that area in the rear here. And, uh, just a little bit about OSSV. Um, um, they have a number of,
uh, fast casual, uh, restaurants in the area, uh, with, uh, Deepak, there's a six, six Taco Bells,
I believe right now in the, in the Philadelphia area. Uh, the, the most, uh, two recent locations,
uh, the 1600 block of Chestnut Street, uh, which is, um, been up and running now for some time.
And then there's a former Boston Market in University City on Chestnut Street, which had kind of become a, I lived nearby, had kind of become a blight with the challenges of Boston Market, and they did a really nice retrofit there.
That's been a good addition to the community.
Here are some pictures of those other locations, most recent, the two on Chestnut Street, one in Center City, and as well, one in University City.
um and you know that's you know that's kind of um you know our you know presentation here as far
as the taco bell i think i think as far as the certificate case um we absolutely meet the
criteria for a special exception there's no drive-through the impacts here are um are certainly
not more than you would expect uh from a uh takeout sit-down restaurant they're actually
probably much less than most fast casuals because we don't have that drive-thru. We've got two
entrances. We've got a parking field. We've got on-street, off-street. There's a lot of parking
back there. A lot of parking. And then also just the tenant mix. And Ken can talk about this.
We have some tenants in the shopping center that are there during the day, the paint store,
and I think there's a hair place. And then Taco Bell and some of the restaurants bring more folks
you know for lunch and dinner in the evening so it's kind of uh you know some tenants have parking
demand during the day some have in the evening so it's a good mix here and um you know i think
we absolutely meet the uh so why don't you bring your client on absolutely adopted absolutely
sir could you please state your name and spell it for the stenographer debak patel d-e-e-p-a-k
last name patel p-a-d-e-l do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
Yes, Council great great and you heard my my testimony concerning how this new restaurant would work.
Yes, and the impact. Yes, and do you find them true and accurate?
Yes, there and you adopt them as your own. Yes, questions from the board.
Yes. What's going to be, oh, well, one, are you planning to allow delivery services like Uber Eats and DoorDash?
And then what's going to be the plan to coordinate those pickups?
Yes. Do you want to take that? Because we actually just talked about that.
Yes. So in the normal day hours, they're going to be having access from both regions.
in the normal day hours they're going to be having access from both the ridge avenue and
the rear access as well but uh depend uh based on the honoring the request from the community
we are going to be restricting the deliveries late late hours like after 11 only in the from the
front which will be the ridge avenue after 11 p.m after 11 p.m okay yeah this the the restaurant
will be open for um for take out and for the delivery pick up from 11 until 2 a.m and are
both doors open until 2 a.m no just the front just the front door so the back door will be on the
parking lot side will close no matter what at 11 11. yeah we there was a lot of discussion with
that with it and is there generally street parking on ridge avenue it's it's pretty good yeah that's
That's good.
It's not bad.
Yeah, it's pretty good.
Especially those late hours.
I'm just thinking like in late hours.
Well, that's what I was saying.
A lot of our tenants by the evenings, they're closed now.
But the parking lot is open.
Oh, the parking lots.
But we were going to do it from the front.
Other questions?
Questions from our attorney?
I don't have a question related to this project, but I just wanted to note for people
in the audience, but especially the virtual audience, I'm getting a lot of questions about
when the 3.30 list is started.
We appreciate your patience.
We will start when we are done with the 2 p.m. list.
We have four more cases on the 2 p.m. list.
Thank you.
Get our best to get to the 3.30 list.
You're fine.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
i see no hands to you planning commission thank you chairman and good afternoon david effecto with
the city planning commission chairman and board members the comprehensive plan recommends no
change to the cmx 2.5 commercial mixed use zoning at this location the city rezoned this neighborhood
in 1976 and a council supported that change the appellant has shown that the proposed takeout
restaurant will have no detrimental impacts to the neighborhood beyond what might reasonably be
be expected the city planning commission recommends that the board grant a proposed
special exception for a takeout restaurant mi 2026 001 580 60 24 ridge avenue i vote yes
michael johns my vote is yes cheryl gaston my vote is yes tenetta graham my vote is yes ryan mcadams
my vote is yes i win my vote is yes thank you sorry we took so long thank you okay i have your
time and consideration. Meredith. So sorry, you have to see me again.
MI 2026-001-584-3418 North 17th Street. Meredith Berlinger is the attorney. Meredith,
just for the record state your name meredith ferliger do you identify your client and
relationship to the property my client is the door llc uh represented here today by alex
mesendez to my left do you swear or affirm to tell the truth told truth nothing but the truth
yes i do our vice chair has a few questions for you good afternoon have you submitted your documents
and exhibits five days in advance of the series uh yes i did and do you waive the reading of the
refusals and stipulate to their accuracy i do although we did submit a revised plan and revised
plan proviso form which does eliminate one of the refusals and i'll address that in the presentation
okay thank you you can share your screen to proceed with the case okay
all right this request before the board today concerns 34 18 through 22 north 17th street
Your exhibit packet contains 18 exhibits.
Just to briefly summarize the basis for today's request, this application now only requests one variance to permit the proposed construction of a multifamily project on a nearly exclusively multifamily block, despite its current zoning classification.
As I mentioned, a previously issued refusal for height has been resolved via the submission of revised plans, and I will show that in the presentation.
The 3 deeds conveying these lots to my client are shown at Exhibit 3, and tax clearance is shown at Exhibit 2 for again each of the 3 lots.
starting first with the zoning map at exhibit nine you'll see that this block is zoned rsa5
with the northern ends up at west tioga having both cmx2
with the northern ends up at west tioga having both cmx2 zoning on the east the western side
and cmx3 zoning on the eastern side importantly the planning commission's district plan for this
area recommends that this block be rezoned to rm1 if i turn to the aerials at exhibit 10
you'll start to get a sense that this block has some fairly diverse structures and uses
while still maintaining some significant vacancy particularly on the west side of the block where
this property sits i will address some of the uses later in the presentation but just for
preliminary context the next more recent aerial here uh shows you the then recently construct
started construction immediately next door to this property and i do have some more recent photographs in the exhibits as well
so let me just flip right to those photographs and give you a better sense
the first photograph here shows the large vacant lot and then the right side of this is now under construction that you'll see in the next photographs
so the lot in question before the board today for this project is just over 5700 square feet
And then, as I mentioned, you can see in this next photograph that is much more recent showing the project that is under construction on the immediately adjacent lot.
Now, importantly, and I'll point this out in this photograph, the only single family home on this side of the block sits at 3416 North 17th Street, which you can see to the left of this photograph.
in your exhibits at exhibit 18 you will find a letter of support from that homeowner for this
project the next two photographs show the project that's under construction immediately next door
and that project will contain 23 units and just a couple of extra views these were taken a couple
of months ago so it's a little bit farther along now flipping across the street to the left here
you'll see the rear of verizon's building as well as the start of the three-story predominantly
multi-family residences that are across the street and then looking towards west tioga street again
all the buildings that are shown in this view are either commercial multi-family or religious
community use and then again at exhibit 18 you will find a letter from the religious institution
community center, noting my client's efforts towards contributing his time and resources
towards this particular community. And then flipping to the next photograph, you'll see a
view towards Ontario Street, where again, you can really see how much this block deviates in terms of
both aesthetic characteristics as well as vacancy. And then again, you can see here,
this is taken from tioga street so the verizon building is to the left and this property would
be on the right and then we did also include zoning posters that were timely posted
as with the last case our architect logan dry is on the line and can answer any questions about
the design but for efficiency sake i will summarize and then i can bring him on for
any additional questions that you have so what i want to do is just focus on the revised plans
and i will point out what changes were made from the original project that was presented to the
community so you can see here the revised project at exhibit seven and what you can see here is the
t-shaped building that is proposed for the lot with 12 dwelling units
let me zoom in on the zoning table for you where i'll point out just a couple of things
first as i mentioned the proposal was reduced in response to community concerns regarding density
and was reduced from the original 16 units that's shown on the refusal to 12 units that is reflected
on the revised plans now although we do submit that the original 16 units was well within reason
given the overall density of this block my client did elect instead to make significant revisions
seeking to compromise and appease concerns you can also see here that the proposal is underbuilt
for the lot covering only 70 percent the building itself will have a 10-foot front setback which
which matches the newly constructed building next door.
and then critically and again despite significant height to the right the proposal was also reduced
And then critically, and again, despite significant height to the right.
from four stories to three stories so it will now match the home at 3416 north 17th street
so that overall height was reduced from 40 feet down to 31 feet so that refusal is now eliminated
and then the pilot house and the roof deck were also removed we do have a rendering at exhibit
eight although i will just note that this rendering was from the original design
which will still be materially the same just cut one floor off
and again we did submit revised plans and a revised plan proviso form
now in terms of the layouts let me just bring up the floor plans here
we're given the reduction in size and density the building will now be predominantly slab
on grade with a small basement area in the front to accommodate mechanical space
on the first floor there is a residential lobby with a designated mail and package room as well
as a bike storage area on that first floor as well there are four units on the first floor
all designed as type b accessible units there are roughly two 615 square foot one bed one bath units
and two roughly 800 square foot two bedroom two bath units on the first floor there will also be
a designated fenced-in trash area in the rear that will, of course, have to be collected via
a commercial hauler, and you can see that in the floor plan here. Now, the unit layout on the second
and the third floor, let me bring that up, are roughly the same with eight two-bedroom,
two-bath units of about 840 square feet each. All of the units have in-unit washers and dryers
and ventilated trash storage areas furthermore because of the building design
all of these units have ample light and air from windows on all sides
now in terms of the refusal itself although my client does understand and completely respects
the community's concerns regarding density that concern itself is dictated from the nature of this
block and does establish the significant hardship that faces this property as you're going to see
i do have a few exhibits that will highlight uh that to construct anything other than a
multi-family project on this lot really on any lot on this block would be unreasonable and
unbuildable on a nearly exclusively multi-family block in especially in consideration of the fact
that this and prior boards have granted countless variances on just this block
first as i mentioned uh in my introduction the north district planning commission plan
recommends that this block and many south of it be rezoned to rm1 if zoned rm1 as the plan recommends
this lot would be permitted the exact number of units that is now proposed for this lot at 12.
this tioga area as you can see on the second page here was specifically identified as a target area
where the plan states that there should be zoning to encourage new commercial corridors on 17th
street as well as the redevelopment of vacant properties with multi-family uses this project
is entirely consistent with the plan goals and the density that would be permitted if this plan had
been put to action as it was recommended to be second i will not bore you with a page by page
recount but the zoning history that i included in your exhibits at exhibit four uh exhibit 12
shows that these lots were historically also used for multi-family dating all the way back to the
1930s with evidence of four dwelling units on at least two of the three lots
again this is entirely consistent with what is proposed today third as the board can see at
exhibit 13 let me zoom out a little bit on this i have included a map with my colorful stars
showing the density of surrounding properties which is entirely reflective of the evidence
that I've presented today on this property side of the block on the west side of the block
the block starts with a 45 unit apartment building then moves south to the church
then moves the church in a community center just south of that
then moves uh the church in a community center just south of that is a four unit and then
there's the 23 unit building under construction immediately next door that of course was granted
relief from this board and then even just south of that the board recently granted relief for a
triplex on just one of the vacant lots uh in that area and then just south of that is another four
units across the street is the same picture at the corner a zoning permit was recently we see it
yeah okay i go point by point please understood i just want to make sure that it's it's clear
uh and then again there's also the verizon building in the middle so again while my client
does understand that community members may be concerned about density in this area generally
we do submit that that concern should carry slightly less weight than it might normally
given the fact that this block and many of the surrounding blocks are dominantly multifamily
and are clearly not capable of supporting new single-family home development
it is unfortunate that the zoning remains in a state that is inconsistent with the dominant
character of the neighborhood and planning principles but this board has recognized that
clear hardship and has granted repeated requests for relief most recently immediately next door
and just south of this property finally just a quick note on parking although parking would
not be required some community members did question why parking could not be provided
as it is for the new construction immediately next door
uh at exhibit 13 i did include a copy of the plans for that project to show the critical
fundamental difference between that project and this one as you can see that lot has dual frontage
on north bouvera street which of course is a crucial reason that they were able to provide
parking uh through a one-way driveway that exists through the property that next door project with