Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation Special Exception topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board approves special exception to allow partial demolition, facade preservation and new floors at 702 Hamilton Street

5448187 · June 30, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Zoning Hearing Board granted East Penn Properties LP a special exception to demolish portions of the existing Merchants Bank building at 702 Hamilton Street while preserving primary facades and adding floors to create approximately 83,000 square feet of office, retail and restaurant space.

On June 30 the Allentown Zoning Hearing Board approved a special exception under section 660.52(d) of the zoning ordinance allowing East Penn Properties LP (City Center Group as applicant) to demolish parts of the historic building at 702 Hamilton Street while preserving the building’s primary facades on Hamilton and Seventh streets and constructing new floors and additions behind those facades.

Attorney Dennis McCarthy presented the application on behalf of City Center Group/East Penn Properties LP. McCarthy said the applicant seeks relief under Section 660.52(d) (special exception for partial demolition/preservation) to remove an annex and portions of an upper floor, retain and restore street‑facing facades, and add a new third and fourth floor and a full‑footprint fourth floor in place of a small existing attic floor. The project will result in roughly 83,000 square feet of space with first‑floor retail and restaurant space intended to activate the streetscape.

Witnesses included Robert DiLorenzo (director of planning and construction for City Center Group) and Sarah Schuster, principal with Studios Architecture. DiLorenzo described the building’s history (original construction circa 1903, additions in 1969 and later) and testified that the property has been vacant for roughly three years and is presently gutted with utilities turned off and prior asbestos abatement completed. He said existing mechanicals and interior layouts are functionally inefficient for modern office or residential use and that the annex has floor elevations that do not tie into the original building—factors the applicant says make feasible reuse without partial demolition impractical.

DiLorenzo described the proposed project: retention of primary facades on Hamilton and Seventh streets (with replacement windows in existing openings), removal of the annex and parapet elements that limit light to the new third floor, and additions to yield about 17,000‑square‑foot floor plates and approximately 13,000 square feet of ground‑floor retail and restaurant space, including a roughly 5,000‑square‑foot corner restaurant and multiple street‑facing entrances.

Schuster testified the design approach preserves original window proportions and facade character while adding a complementary new volume behind the historic face. She said removing the parapet enables larger, usable third‑floor windows and that the proposed treatment would be a “net positive” to the streetscape, improving activation along Seventh and Hamilton.

DiLorenzo told the board the project represents a roughly $33 million investment (about $27 million construction hard costs), that demolition work would be submitted imminently with planned demolition in August and foundation work in the fall, and an anticipated opening target of January in the applicant’s project schedule. The applicant estimated about 165 construction‑period jobs and roughly 321 permanent jobs once the building is occupied. The applicant also noted planning commission review scheduled the week after the hearing.

Board members discussed the three statutory prongs the applicant emphasized: (1) infeasibility of reasonable reuse of the existing building, (2) substantial public benefit from the redevelopment, and (3) whether the new design would be a net positive to the streetscape. After deliberation board members said the applicant had met the required conditions for a special exception, noting the building had been vacant for years, that the proposed uses would increase street activation and job creation, and that the design better integrates the historic facade than the previously approved 16‑story scheme. A motion to grant the special exception was made and seconded; the board voted in favor and admitted the applicant’s exhibits into the record.