Lancaster Mixed Use Development – possible model for Lower Macungie

Posted on by

I was very critical (and remain so) of the Remington Allen Organ “Dual Use” ordinance. What began as an important task of creating our townships first much needed community serving mixed use ordinance devolved into building an ordinance to suit a sketch plan and a developer. The process in my opinion was backwards and rushed. At least that was my observation as an outsider looking in.

I believe the result is a euclidean segregation of uses on an auto centric foundation. Meaning the sketch plan represents an apartment complex and a strip box commercial development smushed together. No real integration or compatibility. Not a mixed use development.

To make matters worse of course, the whole process was in my opinion sullied since the realtor of the project was a seated township commissioner. (Who at the time sat on the planning and zoning committee).

When I critique I always make it a point to give positive suggestions. In this case I sent the Board of Commissioners links outlining what I felt was a true mixed use development in Lancaster. Obviously, it fell on deaf ears. For two years now I’ve read about this development. Finally yesterday I was in Lancaster for work and I had the opportunity to check it out in person. Also coincidently google maps updated it’s streetview of the project. Here are a bunch of screen grabs.

This in my opinion represents the type of mixed use development we should be promoting. This is the type of development that will attract the coveted “young professional” demographic. This fits in line with my vision of becoming an exceptional place. Not another cookie cutter, cut and paste community.

I believe pictures tell the story. This is a beautifully designed and fully integrated mixed use community. Every detail seems to be well thought out. Everything works. Everything is contextually sensitive. The place oozes charm. People here can buy with confidence that they will maintain their property values.

One of 3 main residential sections looking towards the centralized “downtown” commercial. I LOVE the design standards of these homes.

Walking into the commercial area, there are Auto uses BUT everything is properly scaled. This bank works (even with the drive through) because of scale. Nothing in this entire development is highway geometry. Even with the auto uses, the focus was on pedestrians. We have a habit of over-engineering and supersizing everything here in LMT. This development wouldn’t work with turning lanes and supersized roads. No one would walk. It wouldn’t have any charm.
And you know what? I was here during “rush hour”. Cars somehow managed to get around. Best of all since the roads were built “right sized” traffic moved slowly. Not congestion mind you. But calmed. The foot traffic was amazing.

Walking between the Bank (outparcel also has a subway), the Mainstreet commercial with apartments above on the right and up to the left a mini mart! Again, everything works and fits together cause this design emulates a small town. Everything is “right sized”
No need for a signal here cause traffic moves at appropriate speeds so the 4 way stop works fine. (Again these are google images and before full build out, I was here yesterday during the “rush”)
And one of the Main desirable traits of mixed use, “the sell” really is traffic overall is reduced cause people actually walk places!

Between the Bank and Convenience store looking down “Main”. Here we have neighborhood commercial with apartments above.
Some of the commercial included: 4 restaurants ranging from fancy to “Faster” food.
The Charlotte Shoppe (gift shop), A spa, A doctor’s office, Spycom offices of a home security firm I think, Drycleaners, Mathnasium a tutoring facility.
The centralized walkable location of this corridor is what makes this development vibrant. It’s readily accessible to all 3 of the residential components the towns, the singles and the apartments.

Everywhere you look is beefy landscaping featuring 4 season appeal. This area will look nice in the dead of winter thanks to use of evergreens. You can tell the developer put thought into this. They didn’t just “meet the minimum requirements”
This is the parking for the “Main Street” neighborhood commercial. It’s BEHIND the storefronts. So the walk down main is pleasant since car storage is focused behind the buildings. This is parking for the commercial usage and the apartments.

The townhouse phase is still being built out and are in high demand. People WANT to live in walkable communities! This would possibly be considered a connector road but there are no reverse frontages. The townhomes feature an alley where cars are parked and homes are serviced with garbage ect. Bump outs and crosswalks calm traffic. More street facing retail.  I saw only one commercial vacancy in the whole project that featured a “coming soon” sign.

Do not politicize Ross Twp.

Posted on by

I didn’t want to write about this issue here on my blog. But again today I read extremely ignorant comments on articles about the Ross Twp. tragedy. To preface this, like most people I have the information I’ve read in articles. That is what I am basing my opinion on. Perhaps more information will come out at some point and the narrative on how and why this man lost his property will become clearer if there is missing information.

I’m very frustrated because there are people who choose to make this tragedy into political fodder. It disgusts me quite frankly. Makes me sick to my stomach. I see it in comments on every article about the issue by ignorant people trying to move forward mostly wing nut agendas.

This man who shot up a public meeting murdering innocent people is no “property rights martyr”. Saying this tragedy is about a twp. who “backed a man into a corner” by unfairly “taking his home” is insane and ignorant. Comments that imply the twp. schemed some wicked plot to take this man’s land and circumvent his property rights are way off base.

The facts as I understand them are this:

  • This man had 17 years of notices and warnings to deal with the issues he alone created. It’s clear this man never had any intention on remedying them. He had no regard for policy or procedure; or the same rules the rest of his community somehow manage to follow.
  • Really this goes back to 1990 when this man bought a property with a deed transfer that read: “The above described premises are considered wetlands, do not perc (for adequate septic disposal) and no building permit is obtainable for construction thereon.” He bought a property knowing he could not build on it but he did so anyway. Everything stems from this. Again, nearly 2 decades this has been an issue.

 

  • This man maintained a property in violation of rules and regulations setup to protect the health and well being of his community. The conditions are well documented. Property rights are a two way street. Yes, they protects your rights but also equally important your neighbors rights as well.

 

  • When neighbors complained the twp. had an OBLIGATION to react. Most twp’s for the most part don’t seek out ordinance violations they respond to complaints. That’s how it is for the most part here in Lower Macungie. The township responds to complaints. A complaint triggers action.
  • The twp. didnt “steal” this mans home. They didn’t “rob” him of his land. They followed procedures and the court system to the only logical conclusion after this man forced their hand and refused over work with them over 17 years to address the issues he created.

 

  • You cannot easily kick someone off their property. It’s a long drawn out process. Our system protects deadbeats. Ask any landlord if it’s easy to evict a deadbeat. The system protects the property owner or the renter in almost all cases.

 

  • It was not the intention of the twp. to “get” or “steal” the property. After sheriff sale proceedings, there were no bidders on the property so ownership transferred to the township, as the lien holder that filed the action.

If you want to argue against zoning ordinances in the United States make that silly argument. We’ve had zoning in the United states for nearly a century. Without it you have land use anarchy. For better or worse the property value of the biggest investment you make in your life is directly tied to your neighbors. Without zoning laws it’s a free for all.  I believe in bottom up gov’t, the rule of law and a communities right to enact a zoning ordinance. Conversely I also believe in a communities right to not enact a zoning ordinance if they so choose. (Houston, TX)

Bottom line do not politicize a tragedy. There is nothing more pathetic. Yes, this brings up conversations about security at municipal meetings and yes I have some thoughts. I would not support armed guards at township meetings. You acknowledge we live in a sometimes crazy world and you take precautions but you do not live in fear. We need to have these important conversations absolutely. But do not use this to push an agenda. That isn’t a conversation. That is standing on a soap box and this isn’t the time.

More on why municipal stormwater authorities make sense

Posted on by

Scott Alderfer nails it on his blog “streamhugger“. Scott is the chair of LMT’s EAC. There should be no taxpayer funded free rides for largescale developers when it comes to stormwater management. I don’t want to pay for poor design and I don’t want to make you pay for it. The entities who cause flooding and pollution are the ones who should pay. I am always for bottom up gov’t. This gives municipalities the tools we need to control flooding issues. The alternative is broad clumsy state or federal regulations which lead to unfunded mandates and strain on taxpayers.

I know there will be some people griping that this legislation somehow amounts to a new tax – a stormwater tax.  Hogwash.  One of the first things that any student of economics learns is TANSTAFL – the acronym standing for, “There Are No Such Things As Free Lunches.”  Whether we’re talking lunch or stormwater discharge, if you are not paying for it yourself, someone else is paying for it.

In the case of a shopping center discharging huge volumes of stormwater runoff from their expansive parking lots during and following intense rain events, that property is sending way more stormwater runoff to the nearest body of surface water than the undeveloped land would have discharged.  Therefore, that shopping center should improve their capacity to retain and infiltrate stormwater on their own property.  If they chose to ignore that responsibility, the local taxpayers should not pay for infrastructure to mitigate that runoff, and they should not be inconvenienced by flash flooding from inadequate, private stormwater management facilities.  Thus, a usage fee assessed by an MSA is exactly that – a fee for services rendered.  Cutting off a property owner from a free lunch – in this case taxpayer subsidized stormwater management – is clearly NOT a tax.

Photo Credit: Scott Alderfer – The Lower Macungie Wal-Mart discharges so much stormwaterwater into the little lehigh that it often causes Spring Creek Rd. flooding to the point of having to close the road for extended periods of time.

The Willows Restaurant floods last year after a rainfall.

Another one bites the dust..

Posted on by

From the “Friends for protection of Lower Macungie Twp.” Facebook page posted by Friends board member Scott Bieber yesterday. Friends LMT started as a group that fundraised to fight the Jaindl rezoning. Since then they have expanded their scope to cover local issues in the entire East Penn area with a goal of advocating for smart growth and keeping residents informed. I used to be the chair of the group but stepped down to run for Twp. Commissioner.

In the following post by Scott laments the loss of another historic structure in LMT:

Another barn bites the dust as Lower Macungie leaves behind its agricultural past and moves into the 21st century.

The Morris Stine barn on Spring Creek Road at Route 100 is being dismantled to make room for a commercial development. The Pennsylvania standard barn, made of limestone and oak timbers, was probably built about 1840-1850, according to Greg Huber, a local barn historian.

Most of the timbers and all of the nice stones, especially the square corner stones, are being salvaged and will be recycled into new buildings, according to Ken Muth, who was hired by the owner to take down the barn. Muth is the region’s most prominent barn dismantler and has salvaged hundreds of barns and old buildings throughoust eastern Pennsylvania.

Muth said the Stine barn is structurally sound and in good condition.

I remember the barn being used when the Stine farm was still active in the 1960s. That was when the township was still dominated by agriculture and you could shoot a rifle in almost any direction and not worry about hitting a house.

SCB

The township loses another historic barn. This one off of Spring Creek Rd near Rt. 100.

(Photo Credit Scott Bieber)

These historic structures warrant protection. How do we do it? Do I believe we should mandate their protection? My answer is yes but no. No because in the end regulating isn’t the most effective way to protect. The solution that is best for the community but fair to the property owner is making these barns reflect their true community value through a form of de-regulation. How do we do this? The zoning code. By opening up more by-right uses of these historic structures we can make it a financially smart decision to keep these structures and rehabilitate them. Think about it, If a developer or property owner can rehabilitate these structures (like the new owner of the Lichtenwalner barn on Brookside Rd) and rehabilitation becomes the path of least resistance, then property owners are motivated to value them.

Unfortunately now, in a commercial context the path of least resistance is tearing them down and starting over with a cookie cutter strip. The problem is euclidean zoning limits what you can do with these structures. I would advocate for more permitted uses for historic barns.

So the solution isn’t regulating, but rather de-regulating. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if this structure was saved because the developer/land owner could make just as much or more money turning it into luxury lofts or say a high end restaurant? Sadly, what we will get is the townships 3rd Dunkin Donuts, 5th convenience store or perhaps 4th box pharmacy in yet another characterless box.

The answer to keeping our local charm and protecting ALL our property values in this case isn’t regulating, but rather deregulating. This is what the concept of form based codes is all about. Conventional zoning tells you what you can put where. By it’s nature it’s restrictive. Form based zoning addresses the relationship between building and the public realm. It’s more flexible in use as long as the structure fits. It’s not so much the specific use, but moreso the form fits the neighborhood. This approach contrasts with conventional zoning’s focus on the micromanagement and segregation of land uses. It’s unlikely we would ever totally re-do our zoning into a form based code given we just spent money on updating our old euclidean code but we can incorporate some aspects. This is one opportunity.

The end result is something like this: (Which would you prefer living near?)

300 Year Old Barn Renovated Into a Modern Yet Rustic Residence

Instead of this:

Cookie cutter strip

Gov. Corbett signs Senate Bill 351 into law

Posted on by

Senate Bill 351 was co-sponsored locally by state Senator Pat Browne (R). I wrote a quick letter of thanks to him today. Synopsis here.

Senator Browne,

Thank you for co-sponsoring Senate Bill 351 allowing municipalities to create local Stormwater Authorities. Your leadership in this area is appreciated. Recently, I won the Republican primary as the highest vote getter here in Lower Macungie Township running largely on a platform of ensuring that developers pay their own way in terms of mitigating their negative impact. This includes traffic, infrastructure and of course stormwater.

As you know, Lower Macungie is one of the fastest growing in the state. This is a tool we can explore utilizing to ensure private developers are held responsible for costs to mitigate their stormwater impact. This can now be accomplished by providing incentives for private stormwater management therefore reducing costs to local governments and most importantly the taxpayers

We have flooding issues here in Lower Macungie that we have to get a handle on. This is a tool to do that. Additionally as you know the quality of our streams directly affect the city of Allentown as we are a major source of drinking water for the city and region.

Thank you,
Ron Beitler

 

How your local state officials voted on this legislation:
State Senate passed 49-1
Bob Mensch – YES
Pat Browne – YES

State House passed 135-66
Gary Day – YES
Mike Schlossberg – YES
Ryan Mackenzie – NO
Justin Simmons – NO

Essential reading as we study Hamilton Corridor.

Posted on by

We’re about to spend 125,000 in grant money to “identify a complete street strategy for the Hamilton Boulevard corridor emphasizing land use changes, public transit, and intermodal amenities“. This is a joint project of Upper & Lower Macungie and Penndot.

I ordered “The Boulevard Book – History, Evolution and Design of the Multiway Boulevard” a couple weeks ago. Last week I was able to start getting into it. Having read through the introduction and first couple of chapters I’ve found it to be a fantastic read.

The intro clearly lays out the value of a true boulevard concept. They are statistically safer and more aesthetically pleasing while increasing property value for adjacent properties. The book contains an immense amount of research and documentation. It also lays out the artificial and flawed reasoning why we no longer build grand avenues and boulevards.

Our commissioners have pledged to build a “world class boulevard”. A concept I am 100% in agreement with. A true blvd. pays close attention to many important concepts. Livability, mobility, safety, economic growth and open space to name a few. The opposite of a blvd. would be a commercial strip. Where a boulevard becomes a living part of the fabric of a community, a commercial strip slashes it’s way through a community killing property values creating congestion and ruining quality of life. A true boulevard is a value capture machine vs. strip arterials which almost always cost more in terms of liabilities then they produce in revenue.

This attractive and very functional boulevard accommodates a lot of traffic,
encourages walking, and still allows for parking in front of the building.

This strip mall on an ‘arterial’ lacks the character of the above boulevard. Most suredly property values are lower across the street from this place. This is not a place where many people would want to walk or spend time in other then in a car going from one place to another.

I will be copying the intro from this book and giving it to our commissioners. I see it as essential reading as we begin the PCTI study. A main point of the book is how today’s design criteria that focuses exclusively on the automobile and incorrect superficial assumptions about what makes a good street inevitably leads us to build statistically dangerous and soul-less places. If we are to build a “world class boulevard”, then we have to get past these roadblocks.

There are so many ingredients that go into a boulevard. Traffic flow, parking, delivery of services, walkers, bikers and of course how frontages interact with the boulevard in a cohesive fashion. 

I believe currently there is a disconnect between what we are saying and what we are doing. It’s no secret I am no fan of recent land development plans that are in my opinion counter to the goals of a blvd. Namely projects like the very “strippy” potential “American Kitchens” tract. Others recently such as “Shepards Crossing” are better considering our low bar but in my opinion we can push the envelope even more.

Yes, there is a learning curve between concept and changing our zoning to match the concept. But in the meantime we can be more aggressive in soliciting buy in from developers. Developers who can then request the appropriate variances to build context sensitive designs. Afterall we gave 88+ variances (some major) to Hamilton Crossings for the potential shopping center. You would think we could grant some to accomodate the goals of the boulevard project.

The Kairos group is the firm contracted to lead the PCTI study. The power point presentation was loaded onto the twp. website. I think alot of the stuff included in the presentation is wonderful. The Kairos group talks about some of the concepts in the boulevard book. For example, the roadblocks to building great places. They talk about the conventional approach vs. a context sensitive approach. I think it is critical to understand these two sometimes subtle but different approaches. The conventional approach is more likely to produce something more like the “strip arterial” above. Vs. the context sensitive approach which is more likely to produce the avenue above.

Here are some examples from the Kairos group that show what Hamilton could look like with a little vision, some regional cooperation and real buy-in by our elected leadership.

Hamilton Boulevard as it currently looks overlayed with an artists rendering of a boulevard concept.

Hamilton and Brookside intersection. Right now at certain times this is a heavily congested mess. A roundabout would allow the intersection to flow much more freely. Roundabouts are also proven to be much safer both for cars and pedestrians. Imagine working in the office buildings on Brookside and actually being able to walk to lunch at Hunan Springs without taking your life into your hands.

 

 

 

No political party owns “smart growth” issue

Posted on by

As a Republican I’m often frustrated with the notion that one party owns “smart growth”.

Republicans fall into certain traps regarding “smart growth” and the big picture behind it. The big picture in my opinion can be boiled down to one sentence. Smart Growth is about making growth pay it’s own way. It’s about rolling back gov’t subsidies for suburban sprawl and leveling the playing field. Charles Marohn and the strongtowns organization is dedicated to raising awareness of the fiscal issues with sprawl. Sprawl is a by-product of decades of gov’t meddling with the market.

It all comes down to the “growth ponzi scheme“.
The ponzi scheme is:

When a local unit of government benefits from the enhanced revenues associated with new growth, it also assumes the long-term liability for maintaining the new infrastructure. This exchange — a near-term cash advantage for a long-term financial obligation — is one element of a Ponzi scheme. – Strongtowns.org

There is a problem out there among certain conservative circles because there is a total misunderstanding of what smart growth is and means. Again for me it’s based on the paragraph above. And I can’t think of anything more conservative. Think about it, I want growth to pay it’s own way. I want to eliminate the subsidies so the playing field is even. I want to save taxpayers the burdens of the 2nd and 3rd lifecycle of greenfield development so we can keep tax rates predictable, stable and low.

So why don’t conservatives flock to “smart growth”?

I think you can chock some of it to blatant mis-information. Misinformation that is perpetuated by the extreme right wing crowd. I’m talking about the kind of folks that carry around ridiculous “agenda 21” pamphlets to public meetings. Smart growth is an easy target because as Bacon points out in the interview linked to below “planners use terms with political baggage meaning half of America tunes it out as white noise“. When you use terms that only other planners understand it becomes easy to mislabel a movement. This is a problem with the planning community and their refusal to be “jargon conscious”.

Nobody makes the case that conservatives should be smart growth champions better then James Bacon:

Political conservatives should be smart growth champions, with James Bacon

If you walk into a Republican-sponsored function and boast about supporting “smart growth” people will assume you hate liberty, you promote centralized planning, you oppose family values, and you think trees are more important than humans.

Smart Growth for Conservatives

Smart growth is too important to leave to liberals. Conservatives must articulate their own vision for creating prosperous, livable and fiscally sustainable communities.

The most important historical aspect one must understand to “get” why a conservative would be so passionate about smart growth is the fact that throughout the last 30 or so years gov’t entities including local, state and federal have been in the business of subsidizing sprawl.

Here is a post full of examples:

Conservative pols hate gov’t subsidies, unless they subsidize sprawl.

How do conservative voters and politicians square their hatred for government subsidies with their city-shunning sprawl patterns that suck the lifeblood out of local governments – and taxpayers? Outward sprawl forces jurisdictions to keep building new roads and schools and to extend emergency services farther and farther afield. Sprawl induces driving and leads to more public pressure to expand roads — a vicious circle of new development and new roads. Even in rural areas, one lane mile of new road can cost up to $9 million

 

Kratzer Farm Information

Posted on by

My letter to planning commission (CC: Board of Commissioners & Staff) sent 7/5/13

Planning Commission,
A few items for consideration at your July 9th meeting.

1. The Kratzer house, barn and driveway should not be subdivided until results of the Parks and Recreation comprehensive plan are presented. Since we are already engaged in this comprehensive planning process (that was unanimously supported by the BOC), committee feedback will be valuable to determine whether the house, barn and/or driveway present any value in regards to the overall goals of a permanently protected centralized passive park and/or the Greenway system. Potential uses for the house, barn and driveway should be an agenda item at a future Parks and Recreation Comprehensive plan meeting.
2. If the parks and recreation comprehensive planning committee recommend that the house, barn and/or driveway should be sold, then funds from the sale should be used or earmarked for future improvements to the Kratzer Farm Park only.
Some potential items include:
  • Park access
  • Creation of a major central trailhead to the Greenway
  • A trail section
  • Master planning
2. A master plan for the 88 acre park should be considered. One question that should be examined is whether the approx 50 acres of active farmland (currently leased to farmers) should be permanently preserved. If 50 acres can be preserved the remaining 38 acres can continue to be dedicated to greenway, naturalized forest and community gardens.To accomplish this goal:
A. The township could apply to sell agricultural conservation easements to Lehigh County. According to a representative from the program the parcel would likely be valued a high priority since it contains fertile limestone soil. Further the agricultural conservation easement area may be drawn in such a way as to allow Greenway trail along the Creek and perimeter of the property. This should be explored in terms of feasibility so it can be considered as one potential option.


Proceeds from a potential sale of the agricultural conservation easement on the Kratzer farm could be used for protection of other farmland or open space in the township or construction of a section of greenway.
B. The township could explore placing deed restrictions on the property. 

Thank you
Ron Beitler
CC: BOC & Staff


My position statement from March (I first spoke in front of the board on this matter in March 2013). Note in original board comments I urged the township to consider applying the farm to the county program for this budget cycle. I rec’d a garbled response from Mr. Eichenberg.

The Kratzer Farm is centrally located in Lower Macungie Township. It’s strategic centralized location makes it immediately accessible to thousands of township residents easily and safely within walking distance. The park was purchased by a previous Board of Supervisors 15 years ago for the intent of land preservation in a rapidly growing township. The scenic landscape and fertile limestone soil make this a community treasure. The adopted greenway plan will further improve walking access and functionality of the park making it a potential township “Central Park”. The Kratzer Farm should be a destination, centerpiece and focal point of the greenway system. READ ENTIRE POSITION HERE

Letters from:

 

Planning Docs

 

Articles

“The EAC urges the Board of Commissioners to initiate a formal study of all options for future use and/or disposal of the Kratzer Farm property. The recommended study should evaluate all potential future options for this tract, including subdividing and selling portions of the Kratzer Farm, selling development rights for the property, and all potential recreational uses and the access needs for those potential recreational uses.

“Accordingly, the EAC recommends that no further efforts to subdivide and sell the house, barn, and driveway at the Kratzer Farm should proceed until the recommended study is completed and then only if that study finds that it is clearly in the best interest of Lower Macungie residents to sell any portions of the subject property.”

Parks Letter

Greenway plan maps

Kratzer Farm Lower Macungie Map

Map of 88 acre Kratzer Farm. The 1.5 acre proposed subdivision is directly in the center off the best existing driveway.

What is a complete street?

Posted on by

Recently I wrote a letter to Congressman Dent urging him to consider supporting the “Complete Streets Act of 2013”. (see below)

What is a complete street? Like many planning concepts it’s best described with photos!

Take this auto-centric roadway:

10 lane roadway without bike lanes, pedestrian crosswalks or signals, street trees, or ample buffer between the roadway and sidewalk. The roadway’s current design is not inviting or safe for pedestrians or bicyclists. Sure it has some token sidewalks which were probably a “feel good” effort to pay some lip service to walkability… but do you think people will actually walk this corridor?

Vs. this street below which accommodates cars and pedestrians

Complete Street example with on-street parking, striped bike lane, and sidewalk with buffers protecting the pedestrian from automobiles. Transit facilities are not provided since service does not occur along this corridor. Note the buildings are built with additional parking in the rear creating a pleasant environment both for cars and pedestrians. In this environment everyone wins whether you choose to walk, ride or drive.

Which of the above is a place you would rather take a stroll with your family to visit a restaurant of shop? We’re currently studying the Hamilton Corridor with the goal of making old 222 into more of a walkable “Main St.” concept. Which photograph above best represents what you would prefer Hamilton Boulevard to be in the future?

Too many of the roads in our country are designed solely with drivers in mind. The risks of such design are evident in the number of pedestrian and bicyclist deaths and injuries we see every year, and often discourage more people from considering other transportation methods.

More resources:

Smart Growth America – What are Complete Streets 

Tour of a “pedestrian friendly” diverging diamond – Designing via checklists and incorporating walkability as a “feel good” afterthought = complete failure. This is one of my absolutely favorite videos.

 My letter to Congressman Dent Re: Complete Streets Act 2013

Congressman Dent,
My name is Ron Beitler and I’m a constituent from Lower Macungie Twp. I’m writing to ask you to support The 2013 Safe Streets Act which is currently in committee.

Millions of Americans are walking, bicycling, and waiting for public transit along roads that are inadequate for their needs. These streets are incomplete – they lack sidewalks, safe space for pedestrians, and make little accommodation for people with disabilities. They hinder healthy, active lifestyles; limit transportation options; and lead to more hard earned money going to fill up the gas tank. Worse, they are often dangerous for everyone.

Currently, the notion of complete streets is a big part of Lower Macungie Townships smart growth planning. Our local Gov’t is currently undertaking comprehensive smart growth planning as well as specific corridor planning. (Hamilton Boulevard). The notion of building complete streets is a central theme in both exercises. Both initiatives have wide reaching public support.

Complete streets are also proven to be economic engines. When a street is accessible it becomes a magnet for commercial activity. Additionally traffic congestion costs us all money. As a proponent for Complete Streets I believe that as a community becomes safer, more attractive, and provide more transportation choices, local economies have a better chance of thriving and property values rise.

Thank you for your time.
Ron Beitler
5540 Lower Macungie Rd.

 

Challenging Hamilton Crossings team for better facades….

Posted on by

Hamilton Crossings is being sold to us as a “Promenade esque” walkable “town center concept”. For the record I am in favor of this type of walkable/towncenter lifestyle scale development on the Hamilton Corridor. My concerns are two-fold 1. the TIF (although I am listening to some good arguments in favor and my stance has softened) and 2. That we are getting what we are being sold.

Below is the Costco rendering that was posted on the Hamilton Crossings Facebook page. I have major concerns with this. We were sold a “Lower Macungie Specific” design. Something unique and “high end”. This appears to be a variation of the cookie cutter Costco box. Nothing special at all. In fact it reminds me of the front of a pep boys or some other auto repair shop.

To contrast here are some innovative designs I have found for Costco’s recently built. The point is, we can do better and as a community we should demand better. Are you willing to settle for above when we were promised a “Lower Macungie Specific” design comparable to the promenade?

Why is this important?
First, it’s ok to be choosy. We have to come to terms with the fact we’re an attractive place for development. We should not be ok with every mediocre proposal that comes down the pike. Since we are an attractive place for developers we should and can demand a higher standard. The quality of our commercial spaces affect all our property values which in turn affects our school district and community as a whole.

Second, think about the Promenade for a second. The developer and current township commissioners make comparisons to the Promenade. When you walk around it does it feel like your walking around a parking lot next to a giant soul-less box? Or when you walk down the middle does it feel like your walking down “Main St. USA”?  A pleasant place to hang out. Next, think about why the promenade works and why people travel to get shop there. Yes, good design is about making a place attractive, but it’s more then that. It’s also scale so you truly have walkability. Scale is what makes walkability work. Auto scale vs. people scale. Auto scale using highway geometry (parking lots) creates a place dangerous for people. Every decision should be geared towards creating an an environment that is safe, comfortable, and attractive to pedestrians.

And just for good measure here is a really nicely designed Target IMO. Note: 3 of these pictures are actual stores. Remember, everything looks beautiful in artists watercolors. If the Costco rendering looks drab in a water color it is 10x worse in real life.

Even Wal-Mart is slowly “getting it”