living areas better uh because it's a bi-level setup yeah it's it's a yeah yeah it's just a
weird thing to do because the way it's just set up but um yeah okay and the first floor unit there's
no there's no natural light and ventilation in the in the living room so that's a a bad place
to have a living room in the center of two bedrooms and there's just no light and natural
bedrooms and there's just no
light and natural ventilation
ventilation so it's just a
so it's just a
bad stuff but
Ellen and I will
get you for that one
the building
permit process
are the bathrooms
currently existing
Nakam the bathrooms are
existing correct yes all the bathrooms
existing yes
okay I was like I mean I
i agree with mike about the layout for the second and the third floor i do think that with some
reconfiguration this could make a lot more sense um and then a question i have about that trash
storage i mean i think it's it's good to have a dedicated space i think even though the third
floor apartment touches the second floor i think you know trying to get people to use trash rooms
correctly um is their plan to do commercial trash pickup or are the tenants expected
to manage this kind of shared trash room well i i believe we have to pay um the city for
the pickup as a triplex that will be something that would have to be done um okay yeah
question and then i think you know three stories what's the plan for storage now that the basement
as clear as the thought that everyone will have the ability to storage things downstairs so the
basement's essentially accessible through the first unit first floor unit so unfortunately it
would the storage really would apply to them um the third floor has a lot of space uh the only
small unit that would potentially have storage space issues would be this smaller unit on the
second floor. The third floor has a lot of open space, you know, assuming we're leaving this space
open as well as that space open. So I think they have actually plenty of area for storage because
their kitchen and bedroom down here and the bedrooms up there, the living areas here.
The, unfortunately, the first, the basement is not accessible otherwise to the upper floor units.
So their storage would be either on the third floor for the third unit or, and again, this one being a very small unit, it's really not designed for multiple occupants.
I think that's more or less for one or two people at most.
And the first floor unit is going to have exclusive use of the backyard.
Yeah, they have the access to the rear yard.
and that is um unfortunately because of the layout originally from the building uh
it there was no other way to get access for the upper floors to the rear yard
mm-hmm and this is a middle of a row property so it's not a corner property
okay um i have a couple of questions and my concern is about the issue that was raised by the um rco
about ingress and egress in case of some sort of fire.
This is going to have to be sprinklered, correct?
Most likely the building department, when we go for building permits,
will make that determination and probably will ask for sprinklers.
I don't know the exact answer to that.
Yeah. And the concern would be there's, you know, there's one way in and one way out.
Yes. While that's true, it is actually a very, in many of the multifamily units in the city,
this is still ultimately the layout. The code will require fire rated walls and doors
for the hallway and the staircase to permit escape in the event of an emergency. So there
are code required fire approvals. One of the things I know the city has moved away from
over the years is any kind of fire escape in these buildings. The fire department has generally asked
my clients to simply get raided walls and doors to extend the timeframe available for escape.
all right and you're gonna have to have the hardwired smoke detection systems and things like
that so that that helps as well okay all right so we have a we have a hard wire smoke detector
and then we have hallways uh fire alarm system right with the strobes and the that horrible
noise and that kind of thing okay yes so and then um there's no household living in the basement
right? Correct. Okay. And then this first floor unit where you have the bedroom in the front
and the back room, the bathroom in the back, you know, that's one of my little
You know, that's one of my little pet peeves where you have to wander through the whole, the kitchen and the living room and all of that at three o'clock in the morning to go to the bathroom.
pet peeves where you have to wander through the hole.
So, you know, I have a, I just have a bias against those kinds of layouts because I think they really aren't very good for.
I believe part of this layout, unfortunately, stems back to when it was still used as were designed originally as a doctor's office.
My client actually didn't change the layout on the first floor.
It was kind of laid out like this when he acquired the property.
Is that correct, Nakam?
Are you open to changing the layout if it would make the first floor unit better for ultimately its occupants?
i think that's something if l and i if l and i require any changes we can we can you can do it
and you'll be willing but if if it is okay like this i mean i'm okay like this too all right thank
you you're welcome thank you you're welcome anyone else on the board
or attorney no questions at this time
i see no hangs at this time chair any commission michael gall with the philadelphia city planning
commission the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing rsa5 residential single
family attached zoning at this location the property was remapped from rm1 residential
multi-family to rsa5 residential single family attached in 2014 pursuant to the recommendations
of the lower north district plan there's a documented history of this property being
used as a doctor's office with two residential units dating back to at least 1950 and multi-family
use is a common condition on this block however there are no three unit residences in this size
in the immediate vicinity that also have a permitted commercial space so the proposed
unit count of three with a a business use represents a potential overuse in this context
and is slightly out of character for the location therefore the city planning commission recommends
the board grant the requested variance for business professional office use and grant
the requested variance for multi-family household living use but with a recommended proviso of a
maximum two units uh we to be clear we're not asking for the professional office use at this
time just a three-family dwelling would that change the planning commission's position in any way
there would be more
three units right okay um three units no commercial so so you're planning you're done
all right so so that we just have a better understanding of this I'm going to hold this
to next Wednesday and we'll vote on that at uh 2 p.m okay and that will thank you
where we want to be all right thank you thank you Mr. Chairman the record's closed then
mr records it's closed thank you
number two mi 2025 007 358 to 1509 north 29th street stephanie boggs magna is the attorney
good afternoon i counsel could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
stephanie s-t-e-p-h-a-n-i-e magana m-a-g-a-g-n-a all right do you swear or affirm to tell the
truth the whole truth nothing about the truth i do um just for a point i think you might have
been walking over here when i started oh if cases get protracted they go past a half hour
we're going to have a presumptive hearing.
Understood.
Right now, we're projected out tonight that our last case will start at 729.
And the question is, I don't want to go beyond that.
I mean, so I'm trying to hold it on.
All right.
I will do my best.
Well, you'll do your best, but I mean, I'm just telling you, we get to close for a half hour,
I'm going to cut it.
Understood.
Could you identify your client, the relationship of the property?
My client is 1233 North 6th Street, LLC.
They're the owner of the property.
this is nathan torock he's the representative and our vice chair has a few questions good afternoon
have you submitted your documents and exhibits five days in advance of this hearing yes i have
and do you waive the read another refusal and stipulate to its accuracy i do all right thank
you you can share your screen and proceed with the case thank you all this pulls up um the subject
property here it is 1509 north 29th street um located along 29th street at the corner of jefferson
and 29th. It's an existing three-story building, been vacant for most of the last decade. It was approved for
It's been vacant for most of the last decade. It was approved for three family units in 2017, and there is a rather lengthy history here. But what I'll say to start is that the scope of this application is limited to renewing the approval for this building for three units consistent with the prior approval.
It is zoned RSA 5 as well for context. So we are requesting a variance for the proposed use.
Um, as I mentioned, there's some history here. So this property was approved by the zoning board in, or I'm sorry, by the zoning board in 2017 for 3 family dwellings with the provides that that there'd be no bedroom in the basement.
Um, the owner at that time, then pulled a buy right permit in 2018 for an addition to the building to add a partial 3rd floor and a roof deck. Um, then they then went on. This is the original zoning permit.
Our addition in 2018 with the plans here for reference.
They then went on in 2019 to pull a building permit for the work and began work afterwards.
Here's a copy of the floor plan that was approved back in 2019 for context.
There is a this is consistent with the board's approval.
There is no bedroom in the basement.
They continued construction from what we can tell.
They finished the addition, they finished the roof deck, and they finished reconfiguring what was a single family property and converting it to three units with the each individual unit being laid out inside.
This shows the framing going up work.
This is January of 2022, where these pictures come from, and work went on.
At some point, work stopped.
You can see conditions.
This is, again, as of 2022. But at some point after they finished the addition and they started the interior fit out work, work stopped. The building went into foreclosure. And in 2014, my client purchased the property from the bank out of foreclosure.
At the time they purchased the building, these pictures show you the condition inside. So the framing had gone up, the three units had been configured. Again, the addition was complete, including the roof deck, most of the drywall, the electric fixtures and such in the units had been constructed.
there's some more pictures for reference um at the time following purchase of the property
my client did very little work immediately after buying this it was represented at the
time they purchased it that there was a valid building permit for the site so that would
maintain the zoning so the property was permitted for use to continue fitting it out and permitted
for use as three units it had been vacant back and forth because of the foreclosure for some time so
Their original activities were limited to removing trash. There was water in the basement they had to pump out. Um, they secured the property, cleaned it up and kind of remediated some of the copper theft and other vandalism that had happened here. Um,
then in 2025, about, um, end of 2024, they went to finish out the remaining work that was done here. And at that time, they became aware that the building permit had expired. Um, work stopped immediately. These are from 2026.
showing the existing condition of the building. As you can see, there has been no interior kind of continuing construction work since we got the stop work order. The building remains in the condition that it was in substantially when we bought it.
Again, here's for the roof deck for reference and the front of the building for bigger context here.
So while the block itself is predominantly RSA 5 single family, this corner at Jefferson and 29th Street has some precedent for additional density that we imagine was part of the board's consideration in 2017 when they approved the building for three units.
The 2 corner properties are cmx 1, but they are approved for 1 is 2 units with ground floor commercial. The other is 3 units.
Our immediate adjacent neighbor at 1,507 was approved for 2 units in 2,025 by right.
Again, we were approved by the zoning board in 2,017 for 3 units, and 1,502 across the street was approved by the Zba in 2,021 for 2 units.
Copies of those permits are here as well included in the record just for context that the proposed use has some precedent in this particular corner of the block.
We did meet with the community on February.
The predominant comment we got was that they did not want multifamily at this location.
That was the overall prevailing sentiment, and here is their opposition letter.
You can tell the majority vote voted in opposition.
But there were some comments that came from the neighbors that went a little bit beyond that. They were limited, but there were some.
um that went a little bit beyond that they were limited but there were some um there were some
concerns expressed about what had happened to the property um some nuisance this this again was an
attractive nuisance in the neighborhood for years because it had sat vacant so there were some
concerns about that some concerns expressed about construction work and disturbing the neighbors
and trash left outside um there were also some comments about wishing there was an affordability
component to this project which had not been part of the prior approval so in light of the opposition
that we got from the rco and the comments we received my client has decided that to address
some of those concerns we it would make sense in this context to offer should the board be inclined
to grant approval in this case that there be certain provisos put as a condition upon that
approval one being that unit one will be a designated affordable unit um trash is going
to be stored inside of the building in a trash room that has been carved out on the first floor
plan that's shown here as an exhibit to make sure that all trash is stored interior to the building
until it's picked up the roof deck that again is completed will be limited to use by the third unit
so it will be restricted to one unit as opposed to being a common amenity shared by the building
to reduce use and hours and the potential for it to create a nuisance in the neighborhood
again that roof deck in particular was approved by right pursuant to the 2018 permit
that allowed the addition also construction activities can be limited between 8 a.m and
5 p.m monday through friday so they will not be on the weekends or after hours or very early in
morning to try to eliminate the concern that we did here and again consistent with the original
approval there will be no bedroom in the basement so we're not asking for any change to that
original condition so to sum it up given the history here when my client purchased this
building it was fitted out as a three unit building with very limited work that needed to be
done under the building permit to actually rent it out and complete the building permit had that
work been completed at the time we wouldn't be here because this would be a valid three unit
building um fully market rent and the zoning permit would have held um nate has done very
little work on this property behind what what is expected of a responsible property owner to make
sure that you are eliminating the potential for this to become again an attractive nuisance to
neighborhood and a source for theft or other concerns but the work has been limited to that
extent and when he did become aware of the permit issue they stopped work so at this point he has
an existing almost completed three-unit building that is permitted only for single-family use
by right under the code which creates a significant hardship for him to then have to convert this back
to a single-family use so the request is limited here to renewing the prior approval we're not
asking for an increase in density beyond what was originally deemed appropriate by the zoning board
um and to address the concerns that we were given by the community um again we feel that
the provisos that we've suggested aim to address those concerns and again they would be above and
beyond what was originally imposed by the zoning board in 2017. um so with that if i can have my
client why don't you please state your name and spell for the stenographer if you get closer to
mike yep nathan torak n-a-t-h-a-n last name torak t-o-r-o-k do you swear or affirm to tell the
truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do counsel nate did you hear the statements i made
to the board this afternoon yes i have are they complete inaccurate yes they are you adopt them
as your own i do okay um if i if i can i have a few questions for my client sure i think we have
a little bit of time right um when you purchased this property what was your understanding of what