Category Archives: Lower Macungie Township development issues

Development Watch: Indian Creek Subdivision and Macungie Lumber Yard

Posted on by

The proposed development at old Indian Creek Golf course

Monthly column (or whenever I learn about new proposals) outlining LMT and local projects in various stages and my thoughts on them. This month, 127-129 Main St. a great adaptive reuse of a historic building in Macungie, and an update on the potential Indian Creek Rd. subdivision that has major red flags at this early stage.

127-129 Main St. Macungie – Macungie Borough

Borough Council issued approval for a plan to convert 127-128 Main St. (currently a stone twin) into a mixed use building. The new owner, Tom Bartholomew plans to renovate the old twin which used to be a part of the lumber yard, to accomodate his state farm insurance office on the first floor and 2 small apartments on the 2nd floor. Also planned for the lot are six parking spaces and a rain garden that will mitigate the impervious cover of the blacktop. The environmental component of the plan has been approved by Lehigh Conservation District.

Why great: This is a great project for Main Street. Refurbished/Re-purposed Mixed use buildings with retail/restaurant or office on the 1st level and apartments on the second are what makes a Main St. community thrive. Excellent adaptive use of existing home stock. This will be a welcome addition to the community with the important blessing of the Lehigh Conservation district for handling of the storm water runoff associated with the parking spaces.

I would love to see more retail and restaurant activity on Main St., but this is a good project on the street-side of the old lumber site. Hopefully more good news comes down the line on the remaining portion of the property next to the park which will be a key component of Main St. revitalization in Macungie Borough.

Potential Subdivision of Indian Creek Rd. – Lower Macungie Township, Emmaus Borough and Upper Milford (Former Indian Creek Golf Course)

This is a unique proposal in that it has 2 acres in LMT, 10 acres in the Emmaus and the bulk in Upper Milford for a total of 78 acres. This is the old Indian Creek Golf course. The property is bounded by Chestnut Street, Allen Street, Indian Creek Rd and Cedar Crest. This plan would include 215 homes in a 55+ community. The plan would preserve 9 holes (off Cedar Crest) of the Golf course to continue as a public course.

Why the Jury is still out: While there are some ok elements of this plan for example the 55+ aspect (no impact on school district) and land preservation of 33-48 acres acres, at this point there are major red flags for LMT. Planning commission chair Irv Keister said “while only a few acres (2) of this project are in LMT, it appears we’ll get 100 percent of the traffic”. Basically the constraints of this property force all the traffic either onto Allen St. or Indian Creek Rd. Indian Creek either funnels traffic right into the heart of the township or exits onto the terribly dangerous intersection of Indian Creek and Cedar Crest. (The roller coaster hill) It’s basically one giant cul-de-sac that funnels traffic onto our township roads. Exiting Allen St. onto Chestnut is already a nightmare. This project should absolutely not proceed without installing a light on Allen and Chestnut. This could also possibly trigger another expensive traffic light at Indian Creek and Brookside (across from Dries) in the township. One positive at this early stage is it’s clear the developer is trying to work with the townships/borough to develop this tricky parcel. But there are many hurdles to cross for this iteration of the plan that has little benefit to the township and a ton of negatives.

Next month: Updates on two very different potential developments. 1. Stone Hill Station (potentially good conservation development off Gehman Rd) and 2. The latest on 700 acre Jaindl warehouse/residential/commercial monster currently in litigation with potential gamechanging consequences for the entire township.

Want to join our mailing list highlighting smart growth/development issues in the township? Click Here

Development Watch: Allen Organ Tract/Mixed Use update

Posted on by

 

  
 Tuesday night at the bi-monthly Planning Commission meeting, Remington properties presented an updated version of the ordinance they are proposing to accommodate a mixed use development on the Allen Organ property.

Progress was made toward submitting an ordinance that can be applied at other locations that would be township serving. I appreciated Maury Roberts asking the developer “Why is this project good for Lower Macungie?” This is the fundamental question that should be asked of all proposals submitted to the township.

While progress was made, I was disappointed that much of the meeting was spent on items such as the size and number of parking spaces. While these items are important, my major concern with the original proposal was that it was simply an apartment complex and grocery store ‘smushed’ together on a commercial parcel. I’m still unsure if the ordinance goes far enough to aggressively promote the positive outcomes of mixed use, but progress was certainly made. Some of these outcomes are:

  • Pedestrian scale on the residential side – And if not truly centered on the commercial side then far more pedestrian friendly then any shopping center currently in the township.
  • Attractive design – Including significant architectural quality and site design amenities
  • Connectivity – Integration in a meaningful & functional way of the commercial and residential portions

PC member Tom Beil asked an important question about compatible uses. If the ordinance allows for auto-centric uses such as gas stations, drive-throughs and garages ect., then it completely defeats the purpose and undermines the goals and represents more of the same.

The target market for this project is the 20-35 year old professional. That was made clear. Ok goodand very important considering the current enrollment in EPSD.  You have to go all-in to attract this demographic when competing against trendy projects closer to urban cores. (Riverport for ex.) If this is truly targeting the 20-35 market then the priorities are markedly different and the thinking has to reflect that. There are subtle differences in thinking for say an over 55 or mass market community that are different then this particular niche.

I think trade offs over number of parking spaces in exchange for design standards, open space and surface parking lots  that are shielded or behind residential buildings are worthwhile. I was also happy to see the commission stick to it’s guns regarding density. 6-8 units per acre is appropriate for our suburban township. Also a common sense proposal was made to allow for future parking considerations on an ‘as needed basis’ instead of requiring more up-front impermeable surface lots. Once land is paved, it’s paved. This was a good compromise.

I mentioned in my last blogpost about this site… Lip service is no longer good enough. If we’re going the smart growth route we need a complete buy-in. Anything less is just more of the same and won’t generate the outcomes we need.

Other news:

The board voted to move forward with reviewing the comprehensive plan. This will include possible inclusion of smart growth concepts across the board as outlined in the townships 20/20 visioning document. This is great news! They made a point to encourage public participation in this review.

Smart Growth Alternative to Warehouses on Prime Farmland

Posted on by

I’m outspoken in my criticism of the township supporting warehouse development.

My reasons are many. This type of development represents more unsustainable growth for our suburban township. It affects our quality of life (tractor trailer traffic on local residential roads not designed to handle it), and it’s the least environmentally friendly development possible considering paving over of regionally significant farmland.

I’ve been asked before a very valid question. If not here then where? Came across an article today that shows in practice what has been my reponse. We have significant brownfields locally. The old Mack Truck plant in Allentown and remaining Steel property in Bethlehem are examples.This is where distribution centers and warehouses belong. What’s best for the region? Not what puts the most money in certain developers pockets.

A great example of Brownfield redevelopment locally, the planned Majestic distribution hub located near the Hellertown exit of Rt. 78 is an excellent example of where this type of development should be encouraged. This is a great project for not only Bethlehem but the entire region.

Description:

Majestic Distribution Hub – 800,000 foot facility on undeveloped former Bethlehem Steel property. This area has existing infrastructure already well on the way to being able to handle increased truck traffic.

Some of the major benefits of building on this existing brownfield:

  • Adaptive reuse of a former industrial facility from a previous era. Great example of smart growth principle in practice.
  • The ideal location next to the intermodel cuts down on drayage.
  • Direct access to I-78.
  • The building will have LEED & US-EPA Smartway Transport Design certification.
  • Direct accessibility and access to labor. This is where jobs are needed!
    • According to the NJ Institute of Technology, executives interviewed note increasing difficulties in recruiting and retaining workforces for facilities. Brownfield sites provide better access to labor markets because of location. Brownfield sites tend to be located in more developed, urbanized locations, with greater access to the region’s transit system and labor pools