Okay, we're gonna call this meeting of the City of Allentown Planning Commission to order.

Thank you all for attending.

The first item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes of the April 14th meeting.

Anyone have any comments, corrections, or additions to the minutes?

No.

All right, those are stand approved as written.

And we'll head right into our first land development item two on the agenda 51 North Front Street RS residences.

And before we get started, I need to recuse myself from this item on the agenda.

Okay, thanks, Leslie.

Umsa, you're going to give us uh intro, please.

Okay.

Uh so this project was first heard by the planning commission on March 10th, 2026 and tabled to allow the applicant to make revisions based on comments from the commission and staff.

Um, and then I'm just gonna go over briefly the revisions.

Um, so this is a major land development in which applicant proposes to construct a seven-story mixed-use building with 210 dwelling units.

There were slight changes to the mix of the dwelling units that were proposed.

Um so now they're proposing 43 studios, 115 one bedrooms, 47 two bedrooms, and five three bedrooms, which is just pretty much a few swaps of um mostly the studios and one bedrooms.

Um, 271 interior parking spaces are proposed, which was reduced from 286, but it still exceeds the required amount.

The floor plans were updated to provide an improved parking layout and improved traffic flow with only two nodes of parking having one access point.

Additional information was provided as requested, including a lighting plan, off-street loading and loading space, and bike racks and storage.

The facade of the south elevation was revised, including a more active and interesting facade on the first two stories with windows along the first floor.

The project site falls within the TNDO, and uh we have the following comments.

The revised um renderings show a flat roof with a cornice.

Staff finds the roof to be appropriate.

The revised renderings show a majority of the facade to be stone veneer, artist and siding, architectural panels, and thin brick.

Staff is not opposed to the building materials.

The renderings no longer show the decorative metal paneling that has a facade material that had been proposed to screen the parking garage.

Staff suggests the commission inquire as to what material is replaced in the paneling, if any, and how that will affect screening to prevent headlight glare onto adjoining properties and riverside drive and front street.

The first floor of the south elevation has been updated to include windows that look like an active frontage.

Some variability was added to the building facade with changes in the building height, projections and recesses were not added, but the changes in color at the balconies do give that appearance.

So overall for all the riverside projects.

Um, there were just a couple changes with um vision 2030.

We just added um that we were we would request that they add additional landscaping.

Um for the Lehigh River Master plan, there were no additional comments.

For Allentown works, there were no additional comments for the housing plan.

Staff suggests that the commission inquire if the applicant will be willing to set aside a portion of the units for affordable housing up to 80% AMI.

Um for safe streets for all plan at the time of this report.

And those should be discussed with the commission.

Uh for the citywide bike plan, the revised plans show bike racks have been added outside for the convenience customers, visitors, and tenants, and long-term indoor bike storage has been provided.

For the park plans, there are no additional comments for the first excuse me.

First and six port plan, there is no additional comments.

So for recommendations, we had the overall recommendations for all the riverside drive plans and then um project specific plan um recommendations.

So for the overall, I'm just gonna read the entire section there.

In conclusion, staff suggests that the commission inquire about the applicant's coordination with the cohesion network and the riverfront civic association, as well as the affordability of the proposed apartments.

Staff further recommends that the applicant engage with community groups as retail spaces are programmed and consider neighborhood needs, including access to food options, child care, high generating employment uses, and to coordinate with the Allentown School District on additional school demands.

Consideration should be given to the design of Worth Street for a future connection to the waterfront.

The applicant is also encouraged to incorporate energy saving strategies, bird-friendly window designs, add additional landscaping, include native plants and landscaping, to consider building above the elevation of the floodplain and that outdoor containers and amenities be anchored and enclosed, and to include enhancing the streetscape with benches, trash receptacles, and pedestrian scale lighting.

Staff recommends that the applicant work with the city to explore on-street parking along Riverside Drive, evaluate the possibility of allowing public parking in the proposed garages, and implement improvements identified in the traffic study.

The applicant should also coordinate with the parks department on park-related needs and coordinate with Lanta prior to final approval of the plans.

And then for um project specific recommendations, staff suggests the commission inquire as to what material material is placing.

The decorative screening panels, if any, and how that will affect screening to prevent headlight clear onto adjacent proper properties and riverside drive and front street.

Additionally, staff recommends the applicant provide a trail connection to the existing trail, the rear of the American On-Wheels property to collaborate with them to extend the mixed-use trail along their frontage to the corner of Hamilton Street, and to work with PPL for any and all proposed improvements to PPL own property and any required easements be acquired.

Since the applicant's comment response letter only addresses the technical city comment letter, staff requests that the applicant adjust the planning commission's March 2026 feedback, including clarifying the overall vision for Riverside Drive and waterfront development.

What placemaking and/or public art features have been incorporated, how the applicants' project projects relate to one another, how they connect to the community and other assets, and how they align with the Lehigh Riverfront Master Master Plan.

The commission also requested that the applicant elevate the potential widening of Wharf Street.

Oh evaluate, sorry, the additional the potential widening of uh Warf Street and identify visitor short-term parking within the parking debt.

Um staff generally generally supports the proposed development, but is interested in understanding which elements of the overall recommendations, traffic study recommendations, and project specific recommendations can be incorporated into the project prior to approval.

Any recommendation or approval must be conditioned on the applicant appropriate addressing comments in the city comment letter, including but not limited to providing an appropriate trail connection and restriping the roadway in order to provide on-street parking to the satisfaction of the city.

Any approval shall be conditioned upon the building elevations dated April 9th, 2026, as presented at the May 12, 2026 Planning Commission meeting.

Any significant changes to the elevations shall require review and approval by the Allentown Planning Commission.

Thank you.

All right, thanks, Melissa.

Folks.

Hello.

I got it.

There we go.

Thank you.

I know.

You don't have to repeat it.

We are okay.

All right.

So next, please.

Next.

So everybody familiar with the property for the public.

This is a property adjacent to the American World Museum, Rayon de North, and the Riverside Drive intersect.

Next.

Next.

Assistant condition.

This is actually when you come from the American whale.

The side coming out.

The building is going to be on the right side of these of these trees.

Next, please.

Here is an image of going to Warsaw Street.

Eventually, you will you will connect with the waterfront.

Right now, when you go down on Ward Street, you know that it's a gate, so you cannot continue going through you can transpass.

And then adjacent to that gate is what I show there, which is the electrical power company.

Next.

We have a total of 271 parking space.

Again, the ground floor for the ground floor.

We have uh the red area is uh retail area of 4,500 square feet.

Um the retail area, it could be breakdown as as you need it, you know, for especially for for the small small tenants.

This is what we have.

So many proposed doors.

Um we have a JSON who have uh a corridor.

Um somebody can park on the bike, they can come around the building or probably they will be able to come to the service corridor too.

Um again, those on the retail, those are things that we can you know work out in the tenant, but I just you know the feedback that I got was make sure that we have a service corridor on the back, that it could be flexible to to let people to come from the back if we need to.

So again, that's something they need to be finalized.

Um, and then we have the lobby, the main lobby just on the corner of the building.

We have a more sitting area because we want to to create um, you know, people to stay and make sure that the neighborhood feels safer.

Next.

This is the second floor uh parking garage, 92 spaces, and we made some changes on the modification, how you uh going around the garage.

We eliminate the dead ends that we used to have, and then also we are proposing the tenant storage that we need for the small units.

Nice.

The third floor is the uh the again all residential.

We have outdoor amenities on the upper floor, and we have uh an amenity space, and then we do have uh a gym space on that floor.

Um it's total of 43 studios, 151 bedroom units, 47 two-bedroom units, five uh bedroom units.

Nice.

Um this is uh the green roof area that we have, and also the mechanical units.

We keep the mechanical units away from the building so you cannot see it.

Um this is the typical floor plan.

We have the studios, the studios, the way that we lay out, they actually feel like a one-bedroom apartment.

We keep the kitchen on the back, and then the the bottom area is all open, plenty of of natural lighting, and then we have again the other prototype studio too.

Next, those are the one bedroom apartments, typical one bedroom.

Um next.

Those other prototype corner ones, corner units, one bedroom units.

Next.

This is all one bedrooms again, too.

This is now we come to the two bedrooms, the corner two bedrooms, wind terraces, which is the one on the left.

Um, the way that we design the unit, filled everybody leaving their own master suite, and then also we have the typical prototype, which is the number two, which is the center is the living area, and then we have a bedroom on the left on the right.

Next, please.

Then this is more of the two bedrooms.

Other prototype of two bedrooms.

Next interior views, we have a lot of natural line in the units.

The units are very simple, very timeless.

Nice, you know, 13 spaces, the 13 feet wide spaces.

Bedrooms too, a lot of natural light.

And then the exterior view, this is uh looking at the building, how you come from the American Wheels.

So this will be the fair facade when you come from Hamilton Street.

This is what you will see as soon as you pass the American on Wheel Museum.

If you were familiar with the building that we have before, it was uh very flat, very modern.

We have a screen on the second floor, and now what we did was we did more of the punch windows.

I feel was appropriate to bring more of the stone beneath on the ground floor, you know, thinking about connection with the river.

If um then the retail spaces, we have uh cement board, the darker plan is the main board.

We create sons of movement so the building doesn't look that horizontal, so we break the building with uh wind terraces.

We're using a lot of cement board to give it more residential filling with the white colors.

Then on the bottom we did break in the corner, a more modern break, but again, a timeless material.

And then I put the building elevations on the back because I don't think people can understand elevation.

So I start with the render, so you know that's more about the building height, the flat elevation, the building is less than 80 feet.

And again, this is the view from the river side, from sorry, from the river.

We're using a lot of panelings, a lot of uh horizontal panels.

They're looking from the American wheel.

This is from Riverside Drive.

All right, thank you, Carlos.

No, thank you guys.

Um so I guess there was one item that came up a couple of times.

The with regard to screening the parking, parking levels from outside.

What have you changed that to from what it was before?

Yeah, so before it used to be a long screen, so you will have issues when glare, the building looks more contemporary.

So now we put punch windows, and actually the punch windows are three feet over the the definition floor of the garage.

So you will be able to control glare.

If we need to, we can always have additional the bar on put a bar on screen.

Um perforate panel if we need to, but I feel that just having a regular window on the garage level, it will you know it will it will help the issue.

And with this definitely reduce the amount of screening, it was like all the garage is open, now the garage got close to meet the ventilation requirements.

What's the material in the window opening?

Is it the screen stuff?

So the window opening is just an open grid with no glass, so we you have put a grid.

So it's nothing, it's just a grid, it's a fold window.

You feel it's a window but doesn't have the screen.

Right.

Um but again, if if it's something when glared, we can always put a solid panel on the bottom or perforated panel so it doesn't look as solid.

Right.

But typically we just it's a fog window, it looks like um I'll I'll glad to put in my colleagues.

I seem to always take the first pass.

If somebody else wants to start the time this time, and I'll I'll catch up at the end.

Sure.

Thank you, Chris.

Um Carlos, thank you.

Great job.

Uh really appreciate the updated renderings, they look great.

Um my questions are more engineering based.

So um uh a couple of of questions I have um regarding the the city uh staff comment uh report.

Um there's a couple comments regarding the the traffic impact study that was provided.

Um and I did want to touch base and see um because as a part of this project, um, was there any proposal to uh restripe the Riverside Drive portion of the frontage with this or the other projects along the corridor?

Yes, it was part of that.

Okay.

That's correct.

Sorry, I'm gonna look back.

Yeah.

So you'll make sure this I'm putting my engineer hat right now and architect.

Let's go.

Let's try.

Um another question I had was regarding the uh proposed trail connections, um, the interface of that.

Um, was that able to be incorporated as part of this?

It you show an image.

Uh not in my presentation, the previous presentation was an image.

They actually show my building and show how I did how I took that in consideration.

It wasn't my it was one of the previous presentation images.

If we can go back, we can see it like how actually works.

So the way that we design the building, it allows us to continue to continue that trail.

So it took in consideration.

The only thing is we don't own that, so we could not say in today we add it.

Right.

But definitely it's interesting because I know I'm gonna say that, but the image came out and like, oh wow, they can actually have the proof there that it showed the the the we create that buffer to continue that.

Gotcha.

And my last question, which I'm gonna probably ask either Joe or David on this one.

Um for the TIS study, um, was the Jordan Drive front street intersection included with the intersections for that study.

I would have to look again.

I don't believe it was, but it may have been.

Okay.

But it's as far as it goes.

I know that um the in general that we didn't see any issues with their proposed levels of service at the studied intersections, so I'm assuming it was and it wasn't an issue, but I can double check here.

Okay.

That that'd be my only concern just with all the projects combined.

I know there's currently some issues with queuing due to the lack of you know the turn uh lanes for left turns at the intersection and the delay timing.

Um yeah, more of a not so much related to this specific project concern, but something that I think would just need to be looked at if it hasn't already been.

Um otherwise, that's the only big comments I had.

I know I'm not the design expert, so it all looks good to me.

Um, so I I appreciate the project and uh wish you the best on it.

Thank you, thank you.

One thing on the on the traffic, actually, in that intersection right there, is actually that's the best of more of the wider area.

So personally, I don't see that building being an issue.

You know, just if we focus on this project, not talking about the whole master plan, but actually when you drive, it feels good.

I really like to get off in a nice, nice row and just come straight to your property through your building, which is what happened when uh Airport Road, you know, now Airport Road coming all the way here, American Pat away, you just really give that feeling to to this portion of the scientist and the wow, everything is nice until you connect to the river.

So it's the same feeling from this side.

That's what I meant.

Okay.

Um I was interested in some of the like more commercial spaces down there and the flexibility that you're looking to offer, um, especially as it relates to the parking spaces.

Um what's what's kind of your vision for like increasing dwell time down there?

Like what kind of retail are you looking to attract there?

So we all want a coffee shop.

You know, that's that's really what you know, number one.

Um, you know, my my vision, I feel businesses too, you know, people working there, people living in the building.

You can rent that 600 or a thousand square feet, and I think give you that flexibility because um it's always when you have ten and it's always difficult to, you know, somebody open a restaurant where it's no people yet, you know.

So at the beginning, until things catch up, you can probably start win businesses, a small coffee shop, you know, that doesn't need a hood and all the things that are restaurant need.

So the vision is that half a small coffee shop, um, and see what the market is, but the assumption is probably will be some small businesses.

Gotcha.

So some like third space and retail spaces is kind of what you're thinking.

Correct, correct.

And we did not specify yet, so that's something that we have to come back to zoning if we change the use of sense.

Yeah, all right.

And as that relates to the parking, as you've like redone the parking, um, just how many spaces are you envisioning for like that kind of in and out traffic?

I I think you mean for the retail or for the I at least we can have 10 10 parking spaces down there.

Yeah, at least.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um overall, my uh my my major concern and the last presentation was the arch architectural aesthetic.

And you've you've achieved that now with your undulations, you accentuated the porches and things and really created these volumes.

So I think it's very successful now.

So thank you for that.

Um my next question was uh the the parking inside the structure for pedestrians generally.

Maybe they're you know using the shops or or maybe they're going through a festival that might happen down there.

Are people allowed to park in there that don't live there?

We want to have some open to the public.

So typically after you go over the ramp, then you know it will be for the residents of the bay the basement.

But I will right now, if I at least we have 10 parking spaces on on the on the ground floor.

Okay.

Um yeah, um people don't get really like parking, you know, people just can park anywhere if you are a resident.

But that's that's how I see it.

Um yeah, um, yeah.

Okay.

And that larger triangular space in the front there, that's all gonna be uh filled in with vegetation, I'm assuming.

So we would love to have a nice landscape, but that was one of the things that we could not show because we just don't own that triangle.

Okay.

That's the city triangle.

Okay.

But it will definitely will be nice, you know, that it's an opportunity to create something, something something there.

Yeah.

The only thing I would recommend as far as the architectural part is maybe some more vibrant colors, but that's entirely to you guys simply because it's sort of a gateway project.

But that would just be my preference, I suppose.

Um the other up the the other uh element was Wharf Street and how that connects, but that's already been spoken to.

So other than that, I think it's a great project.

Thank you for the feedback as always.

Um I had one more just about the um affordable housing uh percentage.

Have you guys given any consideration to that?

No, no, no at the moment.

We we definitely did allow now we change the formula so we put allow studios so there will be more obtainable, it will be more um uh a lower price, um affordable at the moment.

All right.

Um Carlos, let's talk about the the parking again.

Um I guess I'm I'm just I'm still not convinced about the practicality of it for the retail and and it concerns me because until the other project, which you know, I think also has similar issues, but it's a lot more retail, and I assume a lot more dedicated, potentially dedicated parking um next door.

But let's say this building goes first and we've got this you know, sort of lone retail space that's trying to get by.

Um the I see the corridor in the back, but I'm um I'm not thinking that that's is that necessarily a customer.

There's a very sort of deliberate, you know, sort of flow from the interior parking to commercial spaces.

And I think that's what helps keep those places viable.

So the way it is now, you gotta walk to very opposite ends of the of the garage to get into a corridor that then just takes you to another door outside the the sort of short end of the building.

So I'm just wondering if there's not a missed opportunity to truly try and support that resident or that retail component and get them sort of more directed in the case.

So that's something that's a that's a good observation.

That's a good observation.

So yeah, you don't necessarily have to go inside the corridor to get on the suite.

You just eliminate the corridor or just do a partial corridor, but just eliminate all, and now you create something.

You can have a signage of the retail, you can have uh so that that's something that they could work.

Yeah, I mean you so by your you know, without without a specified retail operation, your the underlying zoning is requires 23 parking spaces, which is pretty much that that row there behind the retail mechanical room and lobby.

You know, and I think if if there's some way that that that is sort of that's your delineated retail parking.

I guess what I'm concerned about, and and I'm and first of all, I fully support this on street parking conversion for this project and and all the projects and just better use of Riverside Drive in general.

I think, you know, people that just want to get out and walk the dogs or whatever, you know, that's gonna be huge.

Um one of the things that I'm concerned about is you know, America on Wheels parking lot getting sort of used instead, you know, for your project or something else, um, you know, as more and more things come online down here, and and exposure is a good thing.

We want people to come down and and use everything, but um I'm thinking of you know the convenience of well, I'll just slip into America on Wheels parking lot and I'll run into the retail, and maybe that's okay.

I I don't know.

But um, you know, those are the things that that go through my mind.

I I think that's a good one.

And I will talk to the thing about it, but I I really I think that's a very good, very good um observation because again, even if I eliminate a corridor, so give me that safety path to people to go, you go straight to the retail, you go straight to the lobby, you go straight to the amenities.

So it's uh it's a win-win for everybody.

Yeah, I think so.

And um, you know, I I understand it's outside of the property line, but I really think, and I'm not sure where this recommendation goes or how we get there, but um the biggest missed opportunity is that frontage space, you know, the the utility triangle, I'll call it, because there's everything possible underground in there and or overhead or wherever, but um, you know, the dinky little five-foot walkway, you know, sort of randomly connecting to the intersection crosswalk pad.

I mean, it's just you might as well not show it because it just doesn't, you know, it doesn't look like it's you know really got any thought put into it.

But I think it's huge opportunity for something appropriate to happen there that's gonna only enhance this project and the riverside drive presentation, if you will, you know.

I keep thinking I keep looking at the you know that that one rendering from the I guess it's from the south, you know, or from you know, sort of the American wheels that that the one before.

That one right there.

Yeah.

You know, the thing that this project is missing, and I know we're not getting back to that, is you know, there is no real outdoor space.

There's no grand pla.

I mean, that should be a grand plaza, you know, with a fountain or something, not a parking lot, but that is like your that's your welcome shot.

It's your lobby, it's everything, but you know, there's nothing but a a walkway outside the door.

But um, since we can't have that, you know, what do we have to do to work together to try and make something meaningful out of this area in front of the building?

Um and I realize it's really sort of not so much a maybe a direct connection to the project, other than a you know, a commitment or a willingness to want to do something that's that's mutually beneficial.

Um it just seems like sort of just drawing a line literally and saying, all right, this is all we can do because I gotta go ahead from the developer that yeah, we will work with the city uh and we will come out together.

Um it just seems like sort of just drawing a line literally and saying, all right, this is all we can do because um I just I gotta go ahead from the developer the that yeah we will work with the city uh and we will come out together and we did in the past the same thing we're doing when the when the when the park right adjacent to the brewery right we are working together so definitely um yeah that's a that's a good observation yeah um can someone just clarify for me this this concern this concern about the the trailway the connection I mean the so the the the walk does follow the curb line essentially and then it connects to the existing sidewalk that's the frontage of American or America on Wheels.

Um are we talking about some other was there some Warfare Street?

It was Wharf Street or was it or was it on the south side of this property that it was intended to be?

Can we go back to the other presentation?

The one the I would have to read.

Do you have okay?

The last meeting.

No, no, no, no, it's just the one that you just show before these ones.

The staff report?

The staff report, yeah.

Let me show you.

Yeah, right.

You can actually see how the pad just go on a stop.

You see just come on the corner but then stop and become a sidewalk.

Right, but I is I mean, I okay, so I guess my question is that is that what is that what the comments are referring to in the report?

Or is it something that has to do with in the back here that there was some sort of so the desire.

Yeah, if you look, um if you look as he had indicated there, the the bikeway stops almost immediately in front of his property.

Right there, and then it turns into sidewalk.

And so while somebody could bike on that sidewalk, um the idea is to create a trail extension that goes to the point of Hamilton Street and Front Street.

So at the corner, you can't see that on the slide.

So there's a couple of different ways you can make that happen, either by working with American Island Wheels and creating some sort of a uh a trail continuation on America on Wheels, or um extending the pathway back through the rear of the property to connect to any existing trails.

So that's the goal is to ensure that the trail just doesn't stop right there at that property.

Yeah, okay.

Thank you.

I I I I wasn't sure because I look at it and I say it's connected now, so I'm not I guess I'm missing you know, it's dissimilar materials, uh I get that, but um it's pretty generous sidewalk, as I seem to recall.

Yeah, right.

Um I thought for some reason it had something to do with connections to the back and and a prior consideration that we were trying to uphold.

I I feel you're right.

That was a story back on the day.

They I I feel that I saw that they go behind American on Wheels and connect down to Etland.

Right.

So that's that's that's uh rendezvous that you go through America on Wheels back there, yeah.

Um so you know, so I guess this project, you know, has gotten in before our our park and recreation contributions, but um there's there's discussion in our report and and comments from the parks department about you know some needs in the vicinity, and when we talked about the fact that you know there is no outdoor space, you know, you guys you guys referred to well Bucky Boyle Park is is gonna be the park for all of these projects.

Um there was some improvements that were noted um that that are needed, I should say, that were noted by the parks department.

Do you guys have any interest in participating in those improvements or contributing to to those in lieu of I know again it's it's before the passage of the ordinance, but in lieu of any sort of on-site open space.

Um you're saying just the voluntary contribution.

Yeah, I mean, so so the so it was it was noted in the in the in the written comment letter.

Um I guess two items in particular.

It was the safety surfacing in the playground, and then it was the conditions or reconditioning of the ball fields.

Um both require you know either resources or effort to achieve, and uh I guess I'm just bringing it up as as a discussion here with you guys today as to whether you're interested in providing either resources or effort to I think they're great ideas.

Uh we have uh projects coming later down the line that are under the current zoning ordinance.

I think that'll be an opportunity to be able to get some uh open space contribution funds to do these these upgraded improvements, just not related to this project in particular.

Uh okay, um fair enough.

I guess it it so it does show up in the comment letters and the recommendations of staff.

So I think if we were to I guess we could just allow that to get worked out um down the line.

Um is there anything in the staff or comment letter or staff report that you guys object to or would like to go on record as not agreeing to comply or able to comply?

Uh yeah, so the all the traffic recommendations we're fine with.

Uh I would just say the triangle across the street.

I don't want to make this contingent upon that, although we're definitely open to discussions.

I just there's like too many variables and we don't own the property.

But uh, you know, obviously we're open to discussions, and I think it's a great improvement for the neighborhood.

I just don't want to tie the project to it just because it's a property we don't under control.

Uh and then for the um the DNL trail, I think it's uh a great idea.

Like Carlos said, outside of uh where our our property line is, but I think it would be a great idea for the extension.

There's also representative AOW here, and these things to be amenable to extending it on AOW's property.

I think the easiest way to do it would just be the one that went down um trick.

That would be I agree, uh huge uh benefit to the neighborhood.

So anything we can do to help open more than all if I can clarify one question um with the triangular shaped area, because we've had a couple um mentions of that.

There's two triangular shaped pieces of property.

There's the one that's across the street, but then I think some of the comments were actually related to the triangular piece of right-away immediately in front of your property.

Is that correct?

My comments are immediately in front.

Okay.

So John, if that c clarifies that, that would be public right-of-way, which we could work with you then on planting if if that if you're agreeable to it within that right-of-way, and you could just come back and show revised plans with something in that area.

Um isn't that a BMP though?

That existing triangular piece.

Yeah, so with the Riverside Drive project, they one of the best managed practices to manage storm water was landscape restoration.

So that's a landscape restoration area.

Uh the city's responsible for that.

Being said, there's certainly plantings that could be planted within a landscape restoration area that could beautify the area as opposed to just the meadowslash lawn that it's designed as now.

Um, and if there were any other improvements desired to that area, there's not there's nothing saying we couldn't change the BMP if there was another offsetting BMP provided, which I don't necessarily think would be a big issue.

We just need to coordinate with the consummation district to see what they would accept.

Um if it's just an incremental increase in volume that you would manage on your site or something like that.

I think that'd be well within the ability to be coordinated.

And David, you're you're talking about the the pieces on the project.

On the front edge, yep.

Yeah, I you know, quite honestly, I don't care how we get there, but I think it's just it it it's uh without a doubt it has to happen.

Something has to happen.

Um, or it's just like what are we doing here?

Um what yeah, I agree.

I think that there's there's there's definitely a way um to adapt it, make it just as um as meaningful as it was intended to be for stormwater and still be a an appropriate public open space um that I think would benefit the retail and the residents um and everyone who uses Riverside Drive for that matter.

Um but yeah.

I I think the only thing is that it's not our property.

There's the only reason I don't want to tie it to this product in particular, but we're definitely open to conversation and we think it'd be a very benefit of the neighborhood.

So we'll you know I have to hand them out of the city if we have no problem to do additional landscape and I just don't like the tie improvements outside of my property lines to the specific uh application, but we're more than open for some type of side of room for the city to be landscape uh really for the overall area.

I mean, we could explore the the details as we get further along, but I think it is quite typical to do improvements within the public right-away as part of the public improvements, um, revisions to the plan and and financially insured with the project.

So if that's agreeable, then with the next submission, just uh introduce something in that area, which I believe, and I'd have to pull up your plans, but I I think that area is shown on your plans, so it wouldn't require anything else additional and um once there's striping as well.

So there's other changes to the right-of-way that will already be occurring.

Okay, sounds fair.

Okay.

Um so then, yeah, I think we we agree with the DNL uh trail being excluded.

You said you're okay with the other traffic requirements.

Um I think that I think that kind of brings it to a head here.

Excluded, right?

Exclude from connect can as and connected to this project the the work along America on Wheels.

Well, I think we need to exclude it from that.

I think it should be a condition should evaluate as feasible to keep it vague.

That way it's not binding, but still it should be explored as much as possible.

I would agree with that, great.

Okay.

So can I just make sure I've got the conditions here?

Um since we're kind of doing a combination of things.

So the staff report, so the comment says um the city comment letter.

Um, the uh trail connection um to to evaluate the trail connection as feasible, um, restrict the roadway in order to provide on street parking.

Uh we have um just uh touch uh coordinate with Lanta prior to approval of the plans um subject to the building building elevations that are uh shown today um and uh dated April 9th, shown today, and also evaluate the intersection of Jordan Street as part of the traffic study.

Identification of parking dedicated to the public, and for that one is just on the actual parking garage, so any ground floor um parking dedicated to the public and revise the plan to show additional planting in the triangular shaped area in front of the property to enhance the streetscape as well as address storm water.

So those are the conditions that I have written down based on this discussion.

Um are those all in agreement?

Yeah, we're gonna do that.

We're gonna need to then is there something specific at Jordan, Craig.

I I think if just to make sure it was clewed in the TIS and if there was any potential um mitigations that were recommended.

Okay, it was not included in the TIS.

Then I I think it should be evaluated as part of a revised TIS.

Okay.

All right.

Well, I think um I think Jennifer just recited what could be the uh basis for a motion.

Somebody's so inclined.

Is there any public comment?

Oh good question, Craig.

Anyone in the audience wish to uh make any comments about this application or online?

Okay.

I I'd make a motion to to grant uh conditional a preliminary final approval of this project, subject to the conditions that Jennifer has listed.

I'll second.

All right, motion and second.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye, any opposed?

All right, guys.

Thank you very much.

Thank you everybody, have a good day.

Appreciate it.

Okay.

Uh let's see, where do we go from here?

Item number three on the agenda is 246 Lehigh Street, little Lehigh phase two.

Let's say you can kick us off, please.

Uh, this project proposes a subdivision of the property into two lots and the construction of two affordable housing multifamily apartment buildings, a parking lot, and other site improvements on one of those proposed lots.

The property is located in the GXC residential office mixed corridors zone.

The zoning classification allows the proposed development of a multifamily apartment of multifamily apartment buildings.

Access to the site will be from Lawrence Court.

A community room and 35 dwelling units are proposed with four one bedroom, 10 two bedrooms, 17 three bedroom, four, four bedrooms.

Twenty-seven parking spaces are proposed, which meet the requirements when accounting for affordable housing parking reduction.

After receiving initial staff comments, the applicants provided revised renderings, which will be formally submitted with the next resubmission.

The southeast walls of the southern building have large, a large blank retaining wall areas.

Staff suggest the applicant add some design feature, including but not limited to building signage to be attached to the east wall and additional landscaping to be added to buffer and minimize the appearance of blank walls, if that is acceptable to zoning.

Staff also notes the minor subdivision has not been submitted through the portal to date and should be submitted at the time of resubmission of the land development.

So for the comp plan.

Vision 2030 recognizes Center Allentown as the heart of the city where neighborhoods, entrepreneurs, small businesses, and the community thrive alongside one another and to be a safe and vibrant area to live close to services and walkable streets that give mobility choices.

The property is close to a high impact transit corridor.

Allentown Vision 2030 envisions a future for the city that is sustainable, vibrant, and resilient.

Some ways this project can help to achieve those goals is to include use native plantings and landscaping and include energy saving strategies within the project and to maximize energy efficiency.

Staff would also encourage additional landscaping, be added to absorb additional water stormwater runoff as suggested by the AEAC.

For the housing plan, the city aims to preserve affordable housing, increase the affordable housing stock, and assist low and moderate income households, find housing stability.

The addition of how affordable housing units will help mitigate displacement and move Allentown closer to a healthy vacancy rate.

Staff suggests the commission confirm an inquire as to the percentage of AMI these apartments will be offered to ensure the project is meeting the minimum 80% AMI threshold to utilize affordable housing incentives.

For safe streets for all.

Proposes traffic signal and signage improvements at the intersection of Lehigh Street and Union Street.

Improvements were already completed at the intersection of Lehigh Street and Martin Luther King Junior Drive in 2024.

Comments from Lanta state that bus stops currently exist at the intersection of Lehigh and Martin Luther King Drive, and new stops are proposed at Lehigh Street and Union Streets.

For the citywide bike plan, the goal of the bike plan is to ensure that infrastructure investments promote safety, equity, multi-modable, multimodal transportation, and sustainable urban development for all members of the community.

This project is within close proximity to the MLK Drive Trail and several proposed on and off-road routes.

Staff notes that bike racks and long-term bike storage are shown on the plans.

The Allentown Parks Plan is a comprehensive strategy to conserve and improve the city's recreation, open space, and parks.

This project is in close proximity to several parks, including Fountain Park, Jackson Street Park, and Wire Mill Meadow.

The recently completed master plan for Fountain Park proposes to construct a community recreation center and pavilion with restrooms, make various improvements, repairs, and updates, and to extend the MLK drive trail.

The individuals and families residing in the proposed apartments will benefit from the amenities these parks have to offer.

Since the apartments proposed with this project are to be restricted to occupancy by households already no more than 80% AMI, the applicants may request that the planning commission waive the parkland dedication requirements.

So for staff recommendation, uh staff is in support of the proposed development.

Staff recommends the commission inquire as to the affordability of the apartments to ensure the project is meeting the minimum 80% AMI threshold to utilize affordable housing incentives.

The applicant is also encouraged to incorporate energy staying strategies, add additional landscaping, and include native plantings and landscaping.

Staff suggests the applicant work with staff to minimize the blank walls on the southeast walls and walls of the building.

Finally, any recommendation of approval must be conditioned on the applicant receiving zoning hearing board approval for any required variances, submitting a minor subdivision application and appropriately addressing comments in the city climate letter.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mosa.

Representative from the applicant available.

Hello, everybody.

My name is Chris Royce.

I'm with TM Associates.

We're the civil engineer on this project.

So I can talk a little bit more about this project and go into some details.

And then also with us, we have Fon from the architect's office.

We have Julio from Allentown Housing Authority.

And they can answer any questions when we get to that point as well.

So first, um, some history on this project.

This is phase two of the project, and phase one was just you know recently completed within the last few years where Lawrence Court was uh built, and then there's a town homes that were part of phase one.

Um so the area of this project was used as a staging area then.

It included it had it had building a building on there originally that was been removed as part of this project.

Some of the demo includes removing another building that's vacant, not being used right now.

Um it's identified on the on that photo right there.

So there will be another building removed.

Um and then that site there is currently vegetated with just grass, it was stabilized after the last project.

Um we're proposing uh 35 new units within two buildings.

So there are two L-shaped buildings with like a central courtyard where the parking will be, and um along Lehigh Street, they're along plan east, um, you know, two of the elbows or you know, from the from the L-shaped buildings or along Lehigh Street with a access between those where you can have a sidewalk where you can go from the inside courtyard to Lehigh Street.

There'll be sidewalk there and also be used as an emergency vehicles if it's you know, hopefully never needed, but it is there in case just as a secondary access there, and access to the site will be from Lawrence Court with a new driveway, 27 vehicle parking area in between.

Um it's within the GXC residential office mixed corridor zone.

Um there are two separate buildings, like I mentioned a community room proposed in one of the buildings as well.

Um this will be restricted to meet the 80% AMI.

So I know that's a critical thing, especially with parkland dedication and and other objectives.

Um, as was mentioned, the subdivision is proposed.

Um that was submitted with the land development, but it'll be submitted separately as uh you know noted in that report.

Um, as far as layout goes, I think we we touched on that a little bit now, but we are going to have bicycle facilities, both you know, a bike rack for you know temporary, but then also some storage lockers as well for for longer term storage for that.

There's access to public transportation as noted with the with the bus stops.

Um there's a basin, underground storage basin proposed underneath the parking area.

The project will need an MPDS permit.

It's it's gonna actually be part of the initial MPDS permit from phase one.

It's gonna be a modification to that, and that has been submitted to the conservation district and DUP.

So that is going through that review process right now.

Uh public water and sewer facilities are proposed.

Um it also requires to require a pendulum permit for the connection with the sidewalk, the emergency access uh water line connection out into Lehigh Street.

Um, the pendop permit for Lawrence Court that was received for phase one.

We've been in touch with PENDOT Bowman is doing the traffic engineering for this, and they've already got you know uh notes from PEN DOT saying an additional permit for that intersection and is not required because we don't meet the threshold with the with the additional trips.

So additional information will be part of our next submission as well.

Um as far as energy, this will meet enterprise green community, zero energy ready home 2.0, and it will be energy star compliant.

And I have I have Fawn here tonight from the office for the architect who can talk a little bit more about the architecture of the building.

Okay.

Hello everybody.

Hello, everybody.

My name is Fon Fon Wong, and I'm with KMA Design Studio with the architect on this project.

So as stated before, this is a portable housing development with 35 affordable housing units.

We have flat over flat apartments or two-story townhome apartments over one story flat.

Also a mix of uh two to three story townhome units.

Um the architectural style of the building, it's uh very residential neighborhood look with slope pitch roof as well as uh sidings and masonry brick veneer at the base of the building.

Uh this size shows the Lee High facades along Lee High Street, as you can see there are two buildings.

Um the building follows the the facade follows the slope of the the street and the sidewalk.

Um as you can see, um we we're integrated the approved material such as brick veneer as part of the facade that material that's facing facing the high street.

So the percentage of the approved material uh including fiber cement left siding and brick uh veneer meets the minimum 65 percent requirement for for the street facing facade.

Also, the transparency meets the required transparency percentage for the bazaar as well.

Um our buildings have recess area as well as projection area as some of the base and that provides the vertical shadow lines along the street and the rolock brick uh as well as the roof eaves provides the shadow line, horizontal shadow shadow lines along the building facades and to provide some interesting brick to the building roof line.

We have give way and roof along the facade as well.

That's pretty much for the architectural part of if there's any questions, I'll be more than happy to answer.

Thank you.

Yeah, you can you can stay there a sec if you like.

We might as well um I I think the uh architecturally speaking, I think that it's a really interesting design um and I appreciate everything that you've done with it.

I'm I'm curious.

Um I think this is the first intricate facade that we've talked about with our new ordinance.

How did you find the the new ordinance requirements?

Are they typical of what you've seen elsewhere?

Is it is it you know, do you as an architect?

Do you do you appreciate the the percentages of materials and things that are required?

Did you find it to be you know a good thing for this project?

Um yeah, I think it's it we see transparency requirements and um material requirements on other city real zoning ordinance as well.

Um we find the zoning ordinance is easy, mostly easy to understand in terms of the the specific requirement because it listed the percentage and one per 150 feet.

So it's pretty clear.

There's a few questions I think Jennifer helped explained at our call.

Great.

It wasn't a loaded question, I was just curious.

Um I'll let you guys continue.

I have some other comments.

I just did you um did you do the architecture design for the phase one as well?

No, that's under different firm.

Okay, just curious.

Yeah, okay.

Yeah, we did try to uh go, I wouldn't say match, but we go go with the similar style.

Sure.

If you the soap roof is one of them, yeah, and left siding.

So to provide a similar look.

Good.

Thank you.

If I can make a couple comments on the architecture, just because the question was asked to highlight some of the code changes.

We're actually really excited about this project.

It's the first um major residential project under the new code.

So we're very excited that they put it forward that they worked with us to work through a couple of the issues.

We are processing code amendments actually as a result of working with this applicant.

One of the things this is a general building.

Our general buildings previously had flat roofs.

And they said on these lower scale models that sort of mimic these um kind of townhouse styles, the pitched roof makes sense.

So actually, as an additional agenda item, one of the code changes is to allow the pitched roof on general buildings in a lower scale.

So we appreciated that learning experience.

Well, we did add additional flexibility also for affordable housing as part of the package.

We also worked with this applicant to say just focus on the facade of the front street.

So they did that.

Hopefully, they've then come into compliance, which we appreciate.

They also put added some design elements to the front of the two frontage features, which we really appreciate and and like.

And one of the other um pieces that they pointed out based on our code requirements was that the um third story or the final story height was a bit high for a typical construction method.

So again, um we're processing a code amendment then to lower that height of that story to kind of better match construction techniques.

So we're excited about this project.

We appreciate them working with us and being the first ones in the door.

All right.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah, I just have a couple more things, and and Jennifer just uh you know touched on on the main ones was there were two variants requests that we're gonna need as part of this project.

And one was to have the pitched roofs, and the second one was to have um upper story um, you know, the vertical elevation difference on some of the upper stories.

So as she mentioned, those are two things that came up on this project that we will need variances from.

And then there were other other things identified earlier in the process that we were able to accommodate and really work with the city on.

So I think that worked out very well.

Um as far as you know, the review letter that we got from the city, um, it's generally all will complice.

Those are things we've been working on.

Um, we anticipate having a resubmission um within the next week or so.

Um, but there are a couple a couple of things that was touched on earlier with the parkland dedication, as I mentioned, this will be 80% AMI, so I think we'd be looking to have that fee waived as part of this project.

Um and the second thing that we're what we're um trying to really work with is the streetscaping requirements in the ordinance.

Um, because right now we have um there's there's a three-foot grass strip between the curb and the existing five-foot sidewalk, and then there's another uh three feet to the property line, but we have street lighting between the sidewalk and curb, and then there's utility poles and overhead light or overhead electric lines on the back side of the sidewalk.

So those those are things we're trying to work through and trying to come up with a good plan.

And I just wanted to mention that's something we might be looking for, like a partial relief at least, and definitely work with the city on something that um you know will work for everybody, but those are just some of the challenges that were coming up on right now.

Okay, so I think that that kind of summarizes uh you know our proposed project.

So at this point now, you know, we can answer any questions or go into more detail on anything that you'd like.

As I mentioned, we have representatives from you know the housing authority and the developer as well, if there's any questions related to them.

Great.

Okay, thank you.

Somebody want to take the lead on this one?

Go ahead.

Um so looking at the rendering that was up.

Um I was wondering, it looks like there might be main entrance to some of those units on Lehigh Street, which is a heavily trafficked area.

So I just because I take that route home a lot.

So I was just curious, is there another access at the other elevation of the building, or would that be the main entrance for those two that I'm seeing on the rendering there?

The main entrance will actually be on the inside where the parking lot is.

Okay.

So it's part of the general building requirements, we had to have um access along the you know the front of both buildings, but the main access will be from the parking area.

Okay, and those will be you know, other access, but there'll be more secondary access.

Okay.

And along those lines too, there looks like there's a strip of green space in between the buildings.

Um, and I think on the plans it said it was for emergency access.

Is that gonna be like a public green space as well, or is that just primarily going to be utilized for emergency access in between those two buildings?

And it'll be used for pedestrian access between the buildings too.

So it'll be a way for people that are on Lehigh Street can walk to the central area of this of the site.

Okay.

So it will be open, you know, there'll be a sidewalk there for for uh you know pedestrians too.

Okay.

Um I had one other question that I'm curious about because I wasn't a part of the phase one process for this project.

So with phase two coming, um, I was curious, is there a plan like another phase for that northwestern portion of this parcel that's being subdivided where some of the buildings are gonna be um demolished?

I was just more curious if there was a plan for future development for that one as well.

It is planned for future development, um, but I I don't think any of the details are are in you know are in place right now or anything.

So I think that's just something for the future, but yeah, there's no information on that just yet.

Okay, great.

And for um like trash vehicles or plows or deliveries, I'm assuming that they would be accessing those buildings through that private driveway um to get to those buildings, so all of the that type of services would be towards that the rear of the building off of Lehigh Street would be something.

Yeah, so any deliveries in the trash, everything will have to come onto Lawrence Court and then into the site.

And we do have an area for trash rotated at the end of the that main driveway coming up, it's like straight up there.

So there's enough room there for a trash truck to get up there and turn around, and uh but that'll be the access that they come through.

Okay, great.

Um I think that's all that I had right now.

Thank you.

Thanks, Leslie.

Who's next?

Um, I didn't have a whole lot just architecturally.

I think it's very successful because the worst case scenario would be a barracks style in a sense, and I think the way the design sort of undulates in and out.

Um also the the intersecting dormers also are very are very uh very successful architectural moves, so I appreciate that.

Um you shape plan always works out well.

Um so architecturally, I think it's very successful.

Um also are you planning any murals in any of these large retaining walls at all?

Or vegetative murals, anything like that?

Because they're we haven't planned anything right now.

Okay, I'm just curious.

Because the ones that are there right now are very large and intrusive visually at least, so it would be nice to have something on them.

Something okay.

So it's something we can we can look into and discuss.

Yeah.

Thanks, Eric.

I don't have a lot of comments.

I think it's a nice plan.

Um most of my other comments got addressed already.

Um the only thing I guess would just be um a little bit more on the relief you need on the the streetscaping um uh for more towards public works.

What exactly are some of the requirements for that enhanced streetscaping that would need to be installed that aren't currently out there?

Um I mean the the ordinance requires the four-foot planning area and the five foot sidewalk at the minimum, and also has requirements for lighting, benches, other things as applicable if if we want them, or if there's already an existing streetscape in place that they would need to follow.

There's no explicit treescape in place for the high street, so at a minimum it's just the trees and the in the sidewalk, you know, as far as having a three-foot versus a four-foot, you know, frankly, the engineering bureau would defer to change recommission as far as you know appropriate tree lawn space for vegetation, or if they went to the rear of the sidewalk, which I believe it's like on the phase one, I think it's the rear of the sidewalk versus between the curb and sidewalk.

Um so in that regard, I would more be inclined to encourage consistency with the phase one streetscape as opposed to introducing something new.

Right.

Yeah, I would agree with that.

I it rather makes sense to be the same as what phase one would.

So I'll defer to Chris's expertise on trees regarding size on that.

But that's all I I had really on plan.

I think it's great and it'll be a great addition to the community.

Thank you.

I want to just agree and concur with everybody that the way that these buildings are put up are really nice.

Like I think a community at large can kind of get nervous about the barracks style housing or what affordable housing really means.

So I just wanted to recommend or commend you on that in particular.

Um in the broader like market context, um, how are you envisioning like meeting the rent needs or um escalation as we continue to get more units?

Um we want to keep this affordable.

So like what does that look like for your organization as you move forward with the housing authority?

Could you repeat that?

That might not be my.

I'm just interested in the long-term stability and of the rent escalation.

So, like, what does that look like on your end to ensure that they stay affordable and stay as nice as they are as you're building them?

Um I don't know if that's something Julio or Francis would want to.

Yeah, but it's probably housing.

So we're having the bank rate uh most is uh the minimal rent obviously just really hard in charge of projects.

I think the best of is uh we're providing really nice housing.

Phase one is amazing how durable it is also problem.

And I think uh just going to be such a nice bit more uh people drop driver on this all of it.

I'll just volume changes and he just provides a lot of more opportunities for all the things.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

Yeah, yeah, that's helpful.

Um yeah, so um I've got a couple thoughts and and some mixed feelings here.

And first of all, you know, love the project.

I love the fact that this, you know, is the second of you know what looks like three phases of you know, something that was really you know, probably well overdue um, as we all are probably aware.

Um the thing that I think, and this kind of goes with the streetscape um discussion, and I think the only thing that I don't think is successful with this is the deviation from phase one in terms of this setback.

And I understand the new ordinance you know opens up the door for different um configurations, but I can't help but to really have serious concerns about the proximity of what's going to be the rear of these buildings to um to Lehigh Street, and then when we start talking about well, and you know, then we might need a little relief, and then we may not have exactly what we really want.

And you know, I I I understand the economics of of every housing project, and and probably no more ever important than than an affordable housing project.

You know, there's there's definitely certain levers that need to get hit to make these things viable.

But I I look at this and I and it looks to me like there's maybe one too many units that is forcing this thing so close to Lehigh Street.

The renderings look good, but I don't know that they capture the fact that there's what appears to be you know a three to one slope over you know five feet or so in between the building and the sidewalk, and and I know it can be done and and you know, and and under extreme situations, it's it's it happens all the time, but we're starting from scratch, and we're trying to build something that's gonna be here for a long, long time, and it's gonna benefit you know an underserved um portion of our community, and all that's great, but I think to me, we need just a little bit more room on Lehigh Street.

I just feel like this is really really shoehorned in there relative to the the volume of traffic on the street, the steepness of that road, um just have overhead wires in there, so now we're gonna have small trees.

Um there's just a lot going on there that I think we're we're forcing too much.

That's just my opinion, and there's no way for us to you know sort of hold this up, but I'm looking at it really more so for the benefit of the project and the city and not just my my own my own um opinion here.

I do think it is a serious um consideration.

But but when you look at in in a couple of the site plans, you can see where the retaining wall is at phase one, where the you know, the first units that you know, in this case their side fronts on Lehigh Street, but the the differential there is probably 15 feet or so looking at the site triangle at the intersection of Lawrence Court and Lehigh Street, you can kind of use that as a barometer, but um I don't know.

I think um it's a great use of space, you know, the density is is terrific.

I felt like phase one, you know, kind of a little bit more comfortable, but this really sort of achieves a little bit higher density and the smaller footprint.

Um I think it's I think it's everything about it is good.

I'm just a little concerned about the proximity to Lehigh Street.

One of the challenges that we did face was the sidewalk that comes from Union down to Larce Court.

It's not really the sidewalk, there's a Verizon fiber optics line that runs through there.

And we actually met with Verizon on site, and they basically told us you don't want to touch our lines.

So that's we originally were looking at having our building set back a little bit further, but that's that's one reason we pull them slightly further away.

And then even one thing we had to do, even the retaining wall we showed in the plan, we actually had to pull that a little bit further away from the sidewalk, the existing sidewalk.

Um just so we don't interfere with anything with the grid, that's gonna be part of that retaining wall too.

So that was one of the challenges that we were you know we're facing, so kind of kind of drove the design a little bit closer to Lehigh Street.

I I okay, I think I guess I sort of understand that, but um, and I don't see the fiber optic line, but let's say that that is the case, and I'm not disagreeing with that or suggesting that it's not, but what when I looked at this, I thought with the southern the southern bank of buildings, if you dropped one module out of that southern bank of buildings, the northern bank has got room to shift.

So literally you drop one module out of that southern bank and the whole thing could shift west.

And you know, I don't know if if that one module blows the budget or if it couldn't be made up as an upper level somewhere else, but it that just alone seems to be enough to move this whole thing over without tangling the fiber.

And you know, assuming you could pick up an upper level unit somewhere, it just seemed like it would give it a little bit more breathing room on Lehigh Street.

But I don't mean to be the grenade or the flying the ointment here, and honestly, you don't have you could take you could take it and leave it, honestly, because like I said, I think we don't have any reason to hold this up over it.

I'm just expressing what appears to me to be kind of an issue.

Um I may be alone on that, but five feet to the property line, the back of a building.

I know you put some front frontage dressing on it, and I appreciate that.

I really do, but five feet to the property line is really close.

Um I may from a zoning standpoint, even though that's functionally the rear of the property and the configuration that the applicant is proposing, because this would be considered a general building, there's a requirement for frontage on an A Street.

So Lehigh Street is the only defined A Street within the configuration of the applicant's property.

So to be able to put together a buy-right design, there is there is some need to comply, or there's a need to be able to demonstrate a frontage type treatment for the building.

And what the code consistently does does encourage is for street walls to be defined and for and for development to extend pretty close to the public street.

The setback for the front setback would need to be, or the build-to-line more accurately, excuse me, would need to be between five and twenty-five feet.

We're at five feet, so obviously there is 20 feet of room there where it may be massaged, but in terms of the site does have a little bit of an a little bit of an esoteric configuration, but in terms of mechanical compliance with the code and the the community development objectives articulated by the code.

This design does check a number of boxes with that respect, obviously.

Sure.

And and that's why I I you know you know sincerely want to go on record that I recognize that and that this is this is permissible the way it is.

I'm I'm curious and I didn't dig into it my myself but you know relative to something now that's adjacent and looking at the setback from Lee Street even though it's a side you know does our new ordinance take into consideration compatibility with adjoining setbacks from a street you know and does that influence or should that be influencing this project because we now have an existing adjacent condition fellow commissioners am I am I I'll say I I absolutely understand where you're coming from I I think they are a bit close um you know I I'm kind of looking this however kind of on the grand scheme is that if if you take into account the future phase three I almost wonder if that will kind of rectify this issue as well you know if if you kind of match the future phase three setback to the original phase one and it kind of has that almost bulbed out approach I feel like that might soften the appearance a bit obviously it's a little bit hard to tell looking at this in isolation um I I feel like there's a way to future proof it as well kind of once we get to that point.

That's just what what my take is on it.

I just looking at like the renderings of of this and obviously you can't judge the rendering 100% and I don't think it's as offensive as it appears on the site plan.

I I do kind of I agree with you I wish it would have matched what phase one did because I do like the uniform look yeah but it it is hard to say because it is code compliant you know it it's under the new code but I I think that you know looking at phase three in the future there might be opportunities to make that work kind of as a softening that obviously we won't know until we get there in the future to an agree to to an extent I agree maybe if there was more of a vegetative sort of barrier visual barrier that sort of blocks the building a bit more visually maybe but because there's only six trees right now it's some small bushes at the I guess at the south end right so yeah there's not a lot of room to to do that that's one of the one of the big challenges um you know and I think to to you know I know you said you there's nothing solidified for phase three I mean you know I I can't help but to look at this and think geez we should have seen a master plan with phase one just to sort of have some idea what's going on you know and granted the zoning changed and and maybe you know it would not have been uh applicable but I I can't say that I looking at phase one and when we approve that you know would expect you know this drastic of a change in phase two and you know and then what what is phase three going to look like I you know um and I'm sorry I'm not trying to give you guys a hard time you know I I I love the project I I love the applicant I believe in the mission 100% you know and um and I know you know curve balls are never fun when when I'm on the other side of this table so um I I appreciate that and I'm not trying to to make this a big stink here but um I don't know I mean you guys obviously looked at it and you think that it's you think that it's good the way it is right yeah I mean I think it it it means zoning I think we're I mean it is squeezing a lot on this site especially with some of the site constraints and the you know the you know it's a 20 foot drop from the north side to the south side so we're working with that with retaining walls so it is a very tight site uh but trying to meet the needs of the housing authority and the size of the site and I think we did about you know as good as we can do you know but we do agree it's it is a tight site.

Yeah um but we can like we said we can try to come up with a a vegetative plan that will you know try to buffer that a little bit more too um especially with some of those walls and the bare walls it's not going to want to buffer it like I I want to I want to appreciate it I want to enjoy it I just feel like it's it's just um you know if this was a downtown flat you know relatively flat site and all this was hardscape and stuff I feel like that then it sort of feels appropriate but this is sort of you know let's face it we're on the periphery this is suburban you know this is not suburban but it's you know it's it's loosening up and it's feeling a little bit greener and a little bit more open but then I just feel like it's it's it's on top of us here.

But this is sort of, you know, let's face it, we're on the periphery, this is suburban, you know, this is not suburban, but it's you know, it's it's loosening up and it's feeling a little bit greener and a little bit more open, but then I just feel like it's it's it's on top of us here.

Um I'm curious, just one last sort of you know, line of question on this.

You know, if we lost a module, I imagine that that that blows up the economics.

But then I'll ask the architect if we lost a module, can that be, and when I say module, I say one of those bays in plan view.

I don't know if that represents one or two units or whatever, but is there room elsewhere in the design where a unit or two could be made up vertically, or are we maxed out?

Can I start real quick with just to address the economic question and offer further clarification?

I'm uh Francis Barnes, I'm the developer working on behalf of Allen Cont Housing Authority.

The the issue with the unit count, and and unlike a traditional market rate deal is that the level of housing tax credit application.

So we have a you know, our mission, we're we're charged with maximizing the number of affordable housing units, and there's a fairly complicated submission process for the application and the and subsequent award of those credits.

And when we go in for the application at the state, we you know go in with the information that we have at the time and understanding that the zoning code was in flux, and you know, we tried to look at all the parameters with the charge of maximizing the number of units on this site, addressing the grade changes, the horizon line, and all of that.

So to the extent that we're now on the other side of that award, we don't have the flexibility to be able to change the number of units.

It's not necessarily an issue of a rental income or a loss of unit on that side, it's the actual award from from the state that would uh that would trigger a major problem on that side now.

I don't know if there's you know an architectural solution to this concern, but I don't I don't you know that's what I figured, and and that's why I'm I'm just saying, you know, I mean, and I you know I mean I I do it all the time where we're trying to make things fit and and and and and appease all of the you know levers.

Um so that's what I'm just asking.

Yeah, yeah.

Now number of units are locked in, but is is square footage able to be played around with a little bit for the units?

So we have a minimum uh square footage that we have to meet, and the number of breakouts on the uh two, three, and four bedrooms have to remain the same.

Um I don't know where we are.

I I'm gonna suspect that we're pretty close to that minimum number.

I don't think these are designed as you know, exorbitant uh units.

I think are fairly efficient, but I I will yeah, it's meeting the the PHFA Pennsylvania housing agency requirements for the minimum and there's a maximum threshold as well.

So this meeting it, I think the challenge is we don't it's it's walk-up, so each unit has its individual entrances.

We don't have a common share stairwell that you can easily add another unit on top, you pretty much go up if you if there's a two-story unit above a single flat, then that's the maximum three-story, you can't fill with a uh walk off.

Or we're doing town home, that's one unit.

If that's two to three stories, so for the flat, oh a flat, it's just it's not feasible to without a comment snare to add another flat over.

I think that's the challenge.

We try to provide a home, like again individual entrances rather than uh common whatever.

Just in terms of the layout, you know, it's probably not a lot of flexibility to any modifications within that build two line, that 25 foot area on the front edge.

No, I mean this is more called 15 and associates.

I mean, Chris touched on it.

Shifting everything back would be great, but this horizon line that's back behind everything all it's not just a small local line.

We were told when we were out there building phase one, we were told if you hit that line, we're gonna find you a million dollars an hour.

I mean, it's that substantial, it runs all the way down, I think like Maryland and Virginia.

Um, so we're pretty tied in there.

Um you'd like to have a little more room ourselves because it is a challenge with some of the grading and the the plan things, but um you know we twisted and folded this plan um a lot of different ways to how to take us from where the plan was for the tax credit application and to get it more in compliance with the current zoning requirements, and I I think everything's about as tight as you can get.

I mean, we've created and detailed every square inch of the site.

Then the only thing I would think of.

I know you're not locked into a phase three yet.

But I I think there should be discussion, if not a condition of this approval, but as a part of future you know developments as tied to the subdivision, that frontage should be looked out in terms of the setback to match phase one as much as possible.

Because if we can't adjust this phase two, then we'll have to look at that in the future once the the future once you develop that the next parcel.

All right.

Okay.

So there's some variances and stuff that that seem pretty automatic, but I think as if as a matter of proper protocol, we're gonna likely table this, right?

Let you get your variances um and make some minor adjustments to address the condition or to address the comment letters and come back.

Um this um P the waiver on the recreation dedication.

Um so that's gonna get addressed in our amendment, but it won't affect this project.

So should we just go wait and handle that with an official request next next time?

I think um if I can make a comment and and perhaps this is gonna be the same comment that you'll make.

I think when you take final action on it is the appropriate time to make any official declarations regarding both the parkland um fees, which I think they clearly comply with.

Um but um and then the the streetscape, I think we could talk about that as well separately, um, which they had indicated that they also need relief with the variances.

Um they have some very tight time frames that they had expressed to us as well regarding um the improvements, and I don't know if they would, I mean, they can comment whether they would be opposed to a resubmission, but the concern with waiting for the variances um really starts to change the timeline for them.

And in those instances, they're kind of unique variances that they're architectural variances and not um site variances, and there are also two elements which the city actively is changing the code to accommodate, so it's also possible we might move before they do.

So in this instance, is it is one that at least at a staff level I would feel comfortable supporting it and moving forward even with those two variances pending.

If the resubmission is required for other reasons, um for other preferences to site design, I think that that's um you know up for discussion.

Right.

Okay.

Yeah, with the time frame, those variants, the appeal should be in later this week.

Let me ask you one last quick question here.

Um I'm just the the condensing units in the breezeway, sort of cut my eye, and it looks like there's six of them.

Um is that the is that the number of units across that side, or are there more condensing units that'll be placed somewhere else to serve the Lehigh Street rear fronting units?

Yeah, so the condensing units, you know, they're serving the the units that are perpendicular to Lehigh Street.

So in some cases they're on the north or the south side, or they're in the area between the two buildings.

That way there are no condensing units along Lee High Street.

Okay.

So that's why there's that's why there's additional ones, you know, along the sides and not out along the high.

Okay.

Let's get that in a minute.

We don't need a condensing unit within our luxurious five foot streetscape.

Um we did move those out of there.

All right.

Well, then um, I I would agree with uh the the nature of the variance is something that we can um we can put in the in the hands of staff to oversee, and if for some reason that's unsuccessful, we'll expect to see you back.

But um uh the approval then would be pretty clean relative to just conditioning the letters.

Uh yes, I think you should take a formal vote on the um uh parkland waivers.

And then the streetscape improvements.

I just want to point out what what it is specifically.

If you look at this rendering, like um, if you're to look at an aerial of what they have, there's a a small planted strip and then the sidewalk and then the property line here.

This shows all of the street trees being met on the property line.

So the way that the streetscape code is drafted, it's a nine foot right-a-way as the kind of targeted desires.

That's a five foot sidewalk, and then on the other side of it is the planted strip.

So I think the width of the planted strip is not so much the I mean it is a technical code issue, but um, but is the planting on that side of the sidewalk as opposed to the other side of the sidewalk is when you have the trees that are planted um closer to the roadways, it creates a more shaded road environment, a better streetscape overall.

So I think there's additional requirements for an enhanced streetscape just due to the length of the streetscape, which I would not be object to if if um being that this is already um half designed um in the other phase.

But I do want to point out what the relief would do if they were to construct this trees in the location where they have them right now.

And I guess that would be an also a question for the applicant.

Is there any reason they can't be placed in the landscape strip, or is it just because it wouldn't match the first phase?

It wouldn't match the first phase, but there are there are options there because we could provide that four foot strip between the curves.

We're gonna be you we're anticipating replacing that whole sidewalk on Lee High Street just from the construction of the buildings.

We're gonna be replacing it anyway.

But I think what we have is there's you know two existing utility poles out there, and they are you know, if we moved everything back, the sidewalk will be at those utility poles.

So I mean, there could be situations where we just have a three foot grass strip and then we bump back the four foot, and then we can have our tree wells.

Um the other thing we do have the electric lines go into the street lights on the high street is running between the curb and the sidewalk.

So uh so there's ways, there are ways around it, but it's gonna require like some we either gotta, you know, those lights would have to be rewired, or we'd have the sidewalk kind of just bend around the utility poles and then go a little bit wider.

Um so yeah, so I think like the bottom line is I think there's some flexibility, but also you know, looking for like you know, some city.

What would uh you know, what would the city prefer?

Is there is is there a preference?

Um there was also a a section in the streetscape, especially enhanced street streetscape about a paving design.

Um but it it's under 3A um additional elements um for like a pattern is required for each street.

And I don't I didn't read that as being something in this case because we're Lehigh Street is is out there if that would be applicable in this case.

Right.

That's referring to the specific like concrete sidewalk design.

So for example, on Hamilton Street, we have like a decorative amenity strip and then specific pattern scoring.

So that doesn't really apply here as far as our work, we don't have any requirements or any planned fancy sidewalk for lack of better term in this area.

Yeah.

So pavement design for the sidewalk would be your standard broom finished concrete.

Yeah.

Okay.

Well, I mean, my personal opinion, I don't know that moving the sidewalk and deviating from what's you know currently going to remain south of here makes any sense.

Um the the overhead power, although it's really not terribly significant, it's enough that's gonna require small trees anyway, so they could go either way.

They could go on either side of the sidewalk.

It really is up to the I mean, probably on the on the building side of the sidewalk is better because the smaller trees are just gonna get sheared off on on Lehigh Street because they just won't get big enough to be proper clearance.

So um kind of thinking ahead as to what the shade tree commission would say.

Yes, I think we would probably prefer to have one the inside.

Um between the sidewalk and the building.

Are the utilities staying above ground?

Are they going underground?

It would it would be up to PPL, but we're anticipating that they'll stay above ground.

Okay, but it is strange.

Um for phase one, they're all underground.

They come out of the ground at the corner of Lawrence Court and Lee High Street.

There's a pole there where they're running underground, then they come above ground, and then they're overhead from that point up Lee High Street, up the road.

So interesting.

It's a weird situation, yeah.

It was it is interesting, but yeah, and I think you know, we're still having conversations with PPR, the electrical engineers, and if for some reason they end up electing to move them underground, then you know we can definitely work with them on that.

But right now that's like they're above ground.

Well, I think that that was one of the comments of the Shade Tree Commission.

And honestly, if if if those utilities could go go underground and open up the door for you know a more meaningful street tree, then maybe it would be worth rewiring those two street lights so that we could put them in the strip where they belong.

Um maybe a little cutout or a little bump out of a of a slightly larger tree pit, which we've supported in similar situations to get a little bit greater width for the root flare.

But um, I think we honestly if we could leave that an open item and let you guys work on that.

I even just the proximity of these buildings to these wires makes sense to get those things underground, and it's doesn't look to me like it's super high power, three phase, you know um heavy duty electric.

So maybe it's not um maybe it's not impossible for that to happen.

Yeah, I'd agree with that.

I'd say we we could grant the streetscape and waiver contingent upon exactly what what Chris was just talking about.

Yeah.

Yeah, so either way, we're not gonna hold it up, but either way we'll work it out.

But let's let's let that evolve.

Okay.

So I think as a formal recommendation, I think the cleanest thing would just be the waivers from the 350-13G minimum streetscape requirements and th 350-13H enhanced street scrape enhanced streetscape on the requirement that they submit a revised street section subject to review and acceptance by city staff.

Yeah.

And I think um kind of going forward on some of these, um, some of these, these are all new streetscape section requirements, and I think that we're fighting them sometimes with the existing sidewalk locations.

And so I think as we gain some more experience with these new types of street skate standards, we can um uh have uh kind of a smoother path forward for future applicants.

Okay, sounds good.

All right, let's uh let's take a motion to grant the waiver from the two streetscape sections um that Jennifer just cited.

So moved.

All right, I'll second.

Any further discussion on the waivers?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye, any opposed?

Okay.

Um, and then um the recreation contribution.

Um we're in the process of changing it so that you know affordable housing projects will receive different consideration.

Um that's what we're asking for today, right?

Um and is it is it a reduced contribution or an eliminated contribution?

So the way that it reads, it actually says the planning commission is authorized to waive the parkland dedication um for projects that are committed to affordability, 80% AMI for 20 years.

So the so the intent was always very clearly to waive the requirement for affordable housing.

So I actually have no concerns with their compliance with the code.

It's a formality on the waiver.

I think we take the waiver out and just make it a straight um compliance if you're affordable, um, so that way we don't have to take this additional motion and we can provide more clarity to affordable housing developers.

I agree.

Okay.

So um I'll make the motion to uh grant the waiver from the section relative to um public recreation improvements and dedication for this project.

Second.

Thank you, Eric.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay.

Then we're looking for conditional final or conditional, preliminary, final, plan approval, uh subject to the staff comment letters and variants uh requests.

Um anything else.

Is that did you add the removal of mechanical equipment in front of the building?

Is that was that your condition?

Um it wasn't a condition.

It was, I mean, I I mean it can be, I suppose, but there was there is none shown.

That's why I was just I was just asking if there was if they were accounted for.

Um there's none shown on the plan, and the ones that are shown are not on the frontage, so and the new zoning code wouldn't allow mechanical equipment in front of buildings, so hopefully that's an upgrade and should go without yeah.

Sounds good.

Um let's get the motion to move this along.

Mr.

Chair.

Yes.

Chair, yes, did you have any desire to have them evaluate the ability to make any of the town hall units flat over flat to get the unit shift?

I think they already are, and I think that's part of not all of them, but yes, um I mean I would love to, but I don't know that I necessarily have support on that.

Um and I realize how far along they are today.

Um so is is the subdivision before us or is that at the staff level?

The subdivision um I believe it would it would be at a staff level, so this is probably your only shot.

And just to if we can pull the site plan back up for a second, I think to get what Chris is describing is um changing that setback from a five foot setback to let's say 25, and then removing probably the two end units and replacing those somewhere else on right.

So for example, the way I'm reading this plan is showing that everything with a single door is a two or three story town homes unit versus the ones that show the door and the stairs are flat over flat.

So in both banks, it seems as though there's one two at least two units of two to three story town homes, and you can convert those to flat over flat, then perhaps you could get that shift.

I I see what you're seeing too, and that's why I brought it up.

I'm just I'm not maybe pushing it as as hard as as we could, but um yeah, that's kind of what I was seeing too, David.

Suggestions that maybe it's an exploration, not a requirement.

Right.

I I might suggest to the staff about exploring a condition for the subdivision of looking at expanded setback for a future subdivision of the site, at least as a consideration to put on a decision letter, even if it's not binding.

I think that will help address some of the concerns presented during the land development just for the staff's future consideration as they review the subdivision.

Well, keep in mind we still have to review this plan when they resubmit.

So I think it's a land development, but uh we can still keep it on as a condition to explore the feasibility of a um increased front setback with the shift to modification or with and the associated shift in in building.

I mean, you know what it it it wouldn't hurt for us to just have proof that they can't do it, you know, because one thing I bring up is we're gonna have to lose parking and everything has to go back.

So now we're gonna be decreasing parking count.

And uh I know it's already you know, you look at how we stalled or ADA.

We got some uh EV stalls.

I think the actual parking is starting to get very limited.

So the the park, even if the units can move, we have to be able to take that whole parking lot and shift it.

That's gonna require us to lose at least two parking stalls or so in my comments specifically aren't on this phase two we're looking at.

Oh, you mean for the future phase?

For the future phase three.

That's where I'm thinking, not this project for the future.

Oh, yeah, we were moved to that earlier.

Exactly.

So that's that's where I'm my comments are at it, Craig.

I so move approval conditioned upon everything we just talked about.

That's up to you, Jennifer.

I guess are we okay with that?

Jennifer, you alright with that?

So I think I'm going to this is my interpretation of what was said.

Um explore exploration of an increased setback with this land development and minor modifications, and it's an explore as feasible with for the future development.

Consider the phase one setback.

Okay, and the rest is staff with comment letters and variance as the variance is right.

Okay.

All right, that's your motion, Craig.

So moved.

All right, I'll second.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

I have it.

Okay, guys.

Thank you very much.

All right, very much.

All right, let's go to item number four on the agenda 560 business park lane.

Chris, do you want me to read through both of these for the project and the sidewalk postponement, or do you want to do the separately?

Um talk about both.

Well, yeah, we'll talk about both, so might as well get them all over with.

All right.

Sounds good to me.

All right.

This project proposes the construction of a one-story 9,000 square foot building, associated parking and site improvements, and this is 560 business park lane.

The property is located in the IG industrial general zoning district.

The zoning classification allows a proposed development of an industrial storage building.

The lower portion of the property contains steep slopes, wetlands, and is within the floodway and a 100-year floodplain.

Access to the subject building would be from business park lane.

The applicants have indicated that the building will be divided up into three sections, providing space for smaller contractors and local businesses for storage of materials without the need for to accommodate for tractor trailers.

Staff suggests the commission inquire as to vehicle access to the site and size of vehicles access in the site.

The applicant submitted a request for a sidewalk postponement, which is also on the agenda.

Staff should suggest the commission ensure sufficient space is available between the street trees and the parking lot curb for future installation of sidewalks.

Staff also notes that LBPC recommends sidewalks be installed along business park lane to support pedestrian safety.

Staff recommends a sidewalk be added connecting the building to the street as well.

For the comp plan, this site is within the within East Allentown.

Allentown Vision 2030 recognizes East Allentown as a collection of walkable and pleasant neighborhoods interwoven with commercial and industrial area areas bordered by small industrial and light industrial employment clusters.

This area is designated in the citywide future land use map as a strategic planning area.

Identified for future economic growth, redevelopment, and uh community planning efforts.

Vision 2030 also envisions a future for the city that is sustainable, vibrant, and resilient.

Some ways the project can help to achieve these goals is by adding additional landscape to absorb stormwater runoff using native plants and landscaping and including energy saving strategies within the project, such as sustainable billing materials and maximizing energy efficiency.

The AEAC suggests adding notes to the plan to provide enhanced protection in areas of the construction site that are adjacent to the floodway, floodplain, and wetland areas.

So for the safe streets for all plan, uh this is Allentown.

Uh the plan vision for Safe Street for All Plan is for Allentown streets to be safe and accessible for all community members who live, work, or visit Allentown, no matter their mode of transportation.

The project has frontage near the intersecting roads of American Parkway and business business park lane.

American Parkway was identified as a safety concern due to speeding and lack of safe pedestrian crossings at signalized intersections.

Plans do not depict sidewalks.

Sidewalks are a safer pedestrian path than walking on the cartway with motorized vehicles and should be strongly considered for all developments.

Lanta is a key community mass transit partner.

Comments from Lanta state that they do not provide public transportation in the vicinity of this project.

The closest bus route is point uh 0.7 miles away.

They do not plan to extend service to business park lane.

Atlanta does suggest sidewalks be added to business to the business park lane frontage.

Um LBPC notes that there are no transit stops within a quarter mile.

Um staff suggest the developer communicate with the city and Lanta to re-evaluate public transit routes along business park lane, not only to service the proposed development, but also the other businesses, employer and employers within this industrial employment cluster.

For the bike plan, uh the goal of this citywide bike plan is to ensure that infrastructure investments promote safety, equity, multimodal transportation, and sustainable urban development for all members of the community.

Staff notes that bike rack is proposed at the business park lane entrance, but a long-term bicycle space uh should also be added.

Uh for the parks plan, um, the Allentown Parks Plan is a comprehensive strategy to conserve and improve the city's recreation, open space, and parks.

While not adjacent to the project, the applicant should be cognizant of the proximity of the project to Kimmits Flock Park.

Uh staff recommendation.

Staff is inclined to support the proposed development.

Staff suggests the commission inquire as to vehicle access to the site and size of vehicles accessing the site.

Staff further recommends the applicant add a long-term bicycle parking space, collaborate with Lanta to reassess transit route service, and that sidewalks be added.

The applicant is also encouraged to incorporate energy saving strategies, add additional landscaping to absorb runoff, include native plantings, and to add notes to the plan to provide enhanced protection in areas of the construction site that are adjacent to the floodway, floodplain, and wetland areas.

A separate application is submitted for a sidewalk postponement.

If a sidewalk postponement is granted, staff suggests the commission ensure sufficient space is available between the street and parking lot curb for future installation of sidewalks.

Any recommendation of approval should be conditioned on the applicant appropriately adjusting comments in the city comment letter.

And then for the sidewalk postponement, the petitioner requested 10-year postponement for the installation of the required sidewalks along business park lane and American Parkway Northeast.

Petitioner states in the application that no sidewalk currently exists along the street frontage.

The postponement is requested for business park lane until sidewalk is constructed along this roadway, and no development access is proposed on the American Parkway frontage.

In the city's classification of streets, affected street segments along business park lane is designated as a local street, and the segment along along American Parkway Northeast is an arterial street.

The proposed use of the property is industrial storage building, which is permitted.

There are segments of sidewalk that exist along the right-of-way of business park lane and American Parkway.

The areas subject to this postponement request are located within the right-of-way of business park lane and American Parkway.

Curbs are existing and proposed to remain along both frontages.

Depressed curb is proposed along the business park lane frontage to allow access for the site.

LBPC and Lanta submitted comments for the land development stating that sidewalks should be added to the business park lane frontage.

American Parkway was identified as a safety concern within the Safe Streets for All Plan due to speeding and left of safe pedestrian crossings at signalized intersections.

Although the majority of the properties in the area do not have sidewalks, the additional required sidewalks would provide a safer, safer possession pedestrian path than walking on the cartway with motorized vehicles and should be strongly considered for all developments.

The process and criteria can be found under the postponements can be found under section 53516 variances.

Other developments in the area, especially along the opposite side of American Parkway, are either proposing to install sidewalks or their postponements are coming to an end within the next couple years.

Staff's position is that the installation of sidewalks along business park lane should serve a public purpose to establish the beginning of a pedestrian path along that road.

I'm sorry, adjacent property is developed or when sidewalks are added throughout.

Additionally, installing the sidewalk with this construction project ensures that street trees and landscape area are positioned correctly within the overall street section and will not need to be removed or adjusted if a sidewalk is added at a later date.

There are no unique physical conditions of the property along the business park lane frontage, preventing the installation of sidewalks.

The frontage along American Parkway is not within the sleep steep slope area, but it is within the floodplain.

So in conclusion, staff recommends against the postponement request for business park lane, and staff is not opposed to the deferment along American Parkway.

Thank you.

Thank you, Melissa.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Julie Bun Spreckleson from the law firm of Ace Vernon Gray here this afternoon.

I always say evening because I'm used to the night meeting, so I had to remember say afternoon.

This afternoon, on behalf of the applicant Meadowbrook Royalty LLC, which is the equitable owner of the property located at 560 business park lane, and maybe if we could put up the aerial of the existing conditions of the site, just so you could see the site as it exists today.

So again, that property is just under two acres in size, and it is located in the IG Industrial General District.

As you can see, there's some trailers, it looks like that are parked on it at the present time.

So what applicant is proposing is the use code warehouse and distribution center up to 50,000 square feet to provide more detail about it.

And if you wouldn't mind going to the site plan, applicant, what they're proposing is construction of a 9,000 square foot workshops warehouse building.

It's going to be primarily used to store small parts, materials, equipment, and that's needed to serve applicants portfolio.

They have a real estate portfolio in different types of buildings.

So those parts and materials will be stored there.

There's no vehicle service to be conducted here.

There's no manufacturing, there's no fabrication.

It's basically part storage.

And then small vans will come to the site to pick up different parts and such and then deliver them to where they need to be.

So it will be owner occupied for the most part.

And I know that there was a comment, and I think because it was originally contemplated that there might be two additional tenants, so that it would be three businesses there at the site, but that is not what's complicated contemplated.

What's contemplated is that it will be owner occupied for the most part, and maybe one additional tenant, but the one additional tenant would be very similar to the use that's going to be conducted by the owner at the site.

There's only one employee expected to be at the site.

Again, most of the times they'll just be a van coming to pick up parts and deliver them.

So that's just uh basics with regard to the use.

There's uh I believe eight parking spaces that are proposed there, one is ADA.

Uh I don't even believe that eight spaces are you know actually needed.

There's, as I mentioned, one employee for the owner occupied portion, and it'd be a similar type use in the other portion.

Um with that land development plans were submitted to the city back in January of this year.

We received review letters, and based on those review letters, we wanted to clean it up and address all the comments in the review letters, which we did.

Um, and then we resubmitted in April, and we've received the latest review letters.

And uh for the most part, everything's well comply.

And we have a couple discussion items.

So at this point, I'm gonna turn it over to the project civil engineer from Bowler Engineering.

That's Adam Sotrillo.

Adam.

Hello everyone.

My name is Adam Satrula of Bowler Engineering, the uh site civil engineer who prepared the plans here.

Um yeah, appreciate the intro, Julia.

Uh, as she noted, we are in receipt of essentially our second review letter here from the city.

Um by way of brief history, we also did submit to obviously LVPC as we have our L V PC review.

We had resubmitted for stormwater comments and are waiting to receive those.

We had submitted those back in April as well.

Uh additionally, we had submitted FAA.

Um they can only issued an approval letter.

The max building height is 25 feet, so there's really no major concern.

It was more of a paperwork process, but just so we're all clear there, that has been submitted.

We also submitted the conservation district back in January and received comments as well.

And we had resubmitted those back in April as well to address those comments.

So I'd be expecting those reviewers, hopefully approval here any day, actually, shortly in that regard.

So just as a different additional background terms of where the overall project is at.

Um so as noted, we do have our second round of review letters here from the city.

There's um several comments.

Uh, can we the majority will comply, so I don't tend to go through all of them line by line.

There's really just a few that I intend to to address or have a discussion on.

Uh really as it relates to specifically two items.

Um, the sidewalk obviously is a discussion of so we're requesting those um uh postponements, and then additionally, there's a comment in regards to the um the bike racks, which um I think Julie also noted is um also impacted by our employee counts and again to those two items.

Um so really the sidewalk comments are really three and twelve, um, and really those are really specifically stating a couple items, three specifically in regards to let's say you have the landscape area, um, the strip, I'm gonna call it the landscape strip we have between business park lane specifically and the proposed improvements on curb there is 11 and a half feet.

So if ultimately the intent is to at some point provide solar in the future or or provide space, um the intent would be to ultimately provide um let's call a three and a half, four and a half foot strip there to put the um the uh landscape plantings street trees um adjacent to let's call it the property line and then provide room for any potential future sidewalk.

So I think that's certainly that that comment and addressing that, I think, and certainly um something we can comply with in terms of providing that um that space.

And then the next comment 12 is really related to I guess more process perspective.

So I don't know if we want to get into the sidewalk postponement discussion at this point, or if you want to give me a couple moments to then jump and discuss to I think it's one of the last comments, zoning comment for B as it relates to the bike rack.

Um I'll probably just jump to that.

So as noted, I think the the code requires a let's say long-term bike parking, essentially weatherproofing things on those lines associated with um employee counts.

Um candidly, you know, as noted, the the initial intent of this building was say the the owner was intending to take a smaller portion of it, and as noted that had you know candidly increased based upon what they were ultimately finding for their needs.

So then the potential future tenants that would take the uh spaces, you know, essentially were were knocked out, if you will.

So at this point they're intending to take a majority of the space with maybe a potential one future tenant.

So it came from an overall um employee perspective, uh as was noted, it it's likely one from the owner perspective, and you know, any future potential tenant would just be a very small portion.

So I'd estimate if we're we're at five, that would probably be an overestimate of where it would ultimately be.

Just trying to address that, you know, the the intent is that we're we're providing a a external bike rack, but that the intent would be to then still comply with the ordinance, uh but with the understanding there's gonna be a roost reduced number of employees um associated with say a covered bike parking area.

Um about the bike rack.

I don't see any need for a covered bike bike rack at all because uh you know simple, you know, bike rack small one holds four or five bikes, you know, top you know, would be plenty.

Okay.

Yeah, okay.

Yeah, I agree.

And I I defer to the zoning officer on his exact interpretation and and compliance with that.

I'm sorry, if I may jump in for a minute here, just because this is a fairly a fairly technical zoning compliant or zoning compliance matter.

If you could just how many if you could just restate how many employees are expected on site, please.

Sure, yeah.

So so the owner is expecting one employee, and candidly the the let's say potential future space is really only potentially one tenant and and candidly it isn't identified, but would ultimately be um likely below five or five, and that's ultimately understood that that's you know, say somewhat speculative, but with the understanding that you know that may not even occur and the owner may essentially take everything, but at some point I guess um if uh once in a tenant is identified, I would imagine that's something that we'd have to look at at say a building permit perspective in terms of the compliance.

So in this circumstance, since this is a bit of a spec building, I would be comfortable revising that revising that comment to indicate that bike parking facilities will need to be provided by the end users in in accordance with the requirements of section 660 89 to provide that degree of flexibility.

If you could just put some some kind of note just to document that in your comment response letter that said if the requirements for an indoor bike parking space are to be triggered, I don't think they're they're particularly onerous, or I don't think I'd interpret them to be particularly onerous for uh for a facility like this.

If there was just some kind of facility indoors under roof that was capable of having the having the employees bike securely locked to it and where there's there's not a risk of theft, or the main objectives here at the end of the day is I read the code or or weather proof and theft proof.

So if you can if you can get me a facility of that nature in the building if the need gets there, I'm not I'm not inclined to be new to nitpicky in that interpretation, even if that's that's just an indoor bike rack in some kind of in some kind of storage area.

I certainly I certainly recognize that we're not staging here for the tour de France in this building.

Okay, good point.

I I mean candidly, you know, there's garage doors.

Um I'm just trying to understand, and maybe we can work it out or understand later what ultimately that that space you're looking for is or is there something you particularly had in mind in terms of like the area that that might take up?

There would be no specific requirement for the area or where it's located in the building.

Once again, there is a there's a lot of flexibility as to where it can go just get us weather proof, theft proof, and lockable if we need to go there and we'll be able to make it work.

Okay.

I think we can comply.

Thank you.

So those are really, I think, once again, the two items.

Um the majority will comply if we want to someone feels we can potentially move to the sidewalks.

I I could start with the sidewalk.

So Adam, I think you know me very well now by all the projects, especially sidewalk reports.

Um I I am going to strongly object to granting a sidewalk postponement or waiver for the business park lane side.

Um I I would prefer to see that installed as part of this project.

Um now for the American Parkway side, I wouldn't wouldn't be uh objecting to uh a postponement for that.

Um just because that I think there needs to be a bigger discussion of the city's future vision for American Parkway before we install sidewalks on that uh northern side, um, because that is a a bit of a less defined future network, especially with the constraint of the bridge um nearby.

Um so I wouldn't be opposed to the American Parkway side for a postponement, but I I think for uh as part of this project, sidewalk should be installed on on business park lane.

Okay.

Anyone else want to weigh in while we're talking sidewalks?

I I agree with Craig.

I agree with Craig.

I also agree.

And if I may, just if we could go back to the picture of the existing conditions, and I understand your your desire for walkability, absolutely.

It's in all communities, all communities want that now, and and I completely understand it.

One of my concerns is safety.

I know you're saying this is going to be installed for safety reasons, and I would agree if it was going to be a continuous sidewalk.

But if you just put this sidewalk on one little portion of that roadway, then you're encouraging people to walk along the other parts of the roadway that don't have sidewalk and it becomes dangerous just to get on our little sidewalk, and then you're then moving over to the next property that doesn't have it.

There's not one property that has it.

They all got deferrals, and I understand, and this is just a deferral, too, right?

I mean, you only get 10 years, right?

Then you have to install it.

So we're gonna have to install it at some point, and we understand that we're fine with it, but I think it would be safer if we could install it when everybody else is installing it so we have a consistent sidewalk and a safe um pedestrian walkway.

Well, I understand that as a planning director in a community who is uh requiring developers to install over 120 miles of deferred sidewalk.

It's it's never a good idea to do that piecemealed and and trying to chase down developments later on.

It's always a good idea to do it while they're developing it.

Even if it's a temporary disconnected network, it's better than having the staff trying to chase down the the sidewalks to be installed later on.

And so I had a question about that, because I did see in the review letters they said that there are some coming off of the the postponement or deferral.

Do you know when those are coming on?

Because maybe that would be the time, so it's not like a 10-year deferral, but maybe a year deferral when the next one so we can connect in.

I'm just trying to make it safer.

I I think this causes a real concern just to have it on one property.

I think pedestrians are gonna walk in the street regardless because of the current network.

Having the sidewalk won't change the existing conditions, pedestrians will be walking on it.

I understand.

I under I absolutely understand your point.

I would just feel much more comfortable if we could connect somewhere to make this a connectable walkway.

And that's why I know that was mentioned in the letter, so you don't know when then others are coming off deferral or postponement.

No, we don't know.

So on the other side of American Parkway, the projects that are in the works or you know, final being finalized, are proposing to put sidewalks in on American Parkway on the other side of the street.

And then um they also have deferments on their projects that are coming, other deferments that are coming to you know, an end.

So that's on the other side when they'll be installing.

Well, I mean, it's not on business park lane.

I don't know about that area, but it's on the other side of American Parkway, not on your side of American Parkway.

Okay, I gotcha.

I understand.

I mean, I I think you know, we we've wrestled with the the notion that you know until there's a reason, there's no reason, but you know, you gotta start somewhere, and this is an opportunity to create the reason for future expansion.

I do note that the adjacent properties also owned by the same property owner.

Um, so there's the potential for this project and a future adjacent project to get us connectivity down to American Parkway on the south side, I think is where we're gonna get more connectivity.

Now, are we gonna end up with a an official mid block crossing on American Parkway?

Probably not, but folks are gonna use it if they have um a reason to walk either from this business park over towards um area south of of American Parkway.

So, you know, I look at it purely from you know, there's no physical limitations to do it, and I think that should really be our guiding light, you know, when when we can um there's no more efficient time for this applicant and developer to do this, you know, while there's equipment and earthwork and everything happening on site, it's permitted, it's um, you know, if it was gonna blow your MPDS permit or something, you know.

I mean, that that would be perhaps a different story, but this seems to be pretty benign uh in terms of the magnitude of the construction project.

And I do think that Craig is right, you know, folks are creatures of habit, they're working on the street now.

Um if anything, coming around this curve, they've got an opportunity to hop off the street for for just a few feet um uh across the front edge of this property.

So um I think I would be inclined as well to sort of um defer on American Parkway, but um let's go ahead and build it on business park lane.

Now I have a kind of curious on business park lane.

What makes the most sense looking down range at where the trees and poles and other things are located, you know, and whether it makes sense to be curbside in this particular section uh as opposed to the tree strip.

Um I don't know that we you know need to figure that out this moment, but I think we should require a little collaboration on that to make sure that we're setting future sidewalk up for success.

Um it does look like the the north side of business park lane has got more topography and limitations, so the south side of business park lane is really the right place for a sidewalk in this in this business park area.

Um yeah, so um anybody have thoughts on the location or is that a is that something we can defer to public works or planning?

Um there's I the only reason I bring it up is because there's a series of trees and poles as you move west that might suggest, and then maybe it just varies as future portions are implemented.

Um you're saying so like the utility poles are behind the curb at the minimal setback distance, how far it's right behind the curb, and then there's trees further west setting a little further back.

Yeah.

Um I mean, I would be inclined to say that that grass strip area is needed for the utilities as well as the trees and on some of those adjoining properties.

I you know, they may have to redo where they've got their trees to accommodate the sidewalks when they're doing and and that's fine.

I just I I thought I'd bring it up.

Um there was one property that appeared to look like it like the grade fell off that maybe would again we could take these on a property by property basis.

But um Yeah, there's really no issue with it being uh alongside the curb other than just needing to provide the uh associated bump outs in the sidewalk area at the utilities locations to maintain the ADA pathways, right?

That's the only real drawback there, but right certainly doable.

Okay, I I don't have a strong opinion.

It doesn't affect these particular properties.

I'm okay deferring with staff during their compliance review.

Okay.

Um let's go back to the plan and talk about um so the building's been described somewhat as a warehouse, but I don't see any there's no loading docks or any facilities like that.

This is all driving overhead doors.

That's correct, they're all driving overhead doors.

Okay.

Um can I can I make a quick comment because I think I know where you're going in regards to the max vehicle size.

So the current anticipation is essentially a a work truck, a pickup truck.

You know, it's not a warehouse, right?

From a traditional sense, they're not intending to store and and ship equipment out to other users.

It's really just the owner supporting his operations.

So like a van or a work truck essentially.

I don't really have any other planned comments on this one.

You guys have anything?

No.

Pretty straightforward.

Good use of their property.

There's an awful lot of area that's gonna be, you know, undisturbed and remain undeveloped, which I think is good considering sensitive areas that run through it.

Um I see something that's labeled with a wetland along the limit of disturbance, and I'm not sure what there's a leader with a boundary with a bearing and a distance on it that leaders into the eastern property line with wetland and parentheses, but I'm not sure and's were delineated on the properties down by the stream.

Um there's a stream going from let's call close to the American parkway side.

Um that ultimately has a you know, it's a stream and has an associate floodway, it has associate floodplain, and in some of those areas are uh delineated wetland and can leave were uh intending to not touch any of that uh from this development perspective.

But on your side boundary lines, you've got a bearing and a distance um that's labeled wetland, um actually both property lines.

Is that just a typo you scroll up in that image on the screen there?

I believe we requested that the uh wetland line be called out by bearing distance so we could map it in city records.

Yes, in the upper right hand corner, is that that's a wetland delineation there?

No, that's candidly a typo.

Okay.

The whole site is not a wetland appreciate that's yeah, okay, all right, all right.

Um, is anyone in the audience interested in this?

Okay, we do have somebody.

Um go ahead and come forward, ma'am.

Um folks, just give her a sec.

Hi, um, my name is Shauna Cossover, and I have uh I totally own eight buildings in Allentown, four of which are in that little industrial park.

I have three on Allentown Drive, and I have one on Business Park Lane, which is directly across from where you guys are proposing the new building.

Um my major issue is the traffic on Business Park Lane.

So City of Allentown has designated Allentown Drive and Business Park Lane for large vehicle parking, which has become a really big issue for us.

Um that is any truck or vehicle, I think that's over 11,000 pounds.

Um so I took pictures.

I don't know if I can give you the pictures.

Uh this is from Saturday.

And last week.

Um you can't drive.

We can't go now.

Um we have called the parking authority.

I I actually have them on speed dial from my phone.

Uh they park within 10 feet of our entrances at Allentown Drive.

Um, and when they don't have their trucks there, they're parking their personal vehicles, and then they proceed to come back, dump their trash in our front lawn.

Um, I picked up wife feeders, um, all kinds of things.

Um, so that is the bend going around to business park lane.

So the idea of having a Lanta bus come through and pedestrians and bikers, we can't actually get through.

So there's a medical working um building that's like catty corner.

We own the building directly across the street at 565.

Um, luckily, we are just a warehouse where we get deliveries every now and then.

However, um, there are 40 foot tractor trailers that have to back in sometimes.

And even if we get a staples delivery, they sometimes come in a 40-foot truck.

So to say that it's a one-man um operation and they're just gonna have a pickup truck and they're gonna just pull in.

You don't know what people are driving to do it.

Um, we actually cannot get in in our three buildings on Allentown.

Two we operate for medical supply, and one we have for tenants.

Um our next door neighbor is a daycare.

We have adult daycare where we have handicapped people coming.

They are flying through Allentown Drive, and we are the first.

When you look at Allentown, we are the first two alphabetical properties.

It is the 400 and uh block of Allentown Drive and the 400 and five 500 block of business park lane.

So at any point they have their tractor trailers parked and they're also servicing them.

Like when I show up, they literally have like tires off.

Um it's a problem.

It literally is a problem because we have that daycare people are flying in and out to drop their kids.

We have A1 limousine, so they have their workers park on the street.

We have valley pallets now who should never be in that space.

So a lot of times what people are doing is they're cutting through the credit union, which is located one spot over for them just so they can get around the pallet tractor trailers, which are in addition to just people that just show up and park their trailer, and they're not technically like they're now parking on that curve.

So that's why I took a picture.

You can't see who's coming around, let alone the idea of uh like, yes, I think a sidewalk is a good idea, um, but also I don't know how you can actually fit two cars in between um to tractor trailers, and that's also without snow.

So then we've we I've been able to get one toad because they park so far away and eventually the snow melted.

But I'm saying we can't actually fit.

And when we went out and like did a tape measure, I think we're one foot short of what a large vehicle should even be allowed to park, and then you throw in a daycare, and it's honestly it's super dangerous.

And I've been an owner since 2005.

This is the first time I've ever come to a zoning hearing in 20 years.

It's that big of a deal.

Our employees are scared to even pull out of the parking lot, and then because we can't get people to pull, like tractor trailers to deliver to us, we have our forklift go out to take it off of the truck in the middle of the street, and there's also Rome Granite.

There's I mean, there's a lot going on.

So I have a very big concern, not about their building, but the idea of somebody even trying to make a turn out around a bend with the tractor trailer.

So I would like to propose that we stop the large vehicle at Allentown, and that's why I did a picture of Alentine Drive as well, because that was a Saturday.

That's without anybody parking for actual anything else.

Like I don't know where they're expected to go.

And then the other thing we have is a driving school, which is now at the executive academy, I think, and they take their students through.

So we've got so much stuff going on that I'm like, and it's like honestly, it's dangerous.

And then there are no sidewalks, so people are trying to take their lunch break to go walk around, and I'm like, with the tractor trailers, they're nice guys, and I'll talk to them, we'll put like nice things on them.

Now I just start if they're within 10 feet, I just call the parking authority, and they're very well aware of it.

The parking authority is extremely they know these two blocks.

So this is a big problem, not just here but elsewhere.

Um, I've got clients that I represent to have the exact same problem.

It's huge.

Um, and I think it's a it's it's something that that the city, you know, definitely can and should look into.

Um, fortunately, I don't think it's necessarily a matter in this application, but I'm glad that you brought it to our attention because I I do think that it needs it needs to be addressed.

Well, I I do think it is very um pertinent to it because where are they pulling out?

Understood.

If I may, there's not gonna be any tractor trailers on this site, zero.

The biggest vehicle that's gonna be on the site is a van, the work van.

Right, but right in front of where they're pulling out is a tractor trailer park because it's a large vehicle designated parking spot for the city of Allentown.

Do you know where those tra who those tractor trailers are associated with, like which properties or anything like that?

So some are from Valley Pallet, but majority are just in the public.

So if you look, I that's why I was curious when I saw the pictures, because I'm like, wow, it really makes it look like it's a vacant street.

It's it is not a vacant street.

Two quick questions.

Um, one for the applicant.

Would you be okay establishing a no parking zone along the frontage of the property in coordination with the city?

Of my property, absolutely.

I would like to have parking zone, too.

Okay, absolutely.

Then second, with with Dave, is this something that the city is looking into with this this corridor with this trust?

Uh certainly we have been in contact with a lot of property owners out here looking at restrictions, time of day restrictions currently they allow for overnight parking, which obviously people stay beyond that.

Um, and it's it's well on our radar as far as you know, us evaluating and updating the ordinance uh to restrict truck parking.

Currently, it's tied to the zoning designations, and we were with the zoning update, we're looking at updating that as well to either continue it or make modifications now that there is a reason to change it and turn the complaints, don't go unheard.

I mean, I mean it's like someone's gonna get killed and it's to the point where they we pull out and then we're and imagine pulling out with a forklift to go take it out.

You cannot see beyond your fork, and those people are parking for five days at a time.

I mean, because they're usually dropping them off and then picking them up at the end of the week.

Um which I don't care as much about on the weekends because we're not open, but it's still it's still a very big concern.

Like honestly, as somebody who's had a building there, and I have four of them.

How come we can't get a no parking zone?

And yeah, a brand new person who hasn't paid any taxes is able to get a no parking zone when we aren't able to get deliveries to back up into our own warehouse because there's trucks parked on the street.

Have you gone to the city to request a no parking zone?

We've talked with um no, I haven't done it formally.

Um, but when I talked with the parking authority, they're like, I know everybody complains about it.

Every time we bring it up to them, that's nothing we can do, but we see it's a big problem.

I'm like, okay.

Um, but now seeing that there's going to be even more traffic coming out, and now that they're parking around the bend of business park lane, it's it's I I don't know where I don't know.

It's a lot, it's a big concern, and I think that I don't know.

I I don't understand, honestly.

I don't know why we allow it anywhere other than for business purposes.

I mean, yeah, they're they're getting away without you know paying for what they should be paying for in terms of commercial parking somewhere else.

And and my particular experience with my client is is in an area that's actually designated no truck parking, and they just get tickets and they say it's part of doing business.

Oh, I mean it's actually the $50 ticket, they just cheaper to pay for $50 in parking.

They don't care, right?

And they take out our trees, they take out so I have a major concern with it because the other problem is the people that actually are paying to own the buildings and pay the taxes, which we do, can't actually even get a delivery.

So then we're putting our employees out in a forklift in the middle next to a daycare to go pick up.

So it is a problem, and I honestly think that we should look at where the entrance is because that is around the bend.

I I think your concerns are definitely heard.

I I would recommend after the meeting speaking with uh our deputy director public works a little bit more privately outside the meeting to talk more on it.

All right, thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

Yeah, that's serious.

You know, I mean, I think the driveways in the best location that can be on this particular property, it's at the tangent furthest from the curve.

You know, I I don't should uh find a need to hold this project up over it, but it is.

Um I'm glad that she brought this to our attention because I think it's it is a serious problem.

Um so I hope I hope the city can find some adequate resolution.

Um anyone else wish to address the planning commission.

Okay.

Um is there anything outstanding on this one, Jennifer?

That um other than the sidewalk stuff.

So either um you guys otherwise good with the the comments, um, you know, addressing and and we'll complying with the comments as put forth.

Okay.

All right.

Well, then I suggest we we take the um sidewalk postponements, maybe do those individually, and then we can move on to the plan.

All right.

Um start with American Parkway.

Is that okay?

Uh procedurally, Jennifer, will you handle those separately?

I guess it was one application for for postponement, I assume.

Um I assume it was one application for most one.

I I don't think it matters.

I think it's two separate motions, I think, because your position might be different on that.

Right, yeah, that's what I want to do.

Okay, okay, good.

All right, so let's start with uh the request for postponement of sidewalk along American Parkway.

Um somebody care to make a motion.

I'd make a motion to to grant a 10-year postponement on the sidewalk installation on American Parkway.

I'll second the motion.

Okay, motion and second.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye aye, any opposed.

Okay.

Now uh the request for sidewalk postponement for business park lane.

I move to deny the the postponement in waiver of uh sidewalks on business park lane.

I second okay.

A motion to deny has been made and seconded.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye aye, any opposed.

Okay.

All right, and then the matter of I guess preliminary final um conditional approval for preliminary preliminary final plan.

Postponement in waiver of uh sidewalks on business park lane I second okay a motion to deny has been made and seconded any further discussion all those in favor say aye aye any opposed okay all right and then the matter of I guess preliminary final plan um conditional approval for preliminary preliminary final plan um subject to the city staff uh review and comment letters somebody care to make that motion make a motion to grant approval based on city comments second all right motions made seconded any further discussion all those in favor say aye aye any opposed eyes have it all right folks thank you very much thank you all right one final item guys you on that so I guess this is a a preview or a draft um zoning code amendments for our initial input before it comes back to us officially right too Melissa is that you sure why not um so you know we're proposing these this initial draft of um overall amendments to the zoning ordinance um so these amendments are focused on items that were either specifically called out to be amended during the adoption process um that are clarifying or simplifying regulations um that are addressing items that were fine found during initial implementation and fixing any kind of like radical or formatting errors um so we are bringing these to your attention to discuss before we um have them introduced to city council so we can take any of your comments and um make any revisions so included with the packet was um well exhibit b was just one area of map change that was discussed during you know you remember that area the north north north front street um Allen Street area right um so we made that map change as exhibit B and then exhibit a had um all the sections of the code that had various amendments so you can see the red text with either strikeout for removal and underline for additions and I don't know do you want me to go through like each area here I don't think so I mean it was is there any that you guys felt you know were more not controversial but more significant than others that you want to make sure we um that we understand or support or are they I mean they all seem to me to be pretty harmless and appropriate um but was there any on your guys' end that you thought well we want to make sure that the PC understands what we're doing here um so I mean I think it's all pretty much straightforward so I guess some of the bigger changes were like for for building types were some changes to the general buildings um increase in that additional stories for affordable housing a little bit so that would take care of some of those issues with um we had allowed seven stories previously in previous zoning amendments so that would bring us to that to that number um and let's see we changed um some of the criteria for the NX zone for general buildings and that would um reduce some of the density that could happen um just a little bit and let's see here we put in some regulations for special exception for the small general buildings um you know only what you know where they're adding additional dwelling units so like when you're allowed to have three per 18 feet plus then you can have up to 12 by special exception so we added just some special exception language you know for the zoning hearing board to review um and if I can just make a comment on that one um I think that we needed some standards to go off of because we largely I think particularly for the N3 zones the N3 zones um as a very general statement replaced a lot of the previous um medium residential and what's interesting is some of our medium residential is built out with single family homes even though um so even though it might look like a medium residential density area it's not necessarily single family so we added some requirements for compatibility and consistency with the neighborhoods um for those small generals because that is the one location where um we've lowered the lot size so while multifamily was always allowable previously the lot size or the lot with requirements sometimes kept it out so um now we're just adding more standards for the special exception so we'll have more to go off of depending on how that neighborhood is built out can I ask you a quick question on that so like in the MDR zones um in in in in my neighborhood in particular there's a lot of suspicion that there's a lot of conversion going on into you know from single to apartments or maybe two to three apartments or whatever um where's the new ordinance stand on that

So now we're just adding more standards for the special exception.

So we'll have more to go off of, depending on how that neighborhood is built out.

Can I ask you a quick question on that?

So, like in the MDR zones, um in in my neighborhood in particular, there's a lot of suspicion that there's a lot of conversion going on into you know from single to apartments or maybe two to three apartments or whatever.

Um where's the new ordinance stand on that?

So for most of the N1 and N2 zones, um, and that's the most of what's the center city residential row homes, those are um one unit with sometimes the potential to an accessory dwelling unit if you can meet all of the criteria, including affordability and and and size, but most of the N1 and the N2, so the row homes are one unit.

In some instances, um we added provisions for small generals in some locations, and that's if you have I think what 36 foot lot widths, it's so larger lots, so um that's not your standard row homes, those are the larger ones, and also in certain instances, like I think perhaps if I recall correctly, your building might have a GXE or an MX, or excuse me, uh GXN or MXN.

So certain corners have that commercial differentiation, and then they could do um more units.

Right, right.

Okay, so if somebody's got an 18-foot rail home and you suspect they're converting it into more than one unit, that's more than likely not legit.

If there's a suspicion there, it sounds like there's likely a zoning issue.

We do we do receive a number of inquiries that's probably the most common inquiry we receive is because can I convert this?

Can I convert this room into multiple units?

Right.

Okay.

And they do it anyway.

Um sorry.

Oh, yep.

So for um use related, uh, one thing that stands out is the affordable housing um section.

So we made sure to add that affordable housing units have to be constructed concurrently with market rate units.

Um, and that was something that was pointed out by city council, so that's in there.

Um we also fixed the language a little bit that could have been a little funny about whether or not it had to be like a tax credit situation or grant situation rather than just a private, you know, a normal developer being able to do this affordable housing project.

Um then for tobacco sales, adding a distance separation of 300 feet from certain uses such as schools and child care and place of worship.

Um that's the same kind of distance restriction that we have for other uses.

And let's see here.

We already talked about um a hundred percent affordable housing projects, being able to use the other materials regulation under building design.

Um getting our non-conformities language strengthened.

Um, we had some stuff with the zoning hearing board, they were kind of like, okay, we need to strengthen this a little bit, so we're doing that.

Um I think that's for the zoning ordinance, that's like the most you know, not the little stuff.

Right.

Right.

Um I'll mention the um one saldo specific change is for the in Lua fees for the parks.

Um we've gotten a lot of feedback on this particular point for our multifamily developers who are building primarily studio apartments, one bedroom apartments, um, because when you take the 1,800 um dollar fee crossed a hundred units or hundreds of units, you end up with a fee that's uh quite high.

So we looked at the formula that we use to create that fee, and that uses a multiplier or an assumption of 2.6 individuals per building.

And so we said, are there really 2.6 people in in the one bedrooms in the studio apartments?

Um, probably not.

So we created a variation of that for apartment building.

So um we had to define it some way, so we defined it as seven plus units.

Um, and for those we can look at a per bedroom rate as opposed to a flat fee.

So that way if by chance it is a multifamily with many, many um bedrooms, we can actually collect more fees, but then if it's the smaller studios, then they don't need to pay a fee that's based off of 2.6.

This is the approach that's taken by Easton.

And I think we don't see that in some of the other communities, and I think it's largely because they're not getting apartment buildings with the number that we're seeing here in Allentown.

Okay.

No, I think it all of them are common sense.

They look good, I think.

Like tobacco ones good, I think that'll help a lot too.

Um all good.

Looking forward to seeing it back.

Right, and then this just gets directly codified just like you have it redlined so that it'll be permanently embedded.

And um certainly probably won't be the last time we do it.

Um but it looks like a good batch of of stuff.

So I'll also mention since we're talking about code changes, the data center ordinance is coming to CED committee on Thursday of this week.

So if anybody wants to go and and discuss it, um that will be the first time, and then based on that meeting, they'll determine whether to schedule the public hearing.

Um I will say we've since then received an application or prior to that received an application.

So you'll be seeing that in the next month or two.

But it has so has it has it been officially advertised?

Did does it affect the application?

Yeah, do we fall under the pending ordinance doctrine?

No.

Ah darn.

What location is it?

Can you tell us?

Um 2401 Avenue.

Which is an approved, it was an approved warehouse that we did, but they haven't started.

So is that an amendment?

Does that still fall under the new zoning?

But just it or is it an amended?

What is how are they doing it?

So they're gonna come in as an amended land development.

We've said that anything that they've changed will come under the the kind of current code.

They're they're kind of in a um interesting time period because they're floating between a flu a few codes.

So we've said it at least come up to code with the current code, so we'll have to make a determination as to the use that we'll call it, but we have to call it something.

Yeah, um, and uh they have their they're adding um an electrical substation into the front of it, so that adds a new element that changes the plan.

So that's you guys will see that.

Um, and we've spoken to them and they've said, you know, we have a commitment to be a good neighbor, and we'll try to incorporate as much of your ordinance as we can with this project.

So we'll we'll see when we review it.

Isn't there a big substation right there already?

Like right next to it, I think.

It'll need another.

It's a good location, I guess, if there's already one.

Who knows?

All right, well, we almost made it, but at least that's a smallish one.

How many about 200,000?

Is it 200,000?

Wow.

Is that the one where the school was, right?

The former school.

Is this across from um Camelot?

Yeah.

That's a shame.

Well, we'll take it as it comes.

All right, I don't think you need any action on the uh on the discussion item, so uh I think we will stand adjourned.

Thanks everybody.