Apartment complex pitched for Route 378 puts Lower Saucon Council at odds

LOWER SAUCON TWP., Pa. — Township Council on Wednesday got an idea of what 39 garden apartments and parking lots could look like in the open space across from the municipal complex on Old Philadelphia Pike.

One More Steel City LLC, of Bethlehem Township, owns 8 acres at 3679 Old Philadelphia Pike and offered two- and three-building designs for its 39-apartment proposal within the Village Center zoning district.

A council majority said that housing type could be beneficial for the area, but others on the panel said the roadways and school district could suffer from such a project.

Residential uses are allowed to the north and south of the proposed area, with a mix of highway commercial-type businesses and land uses fronting Route 378.

Township officials were presented with a sketch plan with layout options, mostly for council guidance and feedback. There was no formal vote regarding the project Wednesday.

Developers presented an initial four-driveway plan to the township Planning Commission for the first time last February, before heading to the Zoning Hearing Board that July.

'Not about gain on our end'

Chris Brown, landscape architect with Brown Design Corp. of Allentown, said there’s no detailed site design yet.

The buildings could end up being 120 feet long (two or 2 1/2 stories tall) or 70 feet long, project officials said.

Plans show the first option with 13 units across three buildings and 26 spaces across each of three parking lots to the west of each building.

The second option shows 19 units in one building and 20 in another, with both 35-space and 43-space parking lots nearby.

Brown said the developer’s preferred option, the three-building variant, would require a certain relief package they find “reasonable.”

The second option would be “less attractive and less beneficial” to developers and township, he said.

“We don’t feel like two parallel buildings on Old Philadelphia Pike are gonna do the same job at the same sensitivity and character that our three-build proposal does,” Brown said.

“This is not about gain on our end. This is probably easier — less hoops, less hurdles. But frankly, we feel like the three-building is a better final outcome for the township.”

Riparian buffer

A stream cuts the property in half from north to south, with a second stream coming from the west end of the property. The streams also converge at a wetland area.

Natural resources account for 80% of site land area, and 70% of the land is “further protected” by township ordinance, project officials said.

A riparian buffer is present along the creeks, which is “a dimensional offset from a creek or stream or any sort of waterway that is prescribed in your ordinance as an area of avoidance,” Brown said.

More space in the rear of the property would be dedicated to permanent preservation than is suggested for encroachment in the front, developers said.

A planted riparian buffer with vegetation, trees, shrubs and such, Brown said, would benefit the area post-construction if all later is approved.

Councilman Jason Banonis wasn’t persuaded. He mentioned flooding issues that have persisted over the years along Route 378.

“In fact, I think this worsens [flooding], because what you’re proposing here is actually disturbing the riparian buffer and building in or around the riparian buffer, which is designed to capture some of this natural runoff that was prevented from running on toward 378 and exacerbating the issue that we have,” Banonis said.

Project officials said on-site stormwater management and restoring the buffer would benefit both ends of the property — and maybe even upwards of 50% on the east side.

Underground detention basins outside of the buffers would catch parking lot runoff, while roof connections would run to nearby drains, officials said.

Banonis said they should just build something smaller instead.

“I’m certainly not a stormwater management expert, but in my mind, I can’t imagine constructing buildings like this with multiple parking lots, three driveways and everything else is going to improve the situation,” Banonis said.

A better use of open space?

Banonis and Councilman Thomas Carocci agreed the township should consider acquiring the property before the developer moved much further.

Carocci vouched for the use of eminent domain to secure the space.

“This would have been a great property to either expand our township park that’s right here, or even for a maintenance building,” Carocci said.

Priscilla deLeon liked the three-building option, especially as it pertained to parking lot orientation

“To me, you know, this isn’t a commercial site with storefronts,” deLeon said. “This is a living space.”

Councilwoman Victoria Opthof-Cordaro asked about potential underground parking, especially since the three-building option shows encroachment on the land’s riparian buffer area.

Developers are allowed up to 15% encroachment in such locations.

Officials said parking garages are pricey, and the area under the parking lots also would make room for stormwater management assets.

“I like the look of the three [-building option], but I am concerned about that encroachment,” Opthof-Cordaro said. “I would love to see something that details that.”

Councilwoman Laura Ray said she preferred the two-building design.

“It’s a type of housing that we sort of lack, and we are supposed to offer [a] variety of housing types in the township,” Ray said. “So in that respect, I think it’s a decent project.

“I would like to see if you can put an easement on the back half — that would be wonderful — and stay out of the wetlands because they’re very important.”