width and yard setback thank you mr
thank you mr council i'm going to hold this the next wednesday i'll vote on this at 9 30 next
council i'm going to hold this the next wednesday i'll vote on this at 9 30 next week
week i just want to yeah i guess i guess we'll just respond to council to the planning commission
and to council to board member win um if the common area if that is more palatable to be