See the umbrellas in front of fair.
others right uh retail and then we're here in this location but again it's spruce stop now
ah okay i think that other retail is pottery if i'm not mistaken you are correct right because
they they did then they um do a whole restoration of that property too the the one on the other side
I believe they did too. My photograph doesn't show that, but I,
I believe that was also spruced up.
Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other, any other questions from the board?
Mr. Clinton, I have a question. Like I know just having lived in that neighborhood fire,
that that has always been sort of an unassuming commercial space.
And I've noticed that the application didn't seem to have anything to do with any signage.
are they planning to come back to zoning or is everything going to be by
right or applied to the windows question. And that,
that's something I did talk to Gabriel about any sign that he's going to have
will be just in the window and would probably be a by right application.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson.
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience.
Yes, Chair. I have a hand up by the name of Leslie Lovejoy. They have been allowed to speak.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Hi, I'm Leslie Jerome Lovejoy. It's L-E-S-L-I-E, last name Jerome, G-I-R-O-N-E, Lovejoy, L-O-V-E-J-O-Y.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Are you a neighbor?
I am. I live in the unit above. I've been a resident there for 15 years.
Okay, please proceed.
I'm excited for the new opportunity for the neighborhood. I do have some personal concerns.
In the 15 years I've lived there, it has never been open to foot traffic. You know, the hair salon was just a one chair by appointment only.
the previous office had very little non-staff coming in. So I am a little bit concerned
just opening that up to the public. And my biggest concern is now that there's been a
renovation, there's no clear distinction with the doors. So I would just request that any signage
would be considered that we don't want anyone to be mixing up my door because even before the
renovations. People will get my door mixed up with the retail space, despite clear and distinct
signage. And people would actually try to walk in my home thinking it's the business. And I'm just
concerned that now with this updated facade, that might even be more of a concern. And I'm very
happy to hear that there'll be headphones because I'm a little bit concerned about the noise.
So I just want to state those concerns and hope that they'll be considered.
Thank you for taking the time to call us. And I'm sure Mr. Clinton will deal with that.
I agree. Am I correct? Yes. Ms. Lovejoy, we'll make sure that the signage is appropriate. We
want people to come into our store and buy our records. So that definitely was something
that Gabriel will do. And I know that he will talk to you about that and make sure we're all
on the same page. Thank you for taking the time to close. We appreciate it. Is there anyone else
in the virtual audience? Yes, Chair. I have a hand up by the name of Justino Navarro.
they have been allowed to speak.
Hi, could you please state your name
and spell for the court stenographer?
Justino Navarro, J-U-S-T-I-N-O-N-A-V-A-R-R-O.
Right, do you swear, Fern, to tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
You're with the Spring Garden Civic, right?
That's correct, Mr. Chairman, so thank you.
Please proceed.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the board.
As you know, perhaps by now, my name is Justino Navarro,
And I'm here in representation of the Spring Garden
Civic Association as a member of the board
and member of the zoning committee.
You received a letter of support from us,
date of September 5, 2024, indicating
that the community was in support of this proposed zoning
variance subject to the signing of a community benefits
agreement.
So I am actually pleased to report that as of yesterday
afternoon, we have a fully executed CBA signed
by the property owner, the store
operator and myself, and representation of the Civic Association.
As a result, I would like to reiterate the Spring Garden Civic Association's support
for this variance and welcome the proposed retail store for the sale of vinyl records
and related items.
We welcome the addition of this unique store, which we feel is fully compatible with the
Fairmont Avenue Commercial Corridor and the Spring Garden Historic District and the development
in efforts that for years we have undertaken to make Fairmont Avenue a preferred commercial
to make fairmont avenue a preferred commercial card in the city of philadelphia
card in the city of Philadelphia.
and we also think that it will be a destination for many vinyl files if that's the word
or rather vinyl and record enthusiasts throughout fairmont avenue throughout spring garden throughout
fairmont throughout franceville and actually throughout the entire city of philadelphia
i would like to thank mr navarocides the property owner and mr cone the sewer operator
for their collaboration with the community during the RCO process.
We welcome Mr. Conan as retail vinyl store to Spring Garden
and the Crammond Avenue Commercial Parter
and wish him the best of success in his operations.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for calling, and we appreciate your input.
Is there anyone else in the audience?
There are no more hands at this time, Chair.
Thank you.
Planning Commission, this is Ryan Bednar, City Planning.
While the property is currently indicated for residential on the city plan, given the site's documented use history and its physical condition, we recommend the request of variance be granted.
MI 2024, 004199, 2036 Fairmont Avenue, I vote yes, Proviso, limiting use 21F.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Iowen, my vote is yes, with proviso.
And Shmuel Shaheed, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Thank you, Mr. Clinton.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
Have a great day, everybody.
Okay, thank you.
Number eight, MI 2024-004-201, 701 South Broad Street.
Broad Street, Stephanie Boggs and Magna is the attorney.
There is
unanimous support from the Hawthorne Empowerment Coalition.
Good afternoon.
Counsel, could you please state your name and spell for the court sonographer?
Stephanie Magania, Stephanie, S-T-E-P-H-A-N-I-E, Magania, M-A-G-A-G-N-A.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Could you identify your client in a relationship to this property?
My client is Hightop Broad Acquisition LLC, and they are the owner for this property.
Brian Lobauer from Hightop Development is here on their behalf today as well.
Our vice chair has a few questions for you.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
I agree to waive the reading.
I have comments on its accuracy, which I'll get into in the presentation.
Thank you.
I have emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed to proceed with
this case five days in advance of this hearing.
Yes, I have.
Thank you, counsel.
Please proceed and share your screen.
So this property is 701 South Broad Street. It's located at the corner of Broad Street and Bainbridge Street within the CMX3 zoning district, occupied by an existing seven-story building on this site that has medical offices and a takeout restaurant on the ground floor that was recently approved by this board.
And the above floors, second through seventh floor, are entirely occupied currently and permitted for use as visitor accommodations.
There are also 16 off-site parking spaces that are reserved for use by the occupants of this building off-site at 1441 South Street.
Which here's a map showing kind of the distance between our building and the parking.
When this building was originally envisioned and before it was developed, the concept was that it would flex between a multifamily building as well as a short-term rental building in accordance with allowing multiple principal uses on a lot in the CMX3 zoning district.
So it was initially approved for both uses for multifamily, as well as visitor accommodations, while we look to secure a particular tenant to determine how that use would be portion between the building.
So the offsite parking at 1441 South Street was originally reserved in connection with the multifamily component of this building.
And again, there are 16 parking spaces to meet the code requirements that have been reserved since that time when the building was originally approved.
After we got our initial approvals, we executed a lease agreement with an apartment hotel operator to operate the entirety of this building as visitor accommodations and short-term rentals.
It has continued operating as such for the last couple of years.
and it has continued operating as such for the last couple years we've maintained our off-site
We've maintained our office.
parking agreement at 1441 south street for those 16 spaces despite the change of use and its current
operations as an apartment hotel because we did want to maintain the flexibility option that was
inherent to the original concept for this building however we do not own as high top development does
not own 1441 South Street, where our offsite parking is located. We don't control it. We
recently received notice from the property owner at that location that they intend to terminate
our parking agreement as of next month, October 2024. So we will be losing accessory parking
reserved offsite in connection with this building as of next month. Under the existing zoning,
that doesn't create a problem. But this comes at the same time as we've had some difficulty
any uncertainty with the existing tenant of the building on whether they will maintain their
lease through its term or whether they will discontinue operating all or some portion of
the building. So because we are losing parking and there is some uncertainty about the existing
tenant here, we want to continue the flexible concept for this project as it was originally
conceived to allow for multifamily and visitor accommodations depending on the need at the time.
So we're filing this application now to allow this building to operate either as multifamily or under the current lease as visitor accommodations.
I mentioned that the refusal is accurate, or I would waive its reading, but wanted to confirm its accuracy.
So the refusal correctly identifies that the variance that's needed in connection with this application is one for parking.
We are seeking approval for a multifamily use in the CMX3 district that requires accessory parking, and we are losing our off-site parking at this location without the opportunity to replace it.
So we are seeking a variance to remove those parking spaces on site.
I'll note that the refusal specifies that there are zero parking spaces in connection with the project, but this building was originally approved with one ADA parking space located on site, and that space will be maintained through this change.
So I do want to clarify that.
More importantly, and more on its face, the refusal describes this application as one to allow for multifamily use exclusively of this building.
Whereas, as I explained, we're looking to have this building permitted for use either as 54 multifamily dwelling units or visitor accommodations.
We do have the active lease for the apartment hotel operator ongoing, but we do want to have the ability to repurpose units as they come without a significant period of vacancy, either between the apartment hotel use or a longer term rental use.
So should the board be inclined to grant relief, we would just ask that the board stipulate or clarify the nature of this application with a proviso to clarify that this is seeking approval for use as either 54 multifamily dwelling units and or visitor accommodations without accessory parking required in connection with any residential use of the property.
This application, the nature of the application, as well as the existing ADA parking on-site, the bicycle spaces that are provided on-site, and its original placement and orientation as a transit-oriented development, being that we're only located two blocks from the Broad Street line, was presented to Hawthorne Empowerment Coalition at our meeting on August 14th, and I'm happy to include their letter of support in our packets.
there's a copy of their letter for reference
um with that i'll ask brian lowrout from high top development to identify himself and raise his hand
ryan has been allowed to speak
hi sir could you please state your name and spell it for the stenographer
Ryan Lohbauer
that's spelled R-Y-A-N
B-A-U-E-R
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I do. Proceed, counsel.
Hi, Ryan. Have you heard the statement that I made
to the board this afternoon?
I did. Are they correct and accurate?
They are.
Do you adopt them as your own? I do.
Thank you.
We're happy to answer any questions the board may have.
So I'm going to give it to the board.
So basically you're saying you want to still have the 54 units used either as multiple family or short-term rental without parking.
Correct.
So the units are fit out for use as an apartment.
It's operated as an apartment hotel.
So the only distinction between a multifamily use and the visitor accommodations would be the length of the rental stay.
so because of some uncertainty about the lease and the original concept for this building
So, because of some uncertainty about the lease and the original concept for this building, we want to have the ability to flex the use of each unit based on its lease term, which is the only difference.
Questions on the board?
And you're still going to have the restaurant and the group health practice?
Correct. So, there's no changes to the ground floor use of the building as they've been approved.
And then those, the folks who frequent the restaurant or the group help practice, where are they going to park?
There's never been any parking associated with the commercial uses of this building.
So there would be no effect in terms of this application to that parking situation.
So they weren't using these accessories?
So the parking has always been, it was originally reserved in connection with the original multifamily use that was approved for this site.
And it has remained for use in connection with the principal use of the building, which is now visitor accommodations, which we're seeking to revert back to the original approval of multifamily and visitor accommodations.
Okay. All right. Thank you.
Any other questions from the board?