Yep. Robert Careless, R-O-B-E-R-T, Careless, C-A-R-E-L-E-S-S.
You swear we're a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do, Mr. Chairman.
Could you identify your client and the relationship to this property?
I represent 2000 Arch Associates LP, which is the record owner of the property.
Right. Do you waive the reading of the refusal and agree with its accuracy?
I do, Mr. Chairman.
Okay. I'll share your screen and please start your presentation.
thank you again mr chairman members of the board we are here today regarding the new 18 story
professional office building under construction for chubb at 2000 art street the specific subject
matter of the application before the board concerns our request for a two foot five inch
dimensional variance regarding the placement of a portion of the outer railings on the ninth floor
roof deck along again along a certain portion of arch street to our north and 20th street to our
east although the nature of the application is requesting to adjust the placement of the railings
outward what we're really asking is that they be permitted to remain in the place in which
they're currently located where the infrastructure is currently installed and where they have long
been designed to be placed um we will discuss this in detail but essentially as a visual what
i'm asking is that i'd be permitted if i'm on the deck to take a step forward if the code were to
come to me and put the guardrails in my chest and push me backward to step backward the cost
associated with doing that would be with a million dollars in addition to the financial detriment
that would come to the applicant by virtue of having to comply with that dimensional regulation
we would also suffer delay damages in delivering the building to chubb and a critical amenity
to the city of philadelphia just so it's clear to the board we have filed a companion application
for a special exception so if the dimensional variance is granted it would result in a net
403 square feet of additional occupiable space the the use being permitted by special exceptions
that that explains the demand the companion application um the the important theme here
The important theme here is that the roof deck is not an afterthought to the office building.
is that the roof deck is not an afterthought to
I don't know.
It is as important of an amenity to the office building as any other amenity would be within the building.
And today, I'm sure the board understands that having the best amenities in the office buildings are critical to attracting the best tenants, like Chubb, to the city of Philadelphia, the best employees to the city of Philadelphia.
Very briefly, the history of the building is very important to the application today. The building was approved for zoning in 2022. At the time, the use of the ninth floor outdoor area was different. The use was entailed having a covering structure over the entirety of the occupiable space. So if I walked out, I would look up at a structure, I wouldn't look up at the sky.
um l and i at the time of the approval did not interpret that to be a roof deck under the zoning
code the reason that that's important here is because since it was not interpreted in 2022 to
be a roof deck the associated five foot setback of the railings was not accompanying that
interpretation so uh where we are today and i'm sure this board understands and hears all the
time that you know when you get a zoning approval and then you work to start construction of the
building even as the construction is going on the design changes that's the whole reason why we have
zoning amendments we have building permanent amendments so fast forward to last year two years
later the decision was made the design decision was made to remove the pergola by removing the
pergola it now became a roof deck under the code and by removing the pergola the railings would
have to move back with it. So that explains, you know, why we're here today. Turning quickly to
the exhibits, I would note for the record that all the required exhibits are included in my
packet. Exhibit A1 is our deed into the property. Devin is our standing to bring the application
today. Exhibit A2 is the certificate of tax clearance. Exhibit A3 is our application to the
board. Exhibit A4 is a good place to pause here. If I could, I'll zoom in for just to orient the
board as to where we are. To our north is Arch Street. To our east is 20th Street. Over here to
our west is largely the Walden Wall Condominium Association. The hatched area where my cursor is
here is our green roof going downward is additional non-occupiable area this is the
setback is a large setback to walled walk and an even larger setback at 62 and a half feet from
walled walk this is there is no impact on this there is no change to this setback here there's
no change in this area of the deck here these structures right here are supporting a roof
overhead so you walk out you're walking out to a roof beyond these structural components
is the open air roof deck that was approved by the board last summer for a special exception
in the square hatch there's the lighter the currently the current occupiable area of the deck
in the gray area where my cursor is indicating here is the area in which that we are asking
the board to authorize by dimensional variance to keep the railings where they are and it shows the
additional 403 square feet of additional occupiable area that we're seeking to have
this is the same plan just with the uh area marked for the board so you can see that the
there is only a portion of the deck in which we're asking for this adjustment
exhibit a5 is just to show you as a better aerial i know this shows a prior condition with the
building is currently up in the air but it shows you that that condition to our west with the
residential again there is no impact on the western side or the northwestern side of the deck
you see arch street here with 20th street here these are just some street perspectives we'll
go through very quickly currently you're standing on arch street looking east toward 20th street
with the with the office building to your right here you're turning around looking the other way
west with arch street you're standing on north 20th street in this visual looking southbound
toward cuthbert street and here's standing the other way looking north on north 20th street and
you can see up here is where the ninth floor roof deck area is or looking out from 20th street
exhibit a6 is our refusal referral notice again the refusal being tied to the requested
dimensional variance the referral being the companion application for the special exception
exhibit a7 are the applications for the variance in the special exception that were filed to this
board. Exhibit A8 are the required postings. Here I'll flip through these on the left side so you
can see along with the diagram showing the approximate locations of the required postings.
Exhibit A9 is a rendering that was prepared by our architect Stantec. You can see we're standing
at the western side of the deck looking toward the northeast corridor. You can see the guard
you can see the guard rails here marked at the required height with the parapet just behind it
rails here marked at the required height with the parapet just behind it.
and this is the structural components which i was referencing in the site plan here you can
see it with the open air roof deck at this point uh turning to this diagram right here as i
mentioned the the cost that would be associated with taking out or adjusting the the deck to the
current five foot regulation or the the code required five foot dimension this steel beam
would have to be would have to either come out or get replaced into the current five foot location
we'd have to cut into the concrete into the metal deck attach a railing support we'd have to impact
our tenant chubbs and current improvements their ti improvements on the eighth floor impacting their
conduits their piping their sprinklers and their duct work we'd have to cut out the existing railing
post and we'd have to cut the glazed railings on two ends that would now be shorter lengths when
railing is moved backward um we have a letter of uh opposition from logan square which i will make
two comments on um the first comment being that this is a one-off for us with logan square
neighborhood association we have had a a great relationship with logan square they have been
an incredible partner in bringing this building to life um we have agreements with them going back
before even the pandemic before the name chubb was even into existence um so i think what happened
here at this meeting, and Logan Square can speak for themselves, is the anomaly that
is between the 2022 plan and taking the pergola off and the resulting adjustment for the
railings was a concept, was a nuance that just got complex.
It's a very straightforward issue, but it just got complex in the meeting.
I would also note here that we had 31 voting members, 13 of them are imposed to this, which
is less than the majority.
We had six people not opposed.
We had 12 people abstain.
I know for a fact that there are two of those people abstained for legitimate reasons because of their employment. The 10 people, I would question whether they actually had legitimate reasons to abstain here, and if they were not inclined to take a position on this, in my opinion, what I would argue to the board is that's not an opposition, which would be the majority position in this application.
um mr chairman i i have uh three witnesses i know we've already been through a lot but i will be
endeavor to be brief here i i did prepare and submit to the board a legal memorandum which
is marked under my exhibit at 11 i would just like to summarize a couple positions there for
the board and then we'll go to my witnesses as i've noted the outdoor space here has long been
designed to place the outer railings at the approximate two foot seven setback um mark the
infrastructure is in place that i showed uh in order to bring the railings in compliance with
the five-foot setback we would suffer as i mentioned a one at approximate 1.25 million
dollar financial detriment and and we can speak more to the construction elements that would have
to occur and to bring the property compliant um that's just in hard cost and redesign cost alone
um i i would argue to the board that the cost associated with rigid zoning compliance with
the code results in a substantial financial burden that is disproportionate to the policy
requiring the railings for a roof deck to be at the five foot setback mark um what's also likely
to happen here was not quantifying that 1.25 million dollar number the construction delays
that would have that would occur as as having to redesign the deck um and the infrastructure that
support the excuse me that support the railings along with adversely impacting the schedule
delivering the new the great new office building to to chubb who's going to be a major tenant in
city. And in turn, if we delay the building to Chubb, that in turn delays the payment of taxes
such as UNO to the city of Philadelphia. And nobody wants that. We want to deliver this building
on time to deliver a promised amenity, a great amenity to the city of Philadelphia and a great
tenant. Further, I would argue that the design change of removing the covering structure really
has an unintended effect of triggering a technicality in the code here where, you know,
subjecting this subjecting us to the five foot setback which would not otherwise apply under
the current 22 approval as the cases that have come out on a dimensional variance of the dimensional
variances of a lesser moment than a use variance in terms of the quantum of proof that needs to
be presented what that and the zoning code traces and is in lockstep with the line of cases that
come out since the hertzberg decision in 1998 and i'll read you section 3038 e
sub uh point three from the code which provides that to find an unnecessary hardship in the case
of a dimensional variance the zoning board may consider the economic detriment to the applicant
if the variance is denied the financial burden created by any work necessary to bring the
building into strict compliance with the zoning requirements and the characteristics of the
surrounding neighborhood and the cases as you'll see in the memo go on to say that as i mentioned
that the grant of a dimensional variance is of a lesser moment, then a use variance in the quantum
of proof that is required to establish a necessary hardship is indeed lesser when a dimensional
variance as opposed to a use variance is involved. So I would argue to the board that this is exactly
So I would argue to the board that this is exactly why Hertzberg and Section 14303 AD exists, this type of a situation.
why Hertzberg and section 14303 AD.
Just briefly to wrap up here, I would argue to the board that all the other remaining criteria that are necessary for the granted dimensional variance are met here.
This is the minimum variance and represents the least modification possible.
Again, what we're asking for is to maintain the railings and the location they are now because of what was approved in 2022.
um we believe that this application remains harmonious with the comprehensive plan this
is going to remain a deck that's accessory to a professional office building this is not a bar
this is not a restaurant this is not a hotel where i could otherwise see some some a different
analysis of reducing a setback for railings um the resulting 403 square feet of occupiable area
will be absorbed in line with the board's unanimous decision to approve the accessory
roof deck of the office building and i incorporate those use arguments now sensitive to the board's
time um i we would argue that the granting the request of relief here would have no adverse
impacts the contrary i i you know about on the other hand i would argue that allowing the best
use of the open air roof deck will contribute to good health social excuse me social interaction
of the employees and the guests of the office buildings um there's no adverse impact to public
streets or the public facilities there is no relief that the relief will not injure uh the
use of adjacent properties of note what i as i mentioned earlier the setbacks will be maintained
the long setbacks will be maintained along our western side where our residential uses are
and the slow parapet will act as an additional safeguard as well
mr chairman i have three witnesses they are all here would the board prefer to swear them in at
one time or would you prefer to swear them in at one by one why don't we swear them in at one time
and then they can testify and that's fine right so i want to could we stand up and maybe speak
into the mic everybody identify themselves please and spell your name for the stenographer
kristin sage k-r-i-s-t-i-n-s-e-a-g-e mustantex okay thank you sir
brandon siegel b-r-a-n-d-o-n s-e-g-a-l managing director of heinz philadelphia and the president
of NAOP, Philadelphia Greater Chapter. Thank you.
Good afternoon.
Wale Mabogunje. First name, Wale.
W-A-L-E. Last name, M as in
Mary. A as in Albert. B as in
Boy. O as in Orange.
G as in Gun. U as in
Umbrella. N as in Nancy. J as in
Juice. E as in Egg.
Vice President of Real Estate at Parkway
Corporation. Thank you.
Do you all swear and affirm to
tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Why don't you start your presentation?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Wally, why don't you sit here first?
Wally, you've already given your current title to the board.
You're here as a fact witness, and we will be brief, but could you briefly just describe
your professional background?
Yes, I am a real estate professional, started my career in Philadelphia 26 years ago, and
had had the privilege of working on notable projects such as Lincoln Financial Field,
Barnes Museum, Morgan Lewis Office Tower, Constitution Center, and a host of others
in various capacities, ranging from a superintendent, cost engineer, and ultimately currently serve
as a real estate executive at Barclay Corporation.
Excuse me, this is the court recorder.
I'll get them to move up.
Yeah, move up a little bit, please.
Or pull the mic to you.
Pull it right back to you.
Perfect.
Pardon me, I'm getting over a cold.
Wale, did you hear the testimony that I offered to the board just now?
Yes, I did.
And would you adopt and affirm that testimony as if you're your own?
Yes, I would.
And specifically, given your years of experience in the industry, with respect to the financial detriment that I cited to the board, did you or did you have prepared under your direction the $1.25 million estimate?
That is correct.
And based off your years of professional experience, do you agree with that estimate?