Hearing board for the city of Allentown for June 22nd, 2026.

The board consists of Samantha McLean to my right, Scott Unger to my left.

My name's Robert Canauer.

We have three matters on our agenda this evening, and our secretary will call that list.

She'll ask if there are objectors.

We asked that they raise their hands so we can get a count and should ask if there are interested persons not necessarily objectors.

We asked that they raise their hands so we can get a count.

Case number one, appill of Bax LLC at 2300 Hanover Avenue.

Is the appellant present?

Uh present and represented by council.

The appellant James Preston.

The appellant is present.

Are there any objectors to case number one?

Please keep your hands up.

Four.

I count.

Five.

Five.

Are there any interested parties not necessarily objectors to case number one?

No.

Case number two.

Special use application of Richard Bauer, senior at 322, 324 North 7th Street, and 315 317 North Hall Street.

Is the appellant present?

Yes.

Ron Ravens is the attorney for the appellant.

The appellant is present.

Are there any objectors to case number two?

No.

Are there any interested parties not necessarily objectors to case number two?

No.

Case number three, appeal and special use application of Maryland Groulon at 1213, 1217 Highland Street.

Is the appellant present?

The appellant is present.

Are there any objectors to case number three?

Two.

No.

Okay, Mr.

Rabitz will take your matter.

Okay, thank you.

Right here, okay, or where would you like next to the stenographer, please?

The witness sits next to the adverse, and you can stand there.

You can stand you.

This is the Hall Street, 7th and all Street.

Good evening, everybody.

Um evening.

Ron Ravitz for the appellant.

Should have Mr.

Bower right here.

No, right here.

Oh, okay, it's sworn in.

Oh, yep.

Bour E and UER.

Are you right now?

Yes, I do.

Hello, Mr.

Bauer.

Um, you're the owner of the property in question.

Yes.

And how long have you owned the property?

Uh approximately uh 26 years.

Okay.

And I'm gonna show you this was submitted with the application.

I don't do you want another copy of the site plan for everybody?

I do have one.

Please.

Okay.

I'm gonna show you that we we could mark this as exhibit a one.

Appellant one.

Yep.

Thank you.

Okay, so that is uh what I've handed you as exhibit A one.

That's a uh site plan showing the entire pride.

There's actually two properties, correct?

There's a a parking lot area, and then there's the property that has uh the the warehouse that you want to do the adaptive reuse, but you also have some uh uh buildings on on 7th street, is that correct?

Yes.

Okay.

Um for the board, could you explain what currently is in the buildings on 7th Street?

Uh six, three bedroom apartments, six two bedroom apartments, and two storefronts.

Okay, thank you.

And currently the part of the property you want to develop is an existing building, correct?

Yes.

Is there anything in it now?

Not uh some stuff I store in it, that's it.

Okay.

And during your ownership, have have you used it for anything else?

No.

Okay.

Could you explain um to the board what you would like to do with with that structure?

Uh six six apartments in the that uh building in the back.

Okay, and the parking for that would be on the adjacent lot, is that correct?

Yes, owned by you, three nineteen north hall, yes.

Okay.

Um you have an estimate of what the rental payments would be for those properties?

It'd be uh from nine to thousand.

And that's consistent with your other properties, yeah.

They're yeah, they're below market value.

Okay, and you have submitted uh uh a land develop minor land development plan for this.

Uh the planning commission did recommend approval at their meeting, is that correct?

Yes.

Okay.

Um this is not directly uh related to the use, but one of those comments was uh to put a street tree in.

Has that been done?

Yeah, I did that today.

Okay, thank you.

And if you do receive the approval, you'll go forward with pulling applicable permits, is that correct?

Yes, and besides the special exception use, there's no other variance is required for your proposal.

Is that correct?

Not as far as I know.

Yeah, okay.

I have no further uh questions for Mr.

Bauer.

Yes, um, I'm looking at the letter from the Allentown Planning Commission, which I'm assuming you received.

Is that correct?

Yes, we did.

Um so in addition to I think the street tree that you mentioned, um, one of their con recommended conditions was um a durable bike rack to be added outside for the convenience of visitors um and um tenants.

Are you um planning to install a bike rack or two?

In the front of the property, yes.

Okay, not on Hall Street in the parking lot portion on the sidewalk area.

There's more than enough room there.

Okay, and then they had something about lighting um to either the parking lot or the building wall.

Is that something that you would agree to doing?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Yep.

Okay, I've I have nothing further from Mr.

Bauer.

We also have Mr.

Gaucair who is the architect, although quite honestly, we think his testimony is more technical and more building permits, so we have nothing further in terms of the adaptive reuse.

We think we've better burden.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, sorry.

Yeah, I'm I'm happy to start.

Um I might have more to say, depending on what Scott says.

Um yeah, I mean my understanding is that this is a special exception use.

Um they aren't they don't need any relief.

Um, they meet all the regulations.

Um I'd be uh willing to approve this, but um adding the conditions from the the recommended conditions from the planning commission that um the applicant agreed to the bike rack, the uh the lighting, um, the sewer module planning module, which I think would be depleted regardless.

Um yes, um in general I agree.

I'm just trying to find the spot in the new ordinance where it talks about is there are there's additional special exception requirements for adaptive?

I believe there are, but can you point me to what page that is?

Someday I'll know that I'll understand the new ordinance, but we haven't really had to use it that much.

That would be on page five-six that would be six six sixty-thirty-six three C or the adaptive reuse standards commission.

That's done.

Yes, page five-six.

And the section was six sixty-thirty-six C the regulations start in my book maybe about three-fourths of the way down the second column of text there.

Supplemental use rates.

Correct, yes.

Oh, and two.

One, two, three, and then on the following page there.

There's the multi-unit, and then that I believe you're looking at, and then following that, there is a specific section on adaptive reuse.

I can read those in the record if you wish.

You I don't think you have to.

So in the next page, which is full second.

No, my review of the it looks like the planning commission reviewed pretty much all of that stuff.

So I just wanted to make sure we weren't missing anything on our end.

And obviously the regular, the standard special condition requirements apply as well.

Right.

Um did I hear correctly that Mr.

Bauer owns three separate lots, and one of them is the parking area.

Is that correct?

Two lots.

Two lots.

This is one lot has two buildings.

Two but yeah, the buildings are all on one lot.

Oh, okay.

So the parking is separate lot.

It is I think I'd be interested in a condition that those parking spaces be used for the uh occupants of those two buildings and not rented out and not sold.

What we're okay with that.

We we put that in our application.

We didn't uh make it formal here.

I I did ask him the question, and with that we we have more than enough parking, but that that's not an issue.

We just want to make sure it stays there.

Yeah, understood.

And we've I we've done it a couple of different ways, and I don't know that we're particularly at least I'm not particularly um concerned about how it's done, but we've done deed restrictions to require that the two parcels stay in the same ownership.

There's an alternative where you could you know do it by easement.

Um our intent is just to make sure that you know the use runs with the land, not with the owner.

So if he was to sell one piece, then there'd be an issue in the future for for the content uh the parking state.

That's not an issue to solve separately.

I don't like yeah.

We I mean we could talk we're going through the minor land development.

We we could deal with it with a deed restriction or note on the plan.

We you know I'm happy to do that.

I think I'm I'm prepared to to make it a condition without specifying how it's accomplished, and that would leave you and the city uh land development process the flexibility to work out something that protects everybody.

Yes, that that's fine.

And ought to be something of record.

Yeah, understood.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Um I make a motion to approve the special exception use at um at the address listed, um, because it meets the or we haven't heard or determined um anything that'd go against the special exception requirements, no adverse impact on the surrounding properties, no um impact to public health safety, welfare, no traffic impacts, etc.

Anything was all all the criteria listed in six sixty one fifteen.

Um but I make that um motion with conditions um including the recommended conditions from the planning commission stated in their letter and the condition that the parking on the separate lot remains for occupants um of the buildings on the other lot.

Okay, no second.

I'll I I second that and I'll just modify the last piece that um that there be some mechanism of record, whether it's on a recorded plan or whether it's by deed restriction or recorded easement, some mechanism satisfactory to um the city planning and zoning department and the applicant as part of the land development process to make sure that the two parcels um are function together, and and obviously if if that would be violated, then the approvals would go away um relative to this approval.

Understood.

All right.

So I have a motion and a second.

All in favor.

I think very much.

Have a good evening.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Okay, ladies and gentlemen, good evening.

My name is Jim Preston.

I am the attorney for the applicant.

What I've just handed up is a packet of uh the exhibits that we'll be going through in the order that we will be going through them.

You'll see there's an index on the front, and we're gonna pretty much stick to that.

We have two witnesses.

We have our project engineer, uh Kevin Fruck, who's at in the witness chair, and then we have uh Dwayne Wagner, representative of the owner.

Uh we're here uh for two things.

We're actually two variances, uh, both dimensional in nature.

The use is a permitted use at this site.

The first variance has to do with the shape of the roof.

Uh flat or flat roofs, I believe, are required in the zoning district.

We're seeking to put on a pitched roof, and we'll get into that in a little bit.

And the other one is that uh the access uh off of a C Street or improved alley is required, and we do not have that.

So uh we'll get into that in a minute.

That's it.

That's pretty much uh where we're going with this.

So if I may, I'll start with my first witness.

I do.

Okay.

Uh my name is Kevin Frook.

I'm with Cornerstone Consulting.

Uh Frook.

Frook F R U C K.

Mr.

Chairman, for your information, his his C V is uh in the packet, it is marked as A01.

So Kevin, uh you've been sworn.

Would you uh identify yourself in particular with respect to your occupation?

Uh certainly I'm a principal engineering manager with Cornerstone Consulting, uh Engineers and Design Services.

We're a uh firm located in Allentown.

Uh we've been before this board before on various other projects, and um have assisted this developer with this project for the last few years.

You testify as an expert before with this you're familiar with the the exhibit packet.

In fact, you helped put that together, is that correct?

That's correct, yes.

Exhibit a A01.

We've identified as your C V.

You're aware familiar with that, right?

That's correct.

And is that accurate as of this evening?

It is.

Okay.

The uh let's move along here.

A two is the overall zoning plan.

Let's give the board a second and we'll roll that out.

And while they're doing that, uh you're familiar with the overall zoning plan, I take it.

Yes.

In fact, you you drafted that, is that correct?

Correct.

Now the subject property.

Uh I I see there's there's some interesting information here.

From exhibit two, where is the subject property?

Can you identify the subject property for us?

Certainly.

So this is a property that's located uh on uh the split between Allentown and Bethlehem.

So if you follow uh you know Hanover Avenue, where then it turns into Broad Street in Bethlehem.

Um it's bound by North Winnetta and on the uh the south side Florence Avenue.

So it is a property that's bisected.

Um so only a part of it is in Allentown, a part of it is in Bethlehem.

Okay, and I think for for those who are familiar with the area, this is a vacant lot now that used to be a car dealership.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay.

So I see the uh there's a zoning line there.

Um above the zoning line.

As I look at the page, uh I see City of Bethlehem, correct?

That's correct.

Below that I see City of Allatown.

Correct.

The City of Allotown portion uh is the the area that's uh dark and dim, is that correct?

That's correct.

And then above that I see a large open white field or area there.

That's the portion that's in the city of Bethlehem.

That's correct, yes.

And that portion is will be developed as well.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

Now the let's do this.

Let's take a look at the uh at the next exhibit.

Next exhibit is exhibit three.

We've identified that as the existing condition aerial with uh existing site access noted.

What are we looking at here, Captain?

So this is an aerial of the property that shows what's there now.

So what you can see is that there's a large paved area.

This used to be a previous car dealership.

Uh when they vacated that property, they did tear down the buildings, but the you can see the outlines of where the buildings were as concrete pads.

Um you'll see noted on that plan in the Allentown side, uh, three circles, one, two, and three, those are the three existing curb cuts located along North Winetta Street.

So the the circled areas are the existing uh access points, is that correct?

That's correct, yes.

And I see one out on West Broad Street.

Uh there is one on Broad Street, yes, that is on the uh city of Bethlehem side.

Okay, and on the Allentown side, we have one, two, and three.

Yes, there are three, correct.

The uh while we're while we're looking at the access points, let's take a look at exhibit four.

You're familiar with that, right?

Yes.

That that photograph represents what's out there today.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

This is a photo of the one of the existing curb cuts, namely the main one for the property.

Okay, so I see there's there's two little bollards or poles with the chain strung across.

Correct.

And that's blocking the existing uh curb cut, is that correct?

That's correct.

And then a little further down, I see another one that's blocking another curb cut.

Yes, that's exhibit four is the next okay, and then uh similarly uh there's another photo of the one that is closest to the intersection.

So those are the curb cuts off of Northwinita Street that you identified, correct prior exhibit, and those are the curb cuts that serve the uh the prior use, isn't that correct?

That is correct, yes.

So let's talk about the uh let's talk about the city of Bethlehem before we get into the city of Allentown because they're they're sort of interconnected here.

Uh where are we with the city of Bethlehem?

So with the city of Bethlehem.

Um should we go?

I can go through the history of the city.

I think it'll be helpful to the um so this project is submitted 2023 time era uh as a sketch plan to both City of Bethlehem and City of Allentown.

So at that time we attended both uh planning commissions.

Uh City of Allentown, we received a favorable recommendation, different plan, different zoning ordinance.

Not to interrupt you, Kevin, but just to state the obvious.

So the properties to be developed as a unit unified development, isn't that good?

That is correct.

Okay.

The intent has always been that it's one unified development, not two separate projects for the two separate cities.

Um we then uh uh began our process with with the city of Bethlehem because that's the larger piece.

Um you may or may not recall back from then that building at the time was a more modern approach to apartments, and it was uh underground parking, a much larger facility, but one that was more massed in the middle.

City of Bethlehem felt that was too large for this property.

Um there was some zoning back and forth with City of Bethlehem.

So then you know, our our directive at that point in time was okay.

Well, we're gonna go back to a more traditional approach with with the apartment layout, and since then we've submitted to City of Bethlehem again uh for a zoning review.

So we did receive a zoning review from the city of Bethlehem.

Um that I believe is A5 in your packet.

Uh so they've gone through, they've reviewed it from a zoning standpoint.

Not from planning standpoint, uh, we want to get the zoning out of the way uh just because we're dealing with two different entities here.

So it's been a it's been tough trying to hone in on the different requirements.

Uh so we do have a clean letter from the city of Bethlehem, and uh that's where we are with City of Bethlehem.

What exactly is being proposed on the Bethlehem side?

Well, from an overall standpoint, we're proposing uh seven apartment buildings, um over 300 units.

Uh on the on the Bethlehem side, five of those buildings will be there along with one clubhouse, and on the Allentown side, it's two buildings with 100 units.

And the what can you tell us about the architecture of the buildings on the Bethlehem side?

Just let's just focus on the the height and the roofs, since that's what we're so on the Bethlehem side, they are are four and five-story buildings with a pitched roof.

Uh part of that is a function of how height is calculated in the city of Bethlehem.

The pitch crews are permitted.

Uh pitch rooms are permitted.

Okay, go ahead.

Let's talk about the building.

So in the city of Bethlehem, you actually for the height, uh, it goes to the height of the the parapet.

Um sorry, the height of the soffit.

But if you have a parapet wall, now you're adding another three feet to that.

And so what happens is in Bethlehem is you you have setbacks from residential that are uh based on the overall height, and then also building to building, you have setbacks.

So it has to do with the 45 degree angle.

So now you're not only looking at how far you are from the property line, but how far you are building to building.

Um in addition with the pitched roofs, most of everything around the Bethlehem side is residential and has pitched roofs.

So the idea was since that's you know, that is the character of that neighborhood, that that is what was being proposed uh for the city of Bethlehem.

Now the process of of in trying to design this uh project, I believe Allentown was undergoing a rezoning or zoning time.

So at the time that we were going through with Bethlehem, uh Allentown was going through their rezoning or a new zoning ordinance.

Um we we kind of held off until that was kind of parsed and settled through.

We did have initial discussions with them up to and leading to the the final adoption.

Uh but we do at this point, I think well, I would I think that's important.

I want to be clear throughout this process, we've had meetings with city staff, isn't that correct?

That's correct, yes.

In fact, we appeared with a sketch plan before Allentown's planning commission.

Is that correct?

What was their uh uh feedback?

Uh at the time for that plan, it was favorable.

Uh they you know encouraged uh multifamily housing.

Um at the time they also said, you know, if there's any way in the future, possibly to get more onto their side, uh they would encourage that.

I think their new ordinance allows us to do that.

Okay, and and so in in trying to put this plan together in the face of both ordinances and trying to come up with a uniform design or architectural concept, you had to work with both jurisdictions, is that correct?

That's correct, yes.

And there are controls in there that force you into certain uh pathways, isn't that correct?

That's correct, yes.

And and that has to do with the building setbacks, yeah.

So you you're dealing with uh like I was saying before, you have building setbacks that you're dealing with that are based on not just the standard setback but the height.

So I think it's for every additional height uh you know, foot you go up, you have another half a foot or foot that you have to come in.

And then you also have building the building that you need to meet.

So I know that was specifically reviewed and coordinated with uh city of Bethlehem zoning.

Okay, and we'll get to that in a little more detail with Mr.

Wagner, but I guess what I'm asking you is uh I I suspect this is kind of like putting together a giant Jenga puzzle, this thing.

It is, yes.

Okay.

Now let's keep moving here and let's get to the relief that that we are seeking.

If we go to A6, this is a a copy out of the city's new zoning orders, isn't that correct?

That's correct, yes.

And but we've added the uh the red block.

That is correct, yes.

And what's that highlights?

What's the significance of that?

Uh this is for section 660-18K uh driveway access.

And that's one of the the uh that's one of the two uh natures or forms of relief that we're seeking secondary.

That's correct, yes.

Go ahead.

Can you tell us what's happening?

Uh certainly.

So uh as you can see on Allentown, you have Hanover Avenue, um, which turns into uh Broad Street, that's the very busy intersection.

Uh you have Weneta or North Ronetta Street, and then you have Florence Avenue.

Um what we're looking at is um access to the property using the same access that there was before, uh, or very close to that.

Uh this ordinance section limits access to a C street or an alley.

So in this case, you can see uh for Allentown.

Yeah, why don't you uh jump over to A7?

A seven, yeah, we were on A6, A7 and use those two to make your point, please.

Certainly.

Uh the next one is A7, and you can see from the city's street map that Hanover, Lanetta, and Florence are all a type streets.

So we're we're we have to take access from one of those, and we're we're choosing what is the midpoint uh of the widest uh street frontage.

So Allentown requires access from a particular street design designation, is that correct?

That's correct.

We don't have any of those street designations in the city of Allentown boarding our property, isn't that correct?

That's correct, yes.

So strict compliance with the ordinance would prohibit access on any of those streets in Allentown.

Is that correct?

That's correct, yes.

And what we're attempting to do here, the relief that we're seeking is to allow us to use the historic entrance to the site.

Yes.

And it's is that having to do with uh anticipated traffic effects or anything of that nature?

Well, I think that this is gonna have you know quite a bit of traffic as it is.

Um there's also site considerations, uh, site distance, distance from intersections to have safe maneuvering for vehicles and grade itself, as you're aware from Florence Avenue down to about the midway point, it's much steeper.

Uh, if you're familiar with that site, if you go out there, you can see it it really rises, it drops about you know 15 feet on the Allentown side.

Um, so this is the level area, if you will, and then um it's probably the best sighted location for a driveway.

Well, it keeps us off Anomar Avenue.

It keeps us off Anover Avenue where there's and if we turn to the next exhibit, which is A8.

I think you this is a uh this is not what's there now, this is what was there.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

So this is a historic photo of the facility back when the buildings were still in place and it was being used as a uh automobile dealership and service area.

And those are the driveway accesses that you alluded to earlier, those are, yes.

And we're seeking to use, I believe it's the the one to the right, which is looks like it was the main entrance.

So it's the one furthest from Hanover or closest to Florence, and you can see it's kind of got the worn uh pavement area uh behind that.

And so that'll be the one that's most consistent with the historic use of the property.

Correct.

Okay, the uh and again I stated that the use was permitted, but I'm not a witness.

Can you confirm that the use of the pressure?

Yes, this is a permitted use.

Okay.

The uh let's keep going here.

Let's take a look at A9.

Do you have that?

Yes.

Now, what are we looking at here with A9?

Again, this is an excerpt, I believe, from the excerpt.

Um what we're looking for.

This is so this is section 660 22 general building.

So the new ordinance has a lot of architectural uh requirements to it now.

Uh under 660 22-h, it specifically discusses roofs.

And uh it says allowed roof types are flat and parapet.

So if I look at the column, I see zones GXC NXP2.

Where are we in there?

Uh we're the GXC.

So we're the GXC zone, so we would fall into that cat.

So if I roll one down and I see we have highlighted allowed roof types, is that correct?

Correct.

And it says flat parapet.

Yes.

That's really the issue here.

Yes.

That's that's the section that we need relief from.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay.

And and what again, what is it that we intend to do on the Allentown side or hope to do on the Allentown side?

Well, on the Allentown side, we're we're really looking for a unified development uh for all the buildings.

So it would look it really wouldn't be unified if if one side had flat roofs, the other side had a pitched roof.

Uh so we are looking for pitched roofs on the Allentown side.

Um, and as we go through this, you can kind of see what that what that looks like.

Um we're not looking at just putting a standard pitched roof in, but there is more of an architectural treatment to that.

Ian let's take a look over to let's jump over to A 10.

Uh and can you tell us whether the uh the request that the board were to grant the request that we've made with respect to the roof style, how that would compare with surrounding development?

Would it be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?

So as I was saying, primarily, if you look at the neighborhood itself, a lot of the buildings in the Bethlehem side are uh are pitched roofs.

So you have residential area along Grandview, Central Park Avenue, uh, Grandview uh or Florence Avenue on uh the Bethlehem side across Broad Street.

You have what was the old insurance building that's that that colonial looking building with with the pitched roof uh across Woodta, you have um what is I think it's an assisted living facility.

Um that is a mix that has a pitched roof and it also has a flat roof.

Uh but you'll notice um that the flat roof isn't like a parapet or the architectural.

Let me just interrupt you now for the board's convenience.

A11 is what he's talking about.

Oh if you want to take a look at A11.

So A11 is that assisted living.

You can see there it has that pitched roof.

You can see it.

That's in Allentown, correct?

And that's in Allentown.

That's directly across the street.

Yes, that's across the mean interrupt.

Yep.

Um if we go through A12, this gives examples.

A twelve gives you, you know, along Grandview, those are the residential homes, they have the pitched roofs.

Again, a A 12 has more pitched roofs.

A 13 is along Florence Avenue.

And you can see there it also has pitched roofs.

Again, it's that residential neighborhood in character.

And again, Randview and Florence for A14 have those pitched roofs.

When they passed the ordinance, which was you know that that street front look, these are concrete block buildings that are set back.

That's just one big white wall of you know 18 feet high.

Okay.

I have nothing further from Mr.

Front.

Looking at A2, and unfortunately, 11 by 17, it's hard to read, period, but the uh the Bethlehem part is grayed out to the extent that I really can't quite read it.

We have a so you can see it a little bit better there.

There sure.

So I guess the for the first question relative to access is probably gonna be answered by this.

Okay, so I see there is in addition to the access proposed on North Wineta Street.

There is one uh in the Bethlehem side uh off of Grandview Boulevard, pretty close to the West Broad Street.

Correct are those the only two access points.

Uh and how many dwelling units is that?

307.

That sounds like so.

The city of Bethlehem has a proclusion as well.

Um to not take access from Broad Street.

Um there is an existing again with that on on Grandview, there's an existing entrance there.

Efforts have been made not to use the alley because of the residences that are there.

But just in in general, and I realize you're trying to navigate zoning first, but since we're talking about one of your variances deals with access, um seems like even like with approaching 400 units, even two access points seems a little limited.

And I know you've got extensive experience doing land development, so you may have an opinion about that.

I do.

Um it is it is it is limited, but we do have longer driveways for these areas, so that you it allows for some stacking and things like that.

Um of the things to also keep in mind is is we did look at um, we did have a traffic study done for the prior, which had more units, um, and that had an access off the same location here, and then an access point off of Broad Street, which we were kind of encouraged to remove.

Um so that also I think only had two, maybe three access points.

Uh but they you know they looked at that.

Uh one of the the tough parts with this building again is is the grade that you have here.

Uh, you have Florence Avenue, which really sits at um a much higher elevation.

So when you're grading this site out in order to get access to uh Grandview and North Winnetta, you have your first building that's alone located along Florence.

I know it's hard to see.

That's on the Bethlehem side.

That's actually um set down with parking underneath it, so that the top level is uh at street level.

So right off the bat, you're dropping the the the 11, 12 feet right off the bat.

Um again with the city of Bethlehem with their zoning, uh it gets a little creative as to the grades because you can't have retaining walls greater than a certain height.

So you're grading down to where you can have a retaining wall and then it still drops down.

So that's kind of you know, arranged so that it can meet those requirements, but you do have that drop.

So I guess what I'm getting at is access to Florence really isn't feasible if you wanted to have a unified development, sure, kind of then bifurcating the site into one side that might be higher, and then one that's not, and then you're gonna have issues with uh you know fire access and different things like that.

And and that totally makes sense.

And I just wanted to, like I said, part of the issue was I just couldn't see 20 years ago.

I probably could have read that no problem.

Um but uh so that was very helpful.

So I understand, and and I certainly I mean, uh, I can't speak for my colleagues, but given the fact that you you cannot comply with the ordinance, I fully agree with with Bethlehem's position on Broad Street, which for us is Hanover essentially.

Um those are the main thoroughfares, you really don't want to have your access points there.

That um while well, there's no way this development can comply with the the black and white letter of the ordinance.

I think what you've done by trying to push the entrance drive the access points off of the main road is at least trying to comply with the spirit of the of the ordinance, and that makes sense to me.

Um I guess the the only other thing I'll mention and I'll let my colleagues have uh time to discuss uh as well is that I know for and I can't speak for Bethlehem, but I know for Allentown, like the point of the the new form-based zoning was to try and reintroduce street walls and walkability, and I think to the extent that this design does a good job trying to pull the access points away from Broad and Hanover, the building positions in Allentown, and I guess looks like there is a there is a building proposed in Bethlehem that would kind of front right on Broad Street.

Um I guess this design kind of follows Northwineta Street, but it kind of leaves a big gaping hole at the Hanover and West Broad relative to a street wall.

And if if the intent of Allentown's ordinance is to create that walkable street wall and push the access points to the back, I feel like there's a little bit of an opportunity that was missed at that point.

And I can I can go ahead and address that as well.

So one of the major things that has been a struggle with this development is there is a drainage easement that goes through the middle of this property.

And it's hard to see on this plan, but I'm gonna kind of show it here.

You can see right here that easement, right?

So that's been a big issue with the placement of all the buildings.

Um yeah, otherwise, this would be pushed uh you know much closer here, aside from you know your clear sight lines, but that's what's limiting uh everything going through here.

So that's kind of why it went that way.

Um extending that building in Bethlehem.

Now you had a gap.

Now you've got a building that's straddling to the straddling to municipalities.

So that's that's that makes that as Jim was saying, it it's a lot of kind of push and pull to deal with that.

Can I make one point?

I think it goes to what Mr.

Ungar was talking about.

I think you indicated we have a building in Bethlehem that fronts on Hanover.

I don't think that we do.

I think that is a street wall that faces Hanover, isn't that correct?

Don't the buildings face interior back there?

Uh yes, but the building is situated so it is along a long street.

And that doesn't mean that there isn't an opportunity for uh landscaping and and some type of uh treatment uh along that almost to the point where maybe it can be something else, some type of community asset, but that's something with planning that that we could sort of.

Yeah, and that leads to another good question.

So and again, Bethlehem ordinance does what what Bethlehem uh prescribes, but so on the two buildings that are an out on that front on Wanita Street, those are all accessed from the parking lot side?

They're access from the parking lot side, yes.

Then there's no entrances on on the other side.

I am not sure if those are built in or not.

There may be um because again, that's the the whole intent of this entire ordinance is to try and get away from that insular kind of automobile-centric yes design, um which you know might be fine in the suburbs, but that's not where we are in in either case.

Um certainly the easement makes sense.

Uh it's unfortunate because I think it's gonna take some work to mitigate the what will feel like a missing tooth, I think, in in the in the street wall.

Um Scott.

That's go ahead.

It looks like exhibit A or A17 um is building seven, and the rendering shows an access point, it looks like, and um sirfrock can confirm um that it doesn't work.

We'll test it.

Oh, great, okay.

So we have we have someone we have the developer here as well.

Great.

Okay.

Yeah, I don't have any specific questions.

I just wanted to point that out in terms of because I agree with that in terms of um wanting to activate that street a little bit.

He's he's chomping at the bit back here, he's ready to go.

Okay, any any other questions?

Okay, thank you.

Um do we take questions from the audience or at the end?

Very good.

I will leave this up here for Mr.

Wagner.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I do it's D-U-A-N-E.

Yes.

Good evening, everybody.

Evening.

Dwayne, good evening.

Let's begin with your background.

So we have an exhibit here which is A15.

I believe you put that together.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

What is A15?

Background experience list of projects and developments that I've been involved with throughout my career.

Okay, well, uh to avoid the board having to uh go through this in detail.

Can you tell us a bit about your background, please?

Sure.

I've been in involved with uh real estate development uh for over 25 years, mainly in the Lehigh Valley, but throughout north northeastern Pennsylvania as well, um, and multiple facets from land acquisition to sales to marketing to financing um uh entitlements, zoning requirements, land development, construction, administration, project management, property management, all that sort of thing.

So I've covered a lot of the gamut of of each aspect uh throughout the 25 years.

And you represent the owner and developer in this particular is that correct.

Let's uh let's talk a little bit about uh the city of Bethlehem uh and and what happened there and how we got to where we are.

In particular, I'm gonna not involve you so much in the road access, street access.

I I believe that's as Mr.

Unger said that's kind of black letter.

But let's focus on the roof.

Because I believe that's a little heavy, it's a little harder to understand to wrap your head around.

You and I have talked about this.

Yeah.

So why don't you take us through the reasoning?

Sure.

Um, so how we ended up here, how we started and how we got to.

So uh when we looked at the um redevelopment of the site as a whole, um we understood it was bisected through the two municipalities.

We try to look at a a large parcel um consolidated and come up with a plan that works.

So we uh generated several iterations of a plan that, as Mr.

Frock said, had larger buildings on it, a little more um urban style, a little little newer, but they exceeded the maximum building length of 180 feet in Bethlehem.

So uh we tried we worked for several years, I'd say, with um the planning and zoning department in Bethlehem, um, but they were unwilling to um give us the relief to go to 230 feet or whatever it was beyond 180.

Um, and that would have allowed us to consolidate it into four buildings rather than seven.

Um so we went through, like I said, several iterations, and we just came to the conclusion that the best thing would be to come up with a plan that meets the zoning regulations of the city of Bethlehem, and that's how we had that letter issued by the city.

Um that resulted in us spreading the buildings out, creating the separations that uh Mr.

Frock talked about between the buildings, the setbacks we had to comply with, and all those sorts of things.

We also in doing that um uh we worked with our traffic engineer who confirmed and established that the umetta street access is would be the most safest, best, and most functional access point rather than coming in on Grandview as a main exit because that's got a limited uh site triangle there and and access off of broad street, it's very close, but that could be a supplementary secondary exit point, really, is what it would become.

Um we also worked with the fire department, the fire marshal in the city of Bethlehem to make sure that the plan we uh generated was uh compliant for the fire marshal, um, and we put in between the behind the um amenities building.

We also put in an emergency exit that would be bollard so that the fire department in the case of emergency needed that there is a third point that they could get in and out of if it was needed to do that.

Where is that that is on this really hard to read in this area that's necessary here?

These are uh uh breakaway bollers, and how wide is that Bascombe Street, 15 feet?

Well, it is 15 feet, but again, it was it was only in an emergency not for public use, it was the fire department review.

Well, right.

My point is it if you know, I'm not sure if fire engines go.

We ran all the turning radiuses to make sure we and uh radii work, okay.

And uh that's a Bethlehem problem.

Yeah, but uh fire marshal signed off.

Yeah, fire marshal bear signed off on that.

Um Kevin ran the uh the turning radii, that sort of thing to make sure it worked.

The templates, um, and again, that's not meant for general access.

It was just uh what if we need to get in there or get out.

Um so that's how we came about that.

Um we also looked at um Linetta Street just to touch on the access points as a singular primary access point, and that goes to resident concern safety and controlling an access point, a primary access point for people coming into because as it gets leased up, visitors coming in, deliveries.

We want to make sure that that they follow a certain flow for the property, and that makes the residents gives a little bit of a sense of security with that as well.

So we went through everything with Bethlehem, ended up with a um zoning compliant plan.

The opinion was issued by um by the city's zoning officer, uh Mr.

Taylor, and um that brought us back to Allentown.

You said it brought us back because we had been talking with Allentown.

Correct.

We were we were in Allentown, as we said before, for the uh a planning sketch plan review.

They were supportive of it.

Um we let them know we had to go through zoning, and they welcomed us to come back once the zoning was sorted through.

We didn't think it would take quite as long, but we're here today anyway.

Um so now um after we were getting the plan or uh to a point in Bethlehem where it was beginning to work.

Um, that's when I came over to meet with the staff in Allentown, walked through the zoning, explained what we're looking at, thought if it was compatible it could work.

We were introduced to the new zoning ordinance, and and the timing for that being January.

So that's that's how we ended up here to make sure that we could identify based under the new ordinance any zoning deficiencies we have.

That was identified in uh the zoning officer's letter for Allentown as the access point and the pitched roof.

Now give us a let's go through the remaining exhibits while we're at it.

So we have A17, A16 and A17, which appear to be two uh renderings of elevations.

Let's take them in order.

What about A16?

What can you tell us about it?

A16 is is uh rendering of building number six, that's the one closer to uh Hanover Avenue, the longer uh with the articulation in it.

Um this rendering shows uh typical materials that would be used would be a mix of siding, uh brick, that sort of thing, or some other sort of exterior materials.

We have the pitch roof shown.

You can see the balconies on the buildings.

There's an exterior balcony on both sides of the building.

So the the sides are more difficult to activate.

You can see on the far left of this rendering, you see just basically windows there, those are bathroom windows, that sort of thing, a secondary bedroom window.

But the uh main living area, all the units will have uh a balcony included with them.

So that activates that building uh on both facades, uh both main facades.

And then there's also there will be entrances out to Winnetta Street from the building, and you can see a little more clearly on the on the rendering for number 17.

I'm sorry, for building um number seven on exhibit 17.

Um, there is a front entrance there that stands out.

There will be the same sort of design on um building six as well as the other buildings in the development because both sides will be you'll be able to access them when you drive in or walk in or wherever you're coming from.

You can you don't have to walk to the back of the building to get in.

It'll feel more residential.

Um, and that's also why we wanted to drive the um pitch roof um aesthetic with it.

That does other there's other reasons for that, but it the the main one is to carry the same character of the development in the Bethlehem portion of the site over to the Allentown side.

It's the same, the buildings would be the same mass scale footprint, it's just changing to that pitched roof, and that allows a little more continuity with the development.

And I think you saw on exhibit four.

Um as you pull out of this property from the access point on Winnetta, directly across the street is the uh continuing care retirement.

I think that's the assisted living, but you're looking at a pitch roof as you pull it as you pull out and as you pull in, you'd have the same pitch roof aesthetic.

And then I believe all of or I wouldn't say all maybe 99% of the residential um buildings around the site on Grandview, Florence, and Central Park Avenue are all pitch roofs as well, between the homes and their garages and along Bascombe Street.

Now, Dwayne since we're seeking dimensional here uh relief here this evening.

It's my understanding that uh economics and economic hardship is something that can be considered in terms of a hardship.

Uh are there any aspects of an economic hardship that is that associated with this request?

Yeah.

Can you explain that a little bit to the board?

Sure.

So um the pitched roof is a less costly um construction type.

But the flat roof, there's other uh structural elements that have to be included with that.

You're building the parapet, um, it's a different roof material.

Um, but in addition to that, the uh the wear on the roof with the pitch roof, it handles the water better, it directs it into the drains better.

Um, it also allows us to put our HVAC equipment in there and it keeps it out of the elements, so that ends up being a maintenance benefit to the overall cost and functionality of operating the facility and the development.

Um the biggest uh challenge is we'd like to keep the same aesthetic of the overall cohesive um development, whether the municipal boundaries are there or not.

So we don't want to make it look like we've put flat roofs in Allentown and pitch roofs in Bethlehem because of a dividing line and invisible line that nobody even knows is there.

Um but if we were required to keep the the flat roof in Alletown, and if we had to do that in Bethlehem again for the same aesthetic reason, we would end up losing about 24% of the units in Bethlehem and about 17% of the units throughout the development overall.

Why is that?

And that's a function of the units in Bethlehem and the development itself with the dry aisles, access to the parking for Bethlehem and Allentown are all derived based on the building setbacks and how much area we have to put our parking and do the dry aisles.

So in the city of Bethlehem, they measure a building height either to from the grade to the to the fascia, or if it's a flat roof for a pitch roof, if it's a flat roof, you go to the top of the parapet, which adds another three feet plus or minus to the building.

Um the way the buildings are designed now, the building height is 44 feet on the four-story building, 55 on the five-story building.

Um the 44 foot building setback, we meet that in Bethlehem.

If we exceed that in Bethlehem, it requires us to push the building back and increase that setback.

So if we do that, then that causes the dry aisles to be compromised, causes the parking to be compromised.

So now we lose parking, and now we lose density by by a way of parking.

In Allentown, it doesn't have an effect because whether they're pitched roofs or flat roofs, we still have enough one-to-one parking ratio for to support the units on the Allentown side.

So it really becomes an issue on the Bethlehem side of uh reducing, like I said, about 25% of the units, it's about a 51 51 units are what we would lose because what we would need to do to preserve the parking access, dry balls, and like I said, the fire fire circulation, all those things that we've put time into comply with on the Bethlehem side.

Um the only way to preserve that is to eliminate the floor from each of the buildings, which is results in about 51 units being lost.

Okay.

I have nothing further for Mr.

Wagner if the board has any questions.

Does the board have any questions?

I'm pretty sure this is a question for general answers.

It is then I have nothing further.

I would move for the admission of our exhibits.

And they are admitted.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Step down.

Now we had uh how many?

Five five objectors.

Raise their hand.

Do the objectors want to tell us anything.

If you don't have to say anything, I have a question about hang on.

Give me your name against morning.

My name is Teresa Kloiber.

Raise my hand.

Yes.

And what's your uh address, ma'am?

345 Grandview Boulevard.

Okay.

My question, well, my question is I believe it was said that they received a clear letter from Bethlehem.

And I had a dr had spoken with David Taylor, and as of December 15th, these plans had not been submitted to either zoning or zoning hearing board nor planning commission of Bethlehem.

So I'd like to know what that clear letter is.

I can give you a copy.

Go ahead.

And also on the Bethlehem zone, the Bethlehem plans that we were sent a letter about, there were three typographical errors on that.

And David Taylor acknowledged that there were three errors.

All this was correctly listed in the plan view, but I'm not sure what that meant.

So there are errors on the plans that we were sent in the neighborhood to notify us, but I've not seen anything since December 15th.

All right.

Well, Mr.

Preston.

And I guess my other question is why, as a builder-developer, why do you have to seek a variance?

Why can't you just build within the lines?

And I did send an email.

I'm not sure who in zoning received it.

Why can't plans just be submitted within the rules?

Sometimes you can't submit plans within the rules because of the physical characters characteristics of your property.

So they can't submit a plan that shows uh an access on whatever the street should be because there was no such street there.

I'm talking about like with the heights of the buildings and stuff and the length of the buildings that we have been fighting since February of 2023.

We retained a lawyer to do all this fighting.

So the five of us live in the area, and three of us mainly have been the ones that have been going around to the everybody in the neighborhood and getting support from them, getting, you know, whatever we can.

We've been to the hearings, we've been to the, you know, we've we've been to the appeals, we've gone through all that stuff.

We've thankfully won quite a few of those, if not almost all of them.

Um, my let my letter is dated December 15th.

Yours is to say dated November 13th.

So this letter is before I got the one from David Taylor, which says that he didn't have anything further.

So I'm a little confused.

And if I may, Mr.

Chair, just for the sake of our city of Allentown record, there have been there have been no issues with the building heights or with uh or the length of the buildings that have been identified with respect to the city of Allentown zoning ordinance, the matter before the zoning hearing board this evening and before consideration at this public meeting only would relate to to the portion proposed within the Allentown municipal limits and and how the Allentown Code may comply.

Just because I always like to inform the public as to how the zoning process works in general, it's often common for a developer to make contact with the municipality to to address any big questions that may be outstanding in their minds with respect to zoning before they go any further with submittals to spare the expense if a plan won't necessarily be able to get off the ground.

So, in all likelihood, we haven't yet seen a formal submittal past the sketch made to made at the City of Allentown Planning Commission.

This project would need to go through the whole Allentown planning procedure.

In some cases, I would recommend that questions on the on the process may be best directed to Bathland City Hall.

But the procedure that I understand that the developers followed in Bethlehem was what's known as a preliminary opinion, which is a slightly different course of action than what they took with respect to the Allentown portion of their project.

The developers didn't engage us pretty proactively in conversation at the at the city, and we were able to identify these issues that would require variances and from the Allentown zoning ordinance.

But as you've heard hopefully heard from the proceedings, the codes are slightly different.

We have we have two slightly we have two slightly different animals trying to play together here with respect to our codes.

We're very aware of that.

So and the other only other comment I would like to make is where they're talking about um all of us all of our buildings having pitched roofs and all, we do, but we're only two stories high, and you put four stories, four and five stories in there is going to be a monster.

So I just wanted to make that known that that is one of our objections is the height.

Um pitched roof or no pitched roof.

Putting four or five stories there is just gonna totally ruin our neighborhood.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, yes, sir.

We're glad to hear from you, but we try to avoid repetition.

Paul Fondle.

How do you spy last name?

F O N D L.

Raise your right hand, please.

Fourth tell the truth all the truth about the true salvia.

I don't and your address, sir?

Four 13 Grand View Willemore.

Okay.

And I'd like to address something else.

With the size of this development, the traffic that's going to go into that intersection where Hanover Avenue comes into Broad Street, is gonna be humongous.

We had so many accidents there today.

What's it gonna be like when you stick 500 more cars from this development when it's finished into Winita Street?

And I understand even when it's gonna be extended into the state hospital project.

And the person that started a petition, you know, she almost got killed at that intersection.

And she moved out to Washington where she's was originally from.

And I carried that on.

We had over 200 names, and that was done twice that we did that.

And I just can't see a development of this monstrosity.

You know, they gotta dine downsize it and maybe do something different.

I don't know.

Uh you know, they have they have a a place over um in North Bethlehem, where they have apartments put in for just the elderly.

Not a homes for, you know, it's just homes for people that are over 60, over 55, and something like that cuts down on the amount of cars that you would have coming out of development like that.

And it could be developed.

Bethlehem okay, that development, and that development could be put in this property also, and not quite as tall.

I mean, that's all I have.

Okay, thank you, sir.

Yes, ma'am.

Yeah.

Mary Jill McCool, M A K O U L.

I do.

And what's your address, ma'am?

449 Grandview Boulevard.

All right.

Do you have something to add to the other objectors?

I do.

What's that?

The additional access to the property.

I do not like it coming off of Grandview.

The driveway that is there, existing there, is one car length from Broad Street.

That intersection is a school bus stop.

There's also a land to school, Atlanta bus stop at that corner.

There's not going to be enough, you know, visibility to come out to make it.

We're talking about an entranceway to the Allentown project.

Right, but he he mentioned using the entrance off, you know, going on to Grandview.

Okay, also, if you pave that section, which the Bethlehem sub with the plans that he resubmitted, that area, if it's paved, the intersection of Grandview Boulevard and Ritter Street, the alley, the short alley.

It floods constantly there because Allentown Storm Drain is a different diameter foraging into Bethlehem's.

Breakaway?

The breakaway pylons.

That alley is only for garages, people who have a Grandview whose garages are back there.

And you put that breakaway there, it's gonna be, you know, it I don't think it's gonna work.

But again, that's that's in Bethlehem.

I know, but this is part, this is what he proposed to do because somebody on this board brought up access for fire and emergency vehicles.

So well, you were they were talking about the second act, you know, the second access, and you were worried about emergency vehicles and stuff like that.

So that's where that extra, those breakaway pylons came into play.

Well, they were on the plan before I asked the question.

I was just trying to read the plan.

We never got the plans.

Is there a reason why we never I never knew about this until there were two signs posted on the Allentown side of the property, and within two days they were taken down.

They were supposed to be posted for seven days, they were not up seven days.

And so we we as a neighborhood, being that this is in our backyard, I feel we should have been notified.

We should have been given access when these, you know, to meetings when these plans came about, not after the fact where he's looking for variances for this.

And if I may, ma'am, just offer some procedural explanation.

This is the sketch plan was presented previously to the city of Allentown at some point.

That's just that's just generally for a developer to get informal comment.

This is the first public touch point for these particular plans.

Developers frequently approach the city as they're as they're working to get a concept together to ask about various questions of technical compliance, but this is the first time these plans have been before the public with and with an opportunity to comment.

They still would are in the city of Allentown.

They still would need to go to the go to the City of Allentown Planning Commission as well for approval.

The planning commissions would take into consideration many more of the questions of context and compatibility with the neighborhood versus uh a zoning review, which is a little bit more mechanical in nature.

So there will be other public touch points for for these plans.

Things like stormwater would be dealt with at the planning commission.

At any kind of land development plan when it gets submitted, it gets routed back to the city engineer's office.

They're probably the most significant review department of land development plans.

So any kind of stormwater conflicts or any kind of stormwater incompatibilities at that point likely would be would be examined and might be addressed by the city engineer.

That might also be helpful information to bring forth to the planning commission for their consideration since stormwater management requirements are included in city code, but outside the scope of the zoning ordinance.

Okay.

Um when he mentioned the you you inquired as to like the whole project as a whole.

I know this is Bethlehem, but when he first went before Bethlehem zoning for variants on the length, which zoning denied, he didn't file an appeal soon enough.

So that was thrown out by the court.

It has not been determined one way or another.

But yet he submitted new plans to Bethlehem, which, as Terry said, they're all mixed up.

They're not accurate.

So and when he did that, the other variance that he needed with the um was a that was the length variance.

He needed the way Bethlehem is zoned, he needed to have walk-in commercial on the first floor building on Hanover Avenue and Broad Street, that building.

Zoning didn't sided with them, then we appealed it to one level of court, they sided with him again, but then the next level of court overrode it.

So now he has to put commercial in that first floor, first floor of the building on Broad Street.

So he had where's all that traffic gonna go?

I mean, is you've got access.

I would like to see use the access off of Broad Street that's there and make it a right turn only so that you're flowing with traffic, and all the left hand and any other traffic come out on Winita Street.

That makes sense to me.

Okay, but we we don't have jurisdiction over that issue at all.

Well, I know, but when he went before Bethlehem, he used Allentown streets for his argument.

So watch, he's snake in the grass.

Okay.

Anything from you folks?

I'm not suggesting there should be.

Okay.

Uh we're ready for discussions.

Yes.

Senator, do you ready?

Yeah.

Okay.

I think the you know the the two single or the two specific items that are before us and over which this body has jurisdiction, or the the type of roof and the access point location.

Uh, I think the access point um is pretty straightforward.

The the ordinance requires access off of a C a C type street.

Um, there are no C-type streets adjacent to this development, and if I'm correct, there are no B type streets.

Yes, that's correct.

The development founded by A streets all around.

So that's a perfect situation where the applicant cannot comply with the ordinance, and I think relief is is clearly necessary.

Otherwise, you know, if we were to deny this, I'm sure it would be remanded back to us pretty promptly by the Lehigh County Court of Common Please for failing to grant the relief.

So I think the the relief on the driveway makes sense.

I would have preferred to see additional access points, you know, maybe um off of uh Florence, but but given um uh Mr.

Frux's uh description of the topographic challenges, I understand why that's not plausible.

And again, the overall traffic volumes and turning movements and stacking distances are all things that that will be reviewed as part of the land development plan for the city of Allentown.

We don't have access to that information presently.

It's not before us.

But in this particular case, looking across the uh the street across uh Wanita Street, the uh the roof line there is very similar, I think, and compatible with the roof lines that they've proposed in exhibits um 16 and 17.

Um so I'd be inclined to grant the relief on that as well, subject to to some conditions.

Um one of the conditions is um relative to the the street level or this the front access um to the buildings.

I think um while the the accommodation I think we're willing to make, or at least I'm willing to make on some of those items uh are necessary and still comply with the spirit of the ordinance.

I think isolating this community um these this very large community into uh basically a gated community that you can only get into from the gate, you can't access from the pedestrian um access point is specifically not the spirit of what this ordinance was intended.

So I would make a condition that uh at least the two buildings in Allentown.

I would encourage it everywhere, but at least the two buildings in Allentown, because Allentown has such short setbacks, that's the intent of it, is to be able to create that that pedestrian um access and activation.

And again, the the balconies are a nice ad and a feature.

Um so that'd be a condition that the buildings, the two buildings in Allentown have direct pedestrian access off of Wanita Street.

Uh I would also um as as does the one.

Yeah, well, as these are these are conceptual renderings.

So that's that goes to my next condition.

Um obviously these are not the final drawings, um, but I will make it a condition or I'll recommend to my colleagues that we make it a condition of the design that um these conceptual drawings um or something that is significantly material the same as those be presented and be well as part of the final plans.

So that there's not something completely different um crafted.

I think these are relatively attractive buildings.

They I think they fit well with the the existing development across Wanita Street in terms of form, except for the fact that these are much better because they're right up on the street.

Um I'll add those suggested conditions, and if I come up with any others, I'll let you know.

But that's what I have.

So one of your suggested uh conditions are front access from the buildings in Allentown.

Yeah, onto Wanita Street.

Onto Anita Street, and um using similar renderings for the future plans.

The materials, I mean rhythm and pattern of the windows, similar materials, roof lines, the variability in the in the peaks.

Um I think those are all important to making the the buildings blend with the neighborhood, and particularly the buildings across the street.

Uh and I I'm sensitive to it trying to be one unified development.

Again, in the absence of if across the street in the Allentown side had very different buildings, I don't think I'd be uh as likely to grant the relief.

But in this particular case, I don't think that there's any negative impact from making it kind of gel.

This is it.

This is kind of a unique intersection, even like it's one of the few non rectangular, non-grid-shaped roads in the city of Allentown, quite honestly.

Um, so it's a unique uh unique area.

But again, in all other forms, the the density, the overall height, those are all fully in compliant with the compliance of this Allentown zoning ordinance, and there's really nothing before us to deal with those.

So if I may, with respect to the condition of renderings and elevations as similar to what's presented.

What what would not be similar in the mind of the board and where would the board want staff to request that the applicant return?

Obviously, renderings need to go to the planning commission.

The planning commission will engage in a fairly detailed dialogic process with the applicant that may lead to different design changes, and and where would how much discretion do you want to leave to staff and to the and the what's determined to be good design by planning and zoning versus how much say does the board want if there are any revisions to the design.

We could add subject to the planners uh yeah, that's fine.

Yeah, we could add that.

And I think I mean it's one of those you'll know it when you see it kind of things, but obviously what's what's proposed in the rendering has a lot of masonry materials and brick um has uh a really good amount of uh uh venstration and in a nice even balanced way the the uh areas where the the peaks alternate or are highlighted by some of the the uh architectural features.

So I think that's all good stuff.

If they if they came back and said, you know what, we're gonna build do a building with half as many windows with just standing seam metal siding across the whole thing that you know I mean it would be um that would be clearly something that would be not material similar to this.

Um I mean, but you know, if they change the colors or or modify it slightly, I'm fine with that.

But I think I think the the chair's recommendation to you know subject to the planning commission's review and and planning department's review.

Um you'll have to make a judgment call as to Yeah, I think that's well taken to give that to the planning commission because I always get slightly skeptical when when design decisions get deferred to Mr.

Setback who asks his wife is if his clothes go together on occasion.

Um yeah, I would agree with everything you said, Scott.

I do have a question for Mike, though, since we're all learning the new code in section 660 18K, where it talks about access point um in 2C.

Give me a sec.

Um under French Street, it says if no C Street improved Alley or Side Street abuts a lot, one driveway access point per lot is allowed off the front street, and then it gives some exceptions, um, except as follows, and and this case doesn't you know meet any of those.

So I guess my question is do is the relief needed, or can they have this access through that provision?

Or what am I I might be missing something?

So in this case, obviously the zoning officer doesn't have the authority to rewrite the code.

So I I agree with the core of the argument that there's a strong common sense basis for granting the relief here, but there is nothing in the code that that necessarily authorizes the zoning officer to approve any old common sense access point if the street grid in the area doesn't support the pattern.

So I I'd almost go on record here as saying that the zoning office supports the common sense present from the applicant's request in taking meetings with the applicant.

I can't tell you that they've considered multiple possibilities as to how to best comply with the spirit of the ordinance, but this is this is the reason why a body that's known as the zoning board of adjustment in other municipalities exists, that there's some situations that just aren't captured by the code and need some adjustment because the specific cycle I would agree that I don't think that the zoning staff has the authorization necessarily, unless yeah, I just don't think they do.

I think the direction to us is relatively clear.

Yeah, and so I think to that end, it probably makes sense for us to take the action.

One could maybe argue that it's not necessary, but I I think it is, but it certainly doesn't hurt us to do it, and it certainly helps the applicant by giving them clarity.

Sure.

No, I just I I bring that up just because we are learning the code and just for the sake of future applications, because I interpreted it a different way.

Um but yeah, I I no need to repeat everything you said.

I agree with your your statements, and I would be willing to second a motion with those conditions.

Okay.

So moved and you second all in favor.

I can I just ask one question.

Could we get a copy of the drawings that were submitted?

I know they're not planning up, but is it possible to get a copy?

And it doesn't have a copy with the watch.

And is it possible to be notified when there's meetings the next time around?

Other than a sign on the property?

Ma'am, are you specifically asking about Allentown meetings or Bath Lamb meetings or all the above?

Yes, all of the well, I know we don't know that, but we would like to be notified also that Allentown because it is we are living right there.

Yeah.

Okay, and would the Mr.

Chair with the residents who spoke, would they be would they be treated as parties to this evening's decision?

I don't think they need to be well if if they want to appeal, is that what you're saying?

Or just in general, anyone who's if anyone was a party, I suppose they'd be notified about a future meeting.

All right, we can do that.

Yeah.

Yeah, okay.

You have them?

I have a list for the address.

The planning commission also has the planning commission also follows a standard practice of sending buffer letters within 300 feet of the property.

So I'm assuming your grand view addresses would likely be within 300 feet of uh of a track boundary, so I can advise them to make sure that that they extend their radius over into Bethlehem as well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Thank you.

Not sure how close you live, but I actually got the letters so you got to go close.

We didn't tell you that must not live that close.

Do keep an eye on the site as well.

Any future meetings will be posted likely in a similar location.

My house is the one with the four sided each roof directly across from the sign there.

And that's only nine properties.

Okay, let's get started on the third case, which is Highland Street.

Is uh Marilyn crew on here?

Can you raise your hand?

Do you sort of tell the truth all truth and nothing about something for that?

I got the case.

Oh, we need to have this the case.

I am you raise your right hand.

Can you swear to interpret from span uh English Spanish Spanish things customer building?

Yes, I and what is your name?

Anthony.

Can you ask your hand?

Okay, this one with it.

I didn't okay.

You want to use this property for a group child care home, is that correct?

Yes.

And you're an owner of the property?

And this is your husband, I take it.

The same last name, isn't it?

No, I am a brother.

Your brother.

Yes.

Okay, very good.

Um of the questions I have, it's a permitted use, but you need special exception uh approval by the board.

So necessita on authorization of PCI.

Okay.

One of uh my concerns is that you have proposed to have public street pick up and drop off for the jordan.

Is that correct?

See, yeah.

Um have you talked to the zoning officers about whether four, I think we need four.

And with this particular application, there's no insufficiency in parking that was determined to be that was determined to be sufficient.

The issue at play is solely the the request to use the public street for parking and drop-off rather than make it.

So if if they use the lot, they need another parking space, right?

Correct.

If they'd use if they'd use the lot, yeah, then they'd need to have an additional off-street parking space somewhere.

Okay.

Have you talked to the zoning office about an additional off-street area for pickup and drop-off?

Yeah, but no, sonificaciones over the other.

Yeah, I would have it from the off street from the street uh parking to um designated spots and and the driveway would be for myself and people that would work there.

I think I understood what you what you translated, but I'm not positive.

So can you tell me again and get close to the microphone?

Okay, no, no, you you uh okay that you would have two um street parking for the pick up of children, uh and the driveway would be access for for her and anybody that would work with her.

Right.

And if I may just confirm I'm understanding you're indicating that you plan to use two spaces on Highland Street on the public street for pickup and drop off.

Yes.

Questions?

Questions.

No, not for them.

I just have some thoughts.

No, no, not questions.

I guess my my thought is, and I know that we've had this conversation, we had it last week about hang on just one second.

Oh you should translate absolutely everything that's said.

Okay, so that she understands what's going on.

Okay.

And I'll try to take a break.

So this is we discussed it last week whether we're interpreting the insufficient loading, because the code doesn't say for sure that there needs to be off street um loading.

Last week we interpreted that as we need um offsh another parking space off street to accommodate the loading.

In this case, in looking at the where the property sits, I'm actually I'm inclined to think that a car pulling over to the side of the road parking, and you know, their child gets off on the sidewalk or the yard side dropping them off is actually safer than pulling into this driveway that has no turnaround and then having to back out again into the road.

So in this case, I'm kind of thinking where last week we had a case where it was an alley, right?

So it's safer.

Yes.

We don't have that here.

We don't have that here.

So I'm I'm actually thinking that in my from my opinion, I believe the the off the on street drop off, especially given the fact that you know the they would the kids would come out onto the yard, go right into the house.

Hopefully they go on the yeah, I mean that's a parental decision.

Yeah, I guess.

Um but I I almost feel like that like pulling over to the side is safer than the pulling in the driveway backing out, pulling in brat backing out.

Um aerial that we could see just to see how there's no sidewalks here.

I think there are yeah, so it looks like actually it almost looks like right across the street.

Right across the street there are side sidewalks and a portion of that.

Yeah, but doesn't extend.

I I tend to agree with you, but we'll anyway.

Let's do sorry about that.

Oh, there were okay two objectives.

All right.

Okay.

Um I guess one question.

Um you mentioned that the off-street parking would be for you and for employees.

How many employees are you anticipating?

It would be two to three people depending on including herself.

Because of the children.

So two other three, yeah, so three to four people per at any given time.

In addition to her.

Including, sorry, okay.

Including myself.

Okay, thank you.

And I take it that you're not proposing any changes to this outside of the structure.

No.

Do you have experience with a child care center?

No, not any experience, yeah, but I haven't had experience.

I would like to give myself a chance since I can meet the requirements.

You know, I assume that you require to operate a uh child care home licenses from the state and the city.

Yes.

Any other questions?

No.

Any other questions, Mr.

Okay, you can have a seat, and we're gonna ask that the people that indicated that they were objectors are here.

So would you folks like to say anything to us?

I have your name.

Yes, my name's Ernest Niding.

It's E A R N E S T.

And last name is N E I D I Greg.

I do.

And what's your address, Mr.

Knighty?

Uh 1222 West Highland Street.

I'm almost directly across the street from them.

Okay.

That's what the sidewalk is.

Yeah, I have a sidewalk.

Okay.

All right.

What would you like to tell us?

Um, first of all, I I have nothing against the people here.

Uh you know, I think they've been here for maybe two years.

They've been good neighbors and stuff like that.

Uh, but I've been here since uh 2009.

And um I just wrote some stuff down.

I mean, I I just think having a daycare across the street is just uh would negative um you know impact the neighborhood.

Um I mean how many is she allowed to have like how many question how many how many kids are she is she allowed to have?

I think it's up to 12, isn't it?

Seven to twelve.

All right.

Well I mean it's a residential area.

I mean it's not you know it's gonna increase the amount of traffic.

Um there's no everybody has just one um uh driveway.

It's not like we have double driveways or anything, and people already park out there.

I mean, you don't see any cars there now, but there's you know, usually cars out there.

So I mean, if they're if they want more parking spots that designated just for them, I mean it's just gonna take away from everybody else.

Okay.

I mean, um, you know, during the it's it's gonna be you know more traffic during the school year at least, or usually ever, but that's gonna be the most, you know, when people are driving their and uh dropping off their kids.

I mean, between seven and eight o'clock in the morning, you know.

You know how kids are, they run around outside, they cry when they don't want to go in, they laugh, and you know, they're just gonna make more noise.

I mean, you know, if I want to sleep late or anybody wants to sleep late, I mean I got a dog, they hear you know, kids outside or somebody, you know, the cars just going, you know, you don't know how noisy they are, you don't know.

It's just it's just a lot of extra traffic.

And then when the kids come out, I gotta worry about if I'm gonna hit any kids.

I back out of my driveway.

You know, you it's just I mean that's a lot of kids.

Twelve kids.

I mean that's I mean, I'm I'm a reasonable guy.

You know, if it was two or three kids, I wouldn't I wouldn't even be here.

But I mean that's that's that's like a real business.

And the reason it bothers me is because right next door to me I got an Airbnb place that I think is against the law, to be honest with you.

Nobody ever ever told us they were gonna do an Airbnb.

And I had everybody in the neighborhood sign a petition.

I took it up to zoning, nobody did anything about it.

So we got different people there.

Now they want a daycare.

I mean, what's next?

I mean a pizza place, someone's gonna want a pizza.

I mean I don't know if a pizza place would be there under zoning, but this this use is permitted and the board uh has criteria to address, and if there is evidence, not just speculation, but evidence that this proposed use would uh significantly increase traffic uh reduce traffic safety or create a public health or safety hazard or substantial negative impact upon the established residential neighborhood.

Uh if there's proof of that, not just speculation, um we can deny, but if it's speculation, we can't.

Well, I mean it's not speculation to have 10 10 cars coming down your lot.

Well, you have to remember that it is permitted unless there's evidence that it would create a traffic safety.

Now, if it's permitted, that in that means they expect increased traffic.

Go ahead, you were gonna say something.

No, I just the additional traffic doesn't necessarily unlikely equate to increased hazard.

You were here for the previous case, it's almost 400 apartments.

There's gonna be extensive traffic studies as part of the land development process.

I can't imagine a traffic study generating any real substantial.

But isn't that a commercial?

I mean, isn't that Hanover Avenue is a commercial spot, not a residential?

It is, but we're talking about who knows how many cars and it may be spaced out over the course of a day as well, too.

But we certainly understand your your concerns.

The chair is just trying to explain to you.

And these aren't our rules, right?

Like this is it's been determined by Pennsylvania case law.

So in other words, cases throughout the entire commonwealth have been appealed to the county court or the court of common pleas, and the the rulings that come down basically have said that we cannot accept speculation.

We have to ex we can all I'm I mean, I'm just worried about hitting kids or you know, kids running around.

I mean, you know, I have to come out of my driveway, it's just you know, more stress for everybody worrying about, you know.

I don't know, they don't have a fenced in yard where the kids gonna run around.

I mean, I mean, if they're gonna have and if it's um if I'm not mistaken, part of the uh licensing process requires a uh a secure play area, doesn't it?

It's up to us, it's not up to us.

It's up to us if we want to add oh conditions can be added, but obviously the the state and the other licensing agencies do review for health and safety concerns of the facility.

Yeah, yeah.

And yeah, you can fence the backyard, but that doesn't deal with the fact that there's potential noise at different hours of the day.

You know, I mean I'm reasonable.

I don't, you know, two or three kids, you know, I don't care about, but if you're talking that many kids, I I just you know, I just heard there was another person.

Is that you okay?

Let's hear what you have to say.

What is your name?

Donna Cassus.

K-A-S-S-I-S.

Yes.

And what's your address, ma'am?

1222 West Highland Street.

And that's so I live across the street.

Okay.

Where the where the sidewalks are your relative of his.

Yes, I live with him.

So I understand what you guys are saying.

Um the problem is, yeah, actually, that's it right there.

Uh that's it right there.

So the problem is it's everybody wants to do something after the fact.

I understand that right now we're just speculating.

Right now, that area is blocked off for possible zoning in the future.

Um I'm just trying to avoid a future problem, then everybody come back and regret it.

So I do anticipate that across the street, there is going to be uh double parking.

There is going to be obviously an increase in the traffic.

Um I I just don't think there's enough of the zoning for that.

I mean, again, it is a residential area.

Um I feel like there's more and more businesses popping up.

It's a size like that, uh seven um a group daycare between seven and twelve.

Normally you would see in a commercial area with uh a sizable parking lot next to it for people to drop off their kids and and and pick them up.

But now you're talking four employees plus the two uh the the owner and her brother, and anybody else that's dropping off supplies throughout the day.

I I just feel that it's just not enough room for it.

Just for clarity, I think the testimony was two to three employees, including the the owner of the house.

Okay, so two to three employees plus the owner.

So that's a total of two to three, including the owner.

Oh, two to three including okay.

I don't I don't know.

I guess that would increase depending on how many kids are there.

So if there's you know, seven kids could be less, maybe if there's twelve, there could be more as she she grows her business.

Well, she she can't grow it past twelve.

Right.

I don't know.

I just you know, I I do anticipate that that's gonna cause an issue, but again, it is speculation at this point.

I guess we'll just have to wait until it goes in and then file the complaints at that point.

I'm just don't want that to have to get to that point.

We understand.

Okay, thank you.

If I may, Mr.

Chair, I do have a handful of questions that for the property owner that may actually be helpful with respect to some of the questions of parking that have been raised.

So if we could call them back up for a moment, please.

So first one point just for clarity of understanding the regulations.

Is that you'd only be permitted to have up to two employees who aren't residents?

So lose permitted resident.

Okay.

No, I'm saying okay, solo para tener dos empleados.

You as the owner caregiver plus an additional two employees.

So just as I so the maximum number of parking spaces you would need then would be three.

As I look at an area of your property.

I see the I see the driveway, and I see what appears that it could be two parking spaces side by side in that widened area by the driveway.

Do you know how wide that is by chance from your garage or from the edge of the Macadam or from the edge of the mechanism at your driveway to the property line?

Is that mean together?

I think the measurement exactly.

And reason reason why I'm asking these questions is because when I take uh when I take a quick GIS measurement, which is imprecise, I'm coming up with about 16 and a 16 and three quarters feet.

So that would that would be 16 feet, 16 feet nine inches.

If a parking space is eight and a half feet and wide by city code, if they're just an additional three inches of space there just because of a just because of a scaling error, then there may be width yet to have to have all the parking spaces and to make use of the driveway for the for the drop off and loading and potentially keep potentially keep the vehicular activity off the street.

So I've just been looking at as the conversation has been unfolding.

I just thought it was the benefit of both the applicant and the board to take that into consideration.

Well while we have you here, as far as uh outdoor play space, um what's the what's the plan for that?

Um educativa educational activities, and depending on the ages.

And would that be in the backyard or the front yard, like where in the back.

Okay.

And is the is the back of the property currently fenced?

Yes.

Okay.

I have no other questions.

Okay.

So I noticed that um with expansion by the house, and I I'm glad you gave us that information.

Okay.

Well, any other questions.

No.

One of the things I note that um you could take your seat.

Thanks.

Okay.

Is that um in acting on any special exception application, the hearing board is authorized to impose such reasonable conditions and safeguards as it may deem necessary to implement the purpose of the zoning rates.

So in addition to the expressed negative impacts that uh are listed above it, that does seem to give us some discretion.

Uh then I think I think your point is well taken that it uh it'll eliminate backing out of a driveway if they're on the street.

Um I'm guessing that people will use the street whether or not it's designated as a and uh so to have an off off-street area would I think you have both is what it amounts to.

Um I'm inclined to suggest that four are required and that like we did in the other case, uh, had the owner consult with the zoning office for them to determine location and I forget the other term that we used, uh design or something like that.

So what are you thinking of that?

I I agree that we should make sure that all of the the static parking um should be provided off street to the extent that that's possible and validated by the zoning office.

But I I really agree with Samantha that um I'd rather not have people backing out of the driveway.

I think that creates worse of a scenario in this particular street and lot.

Um, but I think that really underscores the need for having a sidewalk in the front because if you have more than one person dropping kids off, like they can't all just drop off right at the the front walk.

I mean, having a sidewalk area is just a better place for having drop-offs.

I mean, presumably this entire street should have sidewalks, and who knows why that was never done over the course of time, but um, I think a reasonable condition for us would be to add sidewalk the full width of the property on Highland.

So what's your thought on four spaces on site I think I mean how many parking spaces do we need on parking spaces?

We need three, right?

Correct, yes.

And right now we're looking or right looking in the area where if that three inches in question were for just to be a rounding error due to taking an imprecise map measurement, there's a there's a decent chance that space exists and that all the needs for parking and drop off and loading could be reasonably accommodated in that in that driveway.

That wouldn't eliminate the the backing issue that's been mentioned, but it could allow all the activity to be contained on premise without making use of the public street.

I feel like that I'd rather if you can get four spaces uh off-street, fine.

I think at a minimum we should require there to be three, so that there's parking that because those are static spaces, like when someone shows up to work where the owner is home, they're there the whole time.

Um so we don't want that consuming on street parking.

Drop offs are instantaneous to an extent.

Um so I I'd say a minimum of three off-street parking spaces and then sidewalk the full width of the lot on air.

They have three, don't they?

Yes, they already have three.

Yeah, I think if we are to add the condition for the sidewalk, which I think is is reasonable, um, and would contribute to more safety for drop-off and pick off, then I'm less inclined to want to require the fourth off-street parking in case in the case that it isn't a measurement error.

You know, I would I don't want to require additional paving on site and then particularly because I agree with you that the the dropping off and backing out, I think creates a worse scenario than simply pulling pulling over parallel to the curb and having some and as as we know.

I mean, oftentimes people who engage daycare services sometimes drop off more than one kid at a time.

So because just because there's up to 12 kids, we don't necessarily automatically get 24 cars a day, 12 drop-offs and 12 pickups.

But uh and they are often spaced out over the course of a day, but I still think the sidewalk allows a much longer linear space to safely pull over, not double park during the course of the day.

So that'd be my recommendation sidewalk along the entire front of the property you had it there on highland, on highland um obviously by that I mean city city code compliant, whatever the requirements are.

Sidewalk on higher front floor spaces if additional macadam's not needed.

Yeah, but I think I think maybe of all those things, I think I think maybe the sidewalk is a good idea.

All right, I'll make a I'll make a motion to that effect.

All right, second second, second.

All right.

Uh let me add also that they there must be compliance with the uh additional requirements that are not called supplemental use regulations.

Well, and and the use has testified, we should make that about the outdoor play space being fenced, maximum number of employees.

I presume I I recall seeing the narrative, I just don't know that I can't remember what the hours of operation were, but I'm sure that was listed.

Well, they I think group cares can do anything, they could do it to 24-7, can't they?

Can yeah, correct?

Well they I think group cares can do anything they could do it uh 247 can't they can yeah correct in theory they can their state requirements the caregiver the caregiver be awake at all times the children are present but there's there's nothing in the code that would prohibit a daycare from this nature from establishing a shift type operation okay all right we have a uh motion for approval with conditions and a second yes all right all in favor aye aye aye all right we will put our decision in writing and they will mail you a copy okay don't do anything until you get it no I've got not that and when you get it call the zoning office so that you are sure to understand it.

Yeah ma uh so and puts a thing up to the and if you'd like to come forward I just have a couple cards to make sure you know how to get in touch all right next meeting is the 13th July 13th that's correct July 13th and um um I think there's no other business before the board so the meetings adjourned okay thank you everybody