Council Minutes

September 3, 2002 Meeting Minutes

BETHLEHEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
Tuesday, September 3, 2002 - 7:30 PM - Town Hall

1. INVOCATION
2. PLEDGE TO THE FLAG
3. ROLL CALL

President Gregory called the meeting to order. Mr. Callahan offered the invocation which was followed by the pledge to the flag. Present were Jean Belinski, John B. Callahan, James A. Delgrosso, Robert J. Donchez, J. Michael Schweder, Magdalena F. Szabo, and James S. Gregory, 7.

First Public Hearing - Intermunicipal Transfer of Liquor License to Jake Co., Inc.,

Prior to the consideration of the regular Agenda items, City Council conducted a Public Hearing to receive public comment on the Application for the Intermunicipal Transfer of Liquor License and Permit from Big Hoss's (now out of business) Easton, PA, license now in safekeeping by PALCB, to Jake Co., Inc., 2955 Linden Street, Bethlehem PA, as required under Pennsylvania Liquor Code 47 P.S. Sections 4-461 (b.3).

President Gregory stated that, as Council will recall, a communication from Attorney Zeller was read into the record at the August 20, 2002 City Council Meeting regarding the request for the liquor license transfer.

Attorney Ted Zeller, representing his client Stephen N. Camarano, principal in Jake Co., Inc., advised he would give a short question and answer presentation for the benefit of City Council. Mr. Camarano responded to Attorney Zeller's questions, as follows. Mr. Camarano stated his full name, and his address at 2452 Riverbend Road, Allentown, Pennsylvania 18104. Mr. Camarano is President of Jake Co., Inc., the applicant, which is a corporation, the shareholders are Mr. Camarano and his wife, Sandra, the directors also consist of Mr. Camarano's son, Adam, and his daughter, Allegheny, in addition to Mr. Camarano and his wife. Mr. Camarano has a B.A. from Villanova University and M.A. from Lehigh University, and is also a C.P.A. A copy of Mr. Camarano's resume was distributed to the Members of Council. Jake Co., Inc. is currently under agreement to purchase a retail restaurant liquor license from Big Hoss's, Inc. in Easton, Pennsylvania. Jake Co., Inc.'s intent is to use the retail restaurant liquor license to facilitate the operation of a new restaurant called Fuddruckers to be located at the intersection of Route 191 and Macada Road, at 2955 Linden Street. Fuddruckers is the name of the chain of restaurants, headquartered in Texas, of which there are approximately 300 around the nation. Mr. Camarano purchased the local franchise rights for Fuddruckers in Lehigh and Northampton Counties. One of the requirements of the franchise relationship is to be able serve beer. The liquor license would be used to serve generally beer and wine. Fuddruckers is categorized as being a family theme restaurant for casual dining. Materials from the Internet more specifically describing Fuddruckers, its history, store locations, and a picture of a new franchise were distributed to the Members of Council. The site at 2955 Linden Street has already been approved for a 6,000 sq. ft. restaurant, with the approval obtained by the landlord, and Mr. Camarano's intent is to build consistent with those approvals, and to comply with all federal, state, and local law and ordinance with regard to any permits. The time frame is to start construction sometime in early to middle fall, with a projected opening date of April 2003. Mr. Camarano is under a lease for the site from the landlord. The site is near a small shopping area, on the left looking towards Linden Street is a Walgreen's pharmacy, immediately to the right is National Penn Bank, across the street is another restaurant, a few convenience stores, gas station, to the rear are residential neighborhoods, up and down Linden Street is a mix of commercial and residential, and there is another bank nearby. Mr. Camarano affirmed that the size of the restaurant is anticipated to be approximately 6,000 sq. ft. for which the floor plan is being worked out now. It is planned to have 240 seats in the restaurant that will be managed by Mr. Camarano who will be listed as the responsible manager when the application is filed with the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board in Harrisburg. A copy of menu items to be offered was distributed to the Members of Council. Mr. Camarano advised there is no sit-down bar planned. Times of operation would be approximately 11:00 AM until 10:00 or 11:00 PM.

Mr. Delgrosso, observing that the liquor license would allow all types of beverages to be served, asked if there is a liquor license that allows the serving of only beer and wine.

Attorney Zeller, replying no, explained there are many different forms of liquor licenses in Pennsylvania including an E license and an R license pertaining to restaurant facilities. The E license is a beer only license. The Pennsylvania legislature had deemed that wine fall into the category of alcohol so one has to get a full restaurant retail liquor license in order to be able to serve wine; that is the reason why the applicant has contracted for an R license as opposed to an E license.

Ms. Szabo asked what is the cross street near 2955 Linden Street.

Attorney Zeller showed the plan of the site to the Members of Council, near Macada Road.

Mr. Donchez asked if there will be any change to the entranceway to the shopping center.

Attorney Zeller replied that would be up to the site developers and he is not aware of any changes. In further response to Mr. Donchez, Mr. Camarano advised there could be on average approximately 600 customers per day.

Attorney Zeller, in response to Mr. Delgrosso, noted to the best of his knowledge the proposed restaurant would fill out the site that was previously approved. Mr. Camarano informed Mr. Delgrosso that the fa�ade of the restaurant would be very similar to what is depicted in the picture.

No public comment was made.

President Gregory noted that Council has received a request from Mr. Hanna, Director of Community and Economic Development, to place the appropriate Resolution on this September 3, 2002 Council Agenda. President Gregory stated that, consequently, if Council so agrees, he will accept a motion to amend the Agenda later this evening to add a Resolution for Council's consideration tonight.

The first Public Hearing was adjourned at 7:47 PM.

Second Public Hearing - Proposed Rezoning - Creek and Friedensville Roads - RR to RS

Prior to the consideration of the regular Agenda items, City Council conducted a Public Hearing to consider a request to rezone a parcel of ground located in the 16th Ward of the City of Bethlehem, Northampton County, bounded on the North by lands now or formerly William A. Neff, III and Denise A. Tino, on the East by the eastern half of Creek Road, on the South by the southern half of Friedensville Road and on the West by lands now or formerly Saucon View LP from RR - Residential District to RS - Residential District.

A. Planning Commission - Proposed Rezoning - Creek and Friedensville Roads - RR to RS

The Clerk read a letter dated August 22, 2002 from Darlene L. Heller, Planning Director, as follows: "At its August 15 meeting the Planning Commission voted 2-1 to recommend approval of the above-referenced rezoning proposal at Friedensville and Creek Roads. Although it was not a unanimous decision, the commission and our office feel that the rezoning proposal should be approved because it actually does more to preserve the character of Creek Road than the current zoning does.

Density - The RS zoning does allow a greater density of development, but it allows it in a way that will allow the development to be concentrated in a portion of the lot. The remaining portions of the lot can remain as open space and provide a buffer to Creek and Friedensville Roads and the abutting residential property. For comparison, the current RR zoning would allow 16 or 17 residences on lots with individual driveway cuts. This would probably create two road cuts onto Creek Road for a loop road and two additional driveway cuts. The proposed RS zoning would allow approximately 60 townhouse rental units.

Traffic - Current traffic reports indicate that the traffic generated by the proposed development will have minimal traffic impact on the surrounding roadway network. The applicant's traffic study does, however, indicate that where decreases in the level of service occur they can be mitigated through traffic signal timing and phasing revisions. If the rezoning is approved and the land development is approved and developed, the developer will be required to complete all timing and phasing revisions noted in the traffic study. In addition, when a light is deemed to be warranted at the entranceway to both the Society Hill and Saucon View developments, the developer would be required to contribute their fair share of signal installation improvements at the intersection. At this time the traffic study does not indicate that a light is warranted at this intersection. Both Hellertown and Lower Saucon have indicated their satisfaction with traffic reports as long as the developer is responsible for the costs and improvements related to this development.

Impact to Creek Road - The impact on the aesthetic, rural quality of Creek Road seems to be the other universal concern of neighbors. The proposed development design provides for significantly less impact to Creek Road than what would occur if development had to comply with the RR single-family zoning requirements. The current proposal has no access onto Creek Road, the current trees and natural growth would remain, and no widening or other improvements would be required to the roadway. An emergency access way may be necessary for emergency vehicles, but that could be created with a minimum of disturbance.

In conjunction with this proposal, we have been researching a variety of alternatives to address traffic calming along Creek Road. We are currently taking a closer look at the installation of "speed humps" along the roadway. They are proposed to slow traffic on the roadway and encourage through traffic to utilize alternate routes while creating little, if any, impact to the roadway itself or the rural character of the road. They are movable or removable if need be, but they could provide a very simple answer to the concern of speeding traffic on this narrow roadway. In addition, we are researching the possibility of a scenic byway designation for this roadway. Although we are still looking into it at this point, the designation would be similar to a historic designation but it would apply to the corridor itself. The designation would allow us to apply for grant funding for additional study in the area or for other traffic calming measures or signage that may be warranted.

The Planning Bureau and the Planning Commission recommend that the rezoning of this 9-acre tract be approved as long as these issues are adequately addressed. We believe that this plan does more to protect the attractive natural environment along Creek Road than the Rural Residential designation does."

B. Lehigh Valley Planning Commission - Proposed Rezoning - Creek and Friedensville Roads - RR to RS

The Clerk read a letter dated July 26, 2002 from Olev Taremae, Chief Planner, Lehigh Valley Planning Commission (LVPC), in which it was stated that the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission considered the referenced matter at the July 25, 2002 meeting pursuant to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, and voted to return the following comments. "The Commission had reviewed a different rezoning proposal for this property in an April 26, 2002 review letter. The comments contained in that review letter are also applicable to the current proposal. A copy of the April letter is enclosed for your convenience."

The April 26, 2002 letter from the LVPC is as follows: "The Lehigh Valley Planning Commission considered the above referenced matter at the April 25, 2002 meeting pursuant to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, and voted to return the following comments for your use. In our January 29, 1999 review which also involved the rezoning of this property from RR to RG, we noted that the rezoning is in an area recommended for urban development by the Comprehensive Plan for Lehigh and Northampton Counties. Recognizing that the traffic impacts of the development that would result from the rezoning were the key issue related to the appropriateness of the rezoning, we reserved comment on the matter pending the submission of a traffic study. Later, we reviewed a traffic study for the Saucon View Apartments dated January 18, 2000. This study indicated that the development would aggravate the existing congestion at the intersection of Water and Main Streets in Hellertown. The study included recommended improvements that would relieve the congestion. Based on this analysis, we find the proposed rezoning to be consistent with the comprehensive plan as long as the needed improvements to the Water and Main Street intersection are undertaken in a timely manner."

Planning Director Comments

Darlene Heller, Director of Planning, affirming that her memorandum outlines the proposal and the discussion at the Planning Commission meeting, advised that a close look was taken at the proposal. Ms. Heller noted that the property is abutted to the east by Creek Road, to the South by Friedensville Road, to the west by Saucon View Apartments, and to the north by a single family residence, and further north is the Goodman Campus of Lehigh University. Ms. Heller, continuing on to advise that the density changes were reviewed, said "although this does allow for multi-family housing and greater density, we believe that it does have less impact on Creek Road and surrounding areas because it can be clustered into the interior of the lot, and it does not require access to abutting roadways. In addition, the zoning that's proposed here is RS, not the RG that you see at Saucon View Apartments right now, so it would be a lower density, and also a smaller scale. It would be 2, 2-1/2 stories in height. The memo does talk about traffic. We have traffic reports here that have been reviewed by the Traffic Coordinator, and also Lower Saucon made comments at the Planning Commission meeting that they were in agreement with the traffic study, and the fact that it would have little impact on the surrounding roadways. And, of course, there was great discussion about the impact to Creek Road. We do believe that traffic calming measures would be looked at in conjunction with the rezoning proposal, but we do feel that rezoning to RS, regardless of the traffic calming measures, would have less impact on Creek Road than rural residential zoning."

Council Comments

Mr. Delgrosso, focusing on Ms. Heller's memo, inquired about the sentence pertaining to taking a closer look at the installation of speed bumps along the roadway.

Ms. Heller explained they are speed humps which is one alternative that is being looked at. Confirming that the idea is to take a look at traffic calming measures, Ms. Heller said this is one thing that may be appropriate. Advising it is not a speed bump as one might see in a shopping center parking lot, for example, Ms. Heller explained a speed hump is about six feet long and about three inches high, is made of recycled tire, causes very little impact to the roadway, and is movable or removable if that needs to be done. Ms. Heller added that contact has been made with other communities which use them to see how they like them and how they work. Ms. Heller reiterated the idea is that there are measures that can be reviewed to create some traffic calming.

Mr. Delgrosso asked if they are legal in Pennsylvania.

Ms. Heller, responding that City officials have talked with PennDot representatives, advised they are legal, and added they were included as a subject of a conference attended by the City's traffic coordinator.

Mr. Delgrosso queried who accepts the liability if there is an accident due to a speed hump.

Ms. Heller, reiterating "we are taking a look at it, and we are talking to other communities", advised she is not saying "that it's a recommendation that we would go with, but�it just lets us know that there are alternatives out there that we could be researching."

Petitioner Comments

Attorney James Broughal, representing the petitioner, Landmark Communities, LLC, who have under agreement of sale the nine acres that were described in the memorandum from the Planning Bureau, stated that J. B. Reilly, a principal in Landmark Communities is at the meeting tonight, as well as Larry Turosy and David Herp who are the civil and traffic engineers. Attorney Broughal recounted that approximately three and a half years ago the same property came before Council together with the adjacent 17 acres of property as a rezoning request to change the 17 acres from I Institutional to RG Residential zoning, and the nine acres from RR Residential to RG Residential. Several years before that, these same properties had been the subject of another rezoning request to allow these same properties to be used as a shopping center and other retail uses. Attorney Broughal continued on to say "it is obvious that these properties hold considerable interest for potential development, either commercially or residentially. The initial rezoning request to allow retail uses was rejected by Council. The second rezoning request initiated by my clients to allow a multi-family development was approved for the 17 acre tract, but the rezoning request for the nine acre tract was withdrawn by my clients when it became clear that a majority of Council would not support a rezoning of the nine acres from RR to RG. We are here tonight again to ask Council's consideration in rezoning this nine acre tract from RR to RS, not RG as was earlier requested. Under the City Zoning Ordinance, the RR district is the most restrictive in terms of development, with the RS zoning district being the second most restricted in terms of development. For reasons that we will discuss later, we feel the RS classification is the most appropriate for this site. Since the last rezoning request three and a half years ago, my clients continue to have an interest in this nine acre tract because they believe that even as it's currently zoned it has development potential for single family lots. To that end, my clients commissioned Lehigh Engineering to prepare potential development plans, both as it's currently zoned and as it could be developed if rezoned. We intend to show these plans to you in just a few moments. And, make no mistake about it. It is clearly our intention to show you that development under the current zoning classification could clearly have a greater impact on Creek Road and its current residents than the development we are proposing if the property was rezoned. Finally, we have asked our traffic engineer to review this site and the potential development of the property, and what impact the 17 acres that was rezoned has had on traffic on Creek Road and the surrounding intersections, as well as evaluating the impact on Creek Road and surrounding intersections if development would occur on the nine acre tract, either as it's currently zoned or as we are requesting it to be rezoned. Mr. Turosy and Mr. Herp will be sharing their findings with you."

J. B. Reilly, 1560 Merryweather Drive, Bethlehem, noted that Landmark Communities is an active developer of apartment communities in the Lehigh Valley. Saucon View is the company's fourth successful higher end apartment community development in the Lehigh Valley in the last 10-12 years. In addition, the company is very active in the development of single family subdivisions, including Forks Township called Frost Hollow Knolls, which is about 189 lots, and two communities in Lehigh County called Hidden Valley Farms and Brookside apartments, approximately 400 homes in total. Mr. Reilly continued on to say the company is involved with the development of active adult housing which is an age restricted product, and is currently engaged in two communities in Lehigh County. Mr. Reilly recounted that, about three and a half years ago he had requested a rezoning of the 17 acres that is currently Saucon View Apartments, in addition to the nine acres that is the subject of tonight's request. Acknowledging at that point the company had never done any projects in Bethlehem and there was a lot of skepticism about what the company would do and what the project would look like, Mr. Reilly said "after�taking the pulse of the situation, we decided to withdraw the request for the nine acres and focus our zoning request at that point to the Institutional land." In revisiting some of the past concerns that, he acknowledged, were all very legitimate, Mr. Reilly noted that he would talk about what has happened over the last few years. The first concern was impact of the Saucon View apartments development on traffic. Mr. Reilly stated that the traffic studies demonstrate that the development has had a very negligible impact on traffic in the vicinity, particularly on Creek Road. Affirming there was a great concern about storm water runoff, flooding of Creek Road, and flooding of the creek immediately to the north of the site, Mr. Reilly commented that these concerns have not materialized. In fact, Mr. Reilly pointed out that during the original rezoning and land development process a contribution was made to the City for the upgrading of the culvert under Creek Road. Mr. Reilly said over the last three years he has not heard of any significant flooding problems that Saucon View has caused. Turning to concern about the quality of the development, Mr. Reilly recounted there was concern about the kind of housing and whether they would be the typical apartments often found in urban areas. Handing out brochures (marked Applicant's Exhibit #1) to the Members of Council, Mr. Reilly affirmed "what we represented to you that we were going to do three and a half years ago I�believe that everything we said we were going to do we did. In fact, I think when we got into the final planning and then ultimately the construction and development of the community we actually improved or increased the specifications of many of the attributes of the buildings and common facilities�". In addition, the apartments, we made them all nine foot ceilings, fireplaces, and did a fair amount with regard to the amenities of the apartments�". Focusing on concern about who would ultimately move into the apartments, including whether they would turn into student housing and/or would be attractive to a lower income renter, Mr. Reilly advised that has not happened. In fact, Mr. Reilly said "there are virtually no students in the community. Of the 198 apartments, I think we may have two or three apartments that have students, and as you know we cannot discriminate against the students or anybody�". Mr. Reilly handed out a summary of some demographic information (Exhibit #2) done in July that gives a "flavor of the kind of people that are living at Saucon View Apartments right now. The vast majority of people are either single or married people without children. There are twenty-four children under age five and eighteen children over age five, and of those children fourteen attend public schools." Mr. Reilly pointed out that the community has a very low impact on the public school system that was a concern. Mr. Reilly, highlighting the fact that as shown at the bottom of the report the average household income is over $80,000, affirmed the development is attracting people with higher incomes, many who work in the city limits of Bethlehem, and added that the household income is important from a city wage tax perspective. Noting there was concern about crime, Mr. Reilly stated there is no evidence that crime has been a problem.

Mr. Reilly, addressing the rezoning request before the Members of Council, explained he will discuss two plans for development: a single family plan in accordance with existing RR Residential zoning (marked A #3), and the second plan on the easel for additional apartments under the requested RS Residential rezoning (marked A #4). Mr. Reilly noted that under the current RR zone, the parcel would be able to be laid out for a maximum density of seventeen single family lots, all at least 15,000 sq. ft. each. Access is onto Creek Road out of necessity. Access along Friedensville Road from the nine acre piece would be prohibited because of the lack of site distance given the significant slope of Friedensville Road over that section. Although legally possible to create access to the single family homes through the apartments, Mr. Reilly said he is not sure if the City would allow that to be done, and stressed that from a marketing standpoint "we'd have a lot of difficulty marketing single family homes if they were accessed through the existing apartment site." Informing the assembly that his company has done about 550 lots in the Lehigh Valley over the last seven years, Mr. Reilly remarked "in laying this out, we believe this is probably the most efficient use of the land for single family development." Turning to the exhibit marked A #5, Mr. Reilly advised it is a cross-section of Creek Road. In terms of developing the site under the present RR zoning designation, Mr. Reilly expressed that the biggest site obstacle faced as a developer would be the improvement of Creek Road. He continued on to say that Creek Road averages about seventeen feet in width, versus the standard width of a street in the City of about thirty-four feet that includes the shoulders, is not in good condition, and is dangerous to travel on. Under development of the site, the Administration has indicated that Creek Road would need to be widened, it would have to be widened about eight and a half feet on each side, and curb and sidewalk would be subject to review and approval. Mr. Reilly stated "when you cut back into this bank, and then you taper back to a grade to accommodate curb and sidewalk, you essentially have a lot of earth moving to do which will unfortunately result in the removal of all of the vegetation along Creek Road. That's obviously unattractive from our standpoint in terms of a development feature."

Focusing on the request to rezone the property from RR Residential to RS Residential, Mr. Reilly informed the Members that a sketch plan was prepared to give an idea of development under an RS zone. Mr. Reilly, recounting that about six months ago he made a request to rezone the tract in question from RR Residential to RG Residential, RG being the same zoning designation as Saucon View Apartments, noted RG allows almost eleven units an acre, while the RS zone allows about six units an acre. Mr. Reilly advised "when we submitted that request, we had many discussions with some Members of Council, the Administration, and the neighbors. And, the feedback that we got was that's just too dense�There were comments about the fact that the buildings in RG can be as tall as four stories, and RG would allow us to do almost fifty percent more density than RS, that would be ninety-eights units I think we'd be able to do." Continuing on to say the feedback was "is there any way to tone this down", Mr. Reilly recalled that he went back, looked at the plan and the numbers, and tried to see what he could come up with. The result was that under an RS zone, it would be less dense, or about fifty percent less dense, than the RG zone. The concern about the scale of the buildings being four stories could be addressed because RS only allows a two and a half story building. Mr. Reilly expressed the belief that, by cutting back some of the density and having buildings that would be more in line with the scale of homes, "this would be more palatable". Mr. Reilly restated that the benefit he would see under an RS zone is if apartments were built all of the traffic would be able to be brought out to the existing intersection created at Saucon View Apartments. He pointed out that the intersection currently in place now is a medium density intersection, pursuant to PennDOT's classifications, and would handle this additional traffic. Mr. Reilly commented that, under RS zoning, there would be four or five buildings. Introducing Exhibit #6, three photographs of typical two story apartment design with garages, Mr. Reilly communicated "this would be very typical of what we would look to build if we were given permission to go forward with an RS zoning development. You can see, if we do two story buildings, they're going to look and feel a lot more like single family homes than the buildings we have right now which are four story buildings. The other benefit of doing fewer buildings, in addition to keeping all the traffic off Creek Road, we're able to cluster the buildings away from Creek Road and away from the adjacent single family home. When you look at the two plans, you'll notice in the apartment layout you probably have close to three hundred feet from the edge of the closest building to the adjacent single family home on Creek Road, versus in the single family plan you probably have maybe about one hundred feet or less. I think that in terms of buffering, adjacent homes, and Creek Road, and preservation of green space�good planning would suggest that the RS two story apartment design makes a lot of sense." Mr. Reilly pointed out that the traffic data based on the experience at Saucon View Apartments in terms of the changes in traffic from pre-development until now suggests that about two percent of the traffic uses Creek Road. Mr. Reilly said, if sixty apartments are added under the proposed change in zoning to RS, "you're basically looking at having a negligible impact on Creek Road in terms of additional traffic." He added that the study suggests there would be eight additional vehicles traveling on Creek Road during the day if additional units were to be developed in something similar to this configuration. On the other hand, Mr. Reilly communicated, that if seventeen single family homes were developed, all of the traffic will be on Creek Road because it has to come in and out of Creek Road where the access is, and there would be one hundred sixty-three trips per day on Creek Road from seventeen single family homes. Mr. Reilly noted that single family homes generally generate about ten trips per day, and more than an apartment site. Mr. Reilly stressed that, the biggest impact on Creek Road will be that if the single family plan were built out, when Creek Road is widened out to Friedensville Road by eight and a half feet, and site triangles are improved on Friedensville Road, what will happen is that Creek Road is no longer going to be an unimproved country road. He pointed out that Creek Road is going to be a road that will be fifty percent wider, will have adequate clear site triangles at the intersection with Friedensville Road, "and the result is that it's going to be a lot more inviting for people to use." Mr. Reilly stated that "if the intention is to preserve Creek Road, then the RS plan is really the more responsible plan."

Turning to economic considerations, Mr. Reilly advised that in the apartment community, all of the interior roads are private roads owned and maintained by the apartment community. If the tract were to be developed under the "by right use"; i.e., the present RR Residential zoning district classification, the interior route road would be a public road. Although the developer would be required to construct the road, the ongoing maintenance of the road would be the responsibility of the City of Bethlehem. Mr. Reilly commented "I think we've demonstrated with our demographic data that was presented earlier that the additional apartments would have a negligible impact on the school system. However, if seventeen single family homes were developed there would be a substantial impact on the school system. With regard to tax revenues, Mr. Reilly remarked that, from a wage tax, water and sewer revenue, and real estate tax standpoint, "it's safe to say that the revenues are substantially more with the RS multi-family zone. I would think they're three or four times higher."

In summary, Mr. Reilly, referring to the history of the site when it was owned by Lehigh University and there was request to develop the property as a retail site, pointed out that development of the site has always been viewed very carefully by City Council. Mr. Reilly communicated that Council's track record in terms of reviewing and evaluating uses for this site are very clear. Mr. Reilly thought that Council wants to make sure there will be responsible development. Stating it is a very attractive site and one that will be developed, Mr. Reilly expressed the belief that, through the evolution of planning requests, meetings like this, meetings with neighbors and the Administration, what is evolving "is...the best and most responsible use for these nine acres." Mr. Reilly thought that the "by right" use of the land "will change Creek Road forever." Mr. Reilly commented that one of the underlying objectives all along in terms of the development of this piece has been "how do we preserve Creek Road." He expressed the belief that the way "we preserve Creek Road is by going forward with a responsible plan like we're presenting."

Traffic Engineer Comments

Larry Turosy, Director of Engineering for Lehigh Engineering, advised that three years ago he did the original study for the 198 units. The study was duplicated with an additional 60 units when the traffic study was done for the proposed use. Based on the traffic counts from three years ago plus the traffic counts taken recently, plus the benefit of some traffic counts taken by the City, a traffic report was prepared that was reviewed by the City and by one of the adjacent municipalities, and the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission. Mr. Turosy remarked "there is obviously impact" with 60 units. Mr. Turosy continued on to advise that four intersections were reviewed: Friedensville Road, Bingen Road, and Hickory Hill; the main intersection to the development; Creek Road and Friedensville Road; and Main Street and Water Street in Hellertown. Mr. Turosy explained that, on day one opening with the proposed apartments use and looking ten years into the future as is required by PennDOT, it was found there would be some minor deficiencies at these intersections, taking them from a certain level of service down perhaps one level. However, it was determined that, with timing and phasing improvements, the intersections could be brought back to the level of service before development occurred. There were no changes in level of service that would occur that would be detrimental at the entrance that is also the entrance to Society Hill. Mr. Turosy, continuing on to say "we were fairly confident that we could mitigate any improvement" and noting there might be a cost to do so, stated "the developer was willing to pay those costs to do the mitigation on the traffic signal intersections." Mr. Turosy, explaining that he looked at what would happen, specifically at Creek Road, under the by right seventeen single family detached lots versus the sixty apartment units, handed out an exhibit (A #7). Mr. Turosy informed the Members that exhibit A 7 is a one page narrative that indicates the type of traffic that would occur from seventeen single family units under the by right use versus the proposed use of sixty apartments units. The table at the bottom indicates the type of traffic that could be expected from each use. Focusing on the comparison table at the bottom, Mr. Turosy said "if you have seventeen single family [units] they will on a daily basis generate one hundred sixty-three trips. Single family detached are the highest generator of the residential type units, basically about ten trips per day, about one trip per peak hour. If you look at the apartments, although there are sixty apartments, based on studies, there's about three hundred ninety-eight trips per day. And if you look at the AM and the PM, which is really what you're looking for, how to handle your AM and PM traffic because that's the highest peaks of the day, and if you can handle those peaks the rest of the day will generally be acceptable. And, you can see there's thirteen and seventeen, seventeen being the higher PM's. Throughout the valley, the PM peak's usually about a third higher, somewhere between a tenth and a third higher, and it's thirty-one to thirty-seven�If you develop by right the most practical and probably the only way is access onto Creek Road. You can't get onto Friedensville Road because�you can't get safe site distance�You'd provide either one access or two access points, in this case two because of the length of cul-de-sac that's allowed in the City, and then�you would be funneling�all your PM peak trips onto Creek Road, either North or South�.If you kept the sixty apartments�.we found out there's about two percent of the trips, very low number and the counts verify that, that go from the apartments onto Creek Road. So, even if you would have the three ninety-eight and the thirty-one and the thirty-seven which are higher than those generated by the seventeen single family, the resultant volumes that would occur on Creek Road are relatively low. And, that's listed across�the right hand side of the table, and you can see it would be one hundred sixty-three a day versus eight a day, and during the AM and PM�just one or two trips per peak hour, so very little impact that would occur from the proposed use. From a non-traffic standpoint�if you would do by right and put the seventeen units in because of the traffic generated you'd almost assuredly have to widen Creek Road. You'd have to put sidewalks in because the residents from the single family produce more children historically. They would need sidewalks to safely walk along Creek Road�to go anywhere�So, the typical section that was shown on there would greatly affect that area. If you're familiar with Creek Road, there's an embankment on the West that varies in height from sixty until as you go North to about three hundred to about three hundred and fifty feet where it gets down to zero embankment where you're level. But to take that back and put a three to one slope in that's required by the City, you would be going back in some cases over thirty feet from the centerline of Creek Road, knocking down all the vegetation, destroying that area there. What's worse, I think, from a traffic standpoint is that, once you widen that, put curb, sidewalk,�if you have a wider roadway, increase the speeds, have more people to get onto Creek Road. So, in looking at the two, honestly, from an impact standpoint, from a traffic standpoint, and just general impact on the environment in there, and the tree cover, I think the proposed use is much less impact�".

Attorney Broughal asked that the City's staff give a report on the comprehensive plan, and that the report that was handed to Attorney Spadoni by the planning staff be made part of the record tonight.

Ms. Heller, advising that the Planning Commission's recommendation was reviewed in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan, said "we do believe that rezoning this parcel to RS is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives. Certainly, the Plan recognizes that we will be reviewing things over time. The Lehigh Valley Planning Commission has noted that it is an area that's planned for urban development, and we believe that really this is the best development to keep the rural character of the corridor there�".

Council Comments

Mr. Delgrosso inquired whether under the proposed development of apartment houses there is only one road to enter and exit and if that meets all requirements with the amount of units.

Attorney Broughal replied there is an emergency outlet. Mr. Turosy, responding there will be required emergency gated access onto Creek Road somewhere where it is the most strategic to be able to get vehicles in and out, noted it would probably be to the North side where it is at grade.

Kevin Moyzan, Fire Commissioner, advised that with any type of development of this nature, the Fire Department would be concerned about having a second way in and out and that would be something of importance. Otherwise, having only one entrance could hamper emergency response. Fire Commissioner Moyzan confirmed that the proposed emergency second way would be acceptable, and there have been past developments where something of that nature has been done.

Mr. Delgrosso said if only two percent of the people of three hundred ninety-eight movements out of the sixty apartments would go to Creek Road he can understand where there is the percentage coming out on Creek Road in the other development because it is the only way of getting in and out. Mr. Delgrosso queried why would all of the people leaving the homes go North on Creek Road.

Mr. Turosy commented they would use North or South.

Mr. Callahan, turning to the two percent number, asked if it is based on actual counts and how the counts were conducted.

Mr. Turosy explained there were peak hour manual counts where someone sits and counts the cars including the rights, lefts, and throughs at each approach at each intersection. The City also did a two count where a black tube is put on the roadway that does not count turns but counts for a twenty-four or forty-eight hour period. Based on the total amount of traffic in this area, Mr. Turosy advised it was discovered that two percent were on Creek Road. Based on that information, it is assumed "that the new people, the sixty, would fall into the same pattern."

Ms. Szabo asked if Schweder Fire Station would take care of the area and if not which Fire Station would, and how long it takes to reach that area.

Fire Commissioner Moyzan confirmed that Schweder Fire Station would be the closest fire house to respond to that area. However, Fire Commissioner Moyzan continued on to say, since the area is located on the other side of South Mountain, it tends to be one of the furthest outreaches for the Fire Department to respond, and a typical response time to get to that area can be as long as around five minutes, which is unusually long for response times in other parts of the City where response times are about two to three and a half minutes.

Ms. Szabo asked if there is any agreement with a nearby fire station.

Fire Commissioner Moyzan explained there are mutual aid agreements with Allentown and Easton but not with Hellertown. Fire Commissioner Moyzan, highlighting the fact that Saucon View Apartments was a fully sprinklered development in recognition of the location and additional need, stated when there is a fully sprinklered building that is properly designed, maintained and operated there has never been a loss of life in that type of a development.

Mr. Reilly commented that if two story apartments were to be built they would be fully sprinklered, while single family homes would not be sprinklered.

Public Comments

William Neff, Sr. 4425 Greenwich Lane, Harrisburg, said his standing in this matter before Council is that both he and his wife have a financial interest in the property of their son and daughter in law, William Neff, III and Denise who reside at 2010 Creek Road, lot 8, block 6 A, map Q7. Mr. Neff stated he is speaking in part because of his and his son's interest, and is also speaking on behalf of an organization called the Southeast Bethlehem Conservation Association, a nonprofit organization whose mission is to preserve the character of the Creek Road community and the surrounding areas, including environmental and historic resources. Mr. Neff said he is at the meeting tonight to place on the record that the organization and members will be represented by counsel, Attorney Charles Bruno, with offices at 203 South Seventh Street, Easton. Mr. Neff advised that Attorney Bruno was unable to be present this evening. Mr. Neff communicated that, due to vacation schedules, some residents were unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting and this evening's meeting. Stating "we will be presenting expert testimony but we have a problem as I said in getting all of our ducks in a line", Mr. Neff said he "therefore formally ask a request that an extension to this hearing be granted for a period of no less than thirty days so that our professionals can be brought up to speed and they can make what I think will be a meaningful and informative presentation to Council. We would also request that any continuation date be set that would also be convenient to other interested parties, for example, the Borough of Hellertown. Their Council is meeting this evening, so we have a conflict there�who is an affected community on this development from being able to attend. There's representatives here from Lower Saucon but I don't know if they had a conflict or not�So, I do place before the Council a formal request for the adjournment of this hearing and a continuation for at least thirty days�". Mr. Neff, noting the residents have a court recorder at the meeting, said they are concerned about the future of Creek Road. Mr. Neff continued on to say that the residents are concerned about the future of Creek Road. Referring to City Council meetings of May 4, 1999 and September 21, 1999 relative to the rezoning request for the then proposed Saucon View apartments, Mr. Neff pointed out that when City Council did approve the zoning change "Council did state publicly on the record that they would leave the single family residential zoning on this tract alone." Mr. Neff stated he hopes the confidence that Council transmitted to the residents regarding rezoning of the tract in question is not violated. Mr. Neff said "the residents are totally opposed to this rezoning, and we will take to whatever level is required the necessary action to see that to the best of our ability that it does not go through." Mr. Neff suggested that, "either based on [Council's] questions or based on what has been presented to you this evening by Landmark, if Council would so feel it appropriate to give an indication which might be a signal to both parties are we heading down the wrong track, were our comments from 1999�still basically intact, or should we let the process continue. We are fully prepared to let the process continue."

Ms. Szabo asked Christopher Spadoni, City Council Solicitor, whether Council can continue a public hearing. Attorney Spadoni noted it would have to be after proper motion, second and vote to do so by a majority of Council, premised upon the expectation and anticipation of additional evidence. In response to Ms. Szabo, Mr. Neff enumerated the reasons why he is asking for 30 more days. He added that one reason why the court recorder is at the meeting is so that the testimony can be reviewed by their professionals.

Mr. Donchez stated his position is that he is opposed to any extension because there is a process. Recalling that the request came to City Council in June and had to be referred to the Planning Commission, Mr. Donchez pointed out that a public hearing is being held tonight and no vote will be taken. He continued on to affirm that if a vote were to be taken it would occur in two weeks, and two weeks later would be the final vote. Communicating that Council has dealt with many very important and controversial issues, Mr. Donchez thought that Council has a very fair process and stressed that he is not in favor of deviating from the process. Reemphasizing he is opposed to granting any extension, Mr. Donchez noted that if Council were to table something that is a different issue. Mr. Donchez stressed that in his eight years on Council he does not recall that a request was made from the podium dealing with a rezoning issue for an extension, and thought that the process should continue.

Mr. Neff said he is not questioning the process but rather the timing and the time of the year given vacation schedules, and the fact that this is of major concern to a lot of people.

In response to President Gregory, Attorney Broughal responded "with all due respect, no, we oppose any continuation of this particular hearing." Attorney Broughal noted that he was on vacation last week and came home yesterday to prepare for the hearing tonight, and the applicant's experts have made themselves available as well. Attorney Broughal highlighted the fact that this public hearing was scheduled two months ago so there was more than an opportune time for anybody to seek experts and to have evidence presented. He continued on to note that traffic studies have been available, and anything that has been filed by the applicant is available through the City. Attorney Broughal felt it was a little unfair at the eleventh hour for a continuation to be requested because the resident's attorney was not available tonight or could not get their experts here when the applicant was required to do so.

Mr. Delgrosso expressed his disagreement with postponing the public hearing for 30 days. Affirming that the process is in place, Mr. Delgrosso observed that an associate of the residents' attorney could be at the meeting. Mr. Delgrosso, continuing on to point out there will be four weeks until Final Reading of the Ordinance, highlighted the fact that during that time the floor is open and residents could have their representatives come before Council. Mr. Delgrosso stressed that the request for Council to give an indication of how they will vote is completely inappropriate. Mr. Delgrosso, denoting this is a public hearing, affirmed he would not give his voting position in view of the fact that the reason for a public hearing is to receive comments from both sides of the issue after which decisions can be made.

Mr. Neff explained that, had Council's comments not been on the record of May 4, 1999 and September 21, 1999 City Council Meetings, he would not have asked that question.

Mrs. Belinski, expressing her frustration with prolonged resolution of very important issues that have been before the City due to vacations, felt it was a fair argument.

President Gregory, noting that anything that could have been presented tonight can be presented at the next meeting, commented he is not sure why Council would need to extend the public hearing. President Gregory stated that any Member of Council is open to make a motion to extend if so desired.

Ms. Szabo thought it was very important that Council hear what the residents of the area have to say, and added it is a viable area. Ms. Szabo moved to continue the public hearing until the next City Council Meeting on September 17, 2002. Mrs. Belinski seconded the motion.

Mr. Callahan recalled that months ago members of the Southeast Bethlehem Conservation Association put City Council on notice that they were going to be ready to make their case. Expressing that he respects their right to make their case, Mr. Callahan highlighted the fact that the meeting has been duly advertised and the process properly followed, Council, the applicant and his representatives are at the meeting. Mr. Callahan agreed there is nothing that cannot be said two weeks from now when the Ordinance would be placed on Council's Agenda for First Reading. Mr. Callahan commented he did not think it would be a good practice to postpone the public hearing.

Mr. Donchez restated his opposition to continuing the public hearing. Stressing that City Council should be very consistent, Mr. Donchez pointed out that Council has a very fair and open process. Confirming he was President of Council when the rezoning request was reviewed in 1999, Mr. Donchez recalled there were several meetings on the original proposal. Mr. Donchez asserted it would be a bad precedent for Council to set for future zoning issues, and would leave open the opportunity for others to make the same request. While observing that hypothetically Council could table the matter at the next meeting, Mr. Donchez highlighted the fact that would be part of the process in granting an extension. However, for an extension to come in this way, Mr. Donchez said he is totally opposed to it.

Mrs. Belinski thought that Council already set the precedent when the entire process took place back to the Planning Commission for J&L Development in the recent past.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski and Ms. Szabo, 2. Voting NAY: Mr. Callahan, Mr. Delgrosso, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Schweder, and Mr. Gregory, 5. The motion failed.

Priscilla deLeon, President of Lower Saucon Township Council, stated on August 1, 2002 the Council voted to attend tonight's public hearing to oppose the rezoning of the tract. Ms. deLeon continued on to state "we are here tonight as an adjacent property owner, and also as an adjacent municipality. Our Township Solicitor, Linc Treadwell, is here also for public comments. I respectfully request that you consider his comments on behalf of the Township, and vote to reject the rezoning. I also urge you to designate Creek Road, not only as a scenic byway, but also an historic corridor linking the rich history of your neighbors, Lower Saucon Township, with the historic Michael Heller homestead, also part of the Township's park system, and the Borough of Hellertown with the historic Wagner grist mill�Preserving the rural character of this area would be a multi-governmental preservation effort regarding the history and the environment."

Linc Treadwell, Solicitor of Lower Saucon Township, said "the Lower Saucon Township Council voted unanimously, five to nothing, to ask me to come and present myself before you tonight in opposition to this rezoning request. I'd like to point out a few core issues that the Township would like you to consider. I believe earlier tonight there was some reference made to Lower Saucon Township not having a problem with the traffic issues�I think it would be a more proper characterization to say that the Township engineer reviewed the traffic study prepared by Lehigh Engineering, and that they agreed it had been done in a professional and responsible manner. The Township Council still has a problem with the additional traffic that this problem could generate and put on Friedensville Road at that intersection. In addition, Mr. Reilly tonight has showed you two potential plans for development of that property, one which he referred to as the by right plan which showed seventeen�homes, and the other which he referred to as the rezoning plan if this Council chose to rezone it. I'd like to remind all of you tonight that although those are both nice plans there is no guarantee that either one of them would occur if you rezone this property or if you do not rezone this property. If you choose to rezone this property, although Mr. Reilly has shown a nice plan, and I have no doubt that if Mr. Reilly says that's what he will build that's what he will build, however, there are various circumstances that could arise that could require Mr. Reilly to either sell this development or choose to go another route. Now, if you rezone the property, you have no guarantee that that's the plan that you will see during the land development phase. Secondly, when Mr. Reilly and the professionals here tonight were discussing the by right seventeen lot plan, they made a lot of references to the destruction of some tree line and Creek Road and some various bad things that could happen if they developed the by right plan. What they didn't tell you was that they could develop that nine acre parcel with less than seventeen homes. That's possible; they could choose to do that. They could put five homes on it, with driveways coming on to Creek Road which I would assume would not result in the amount of destruction that they talked about if they put a seventeen lot residential development on it. I don't know how many of the Council Members are aware here tonight, but right across the street from this proposed land to be rezoned is the Heller homestead which is located in Lower Saucon Township. The Heller homestead is a property that has an immense historical value. It's eligible now for listing on the National Historical Register, and the Council of Lower Saucon Township believes that by leaving this land zoned at a lower density for residential development that that is a nice buffer to protect that historic property. It's also a buffer to the Saucon Creek which is located to the East which is a high quality stream now, which, although I understand that the developer would have to meet your storm water requirements obviously the proposal for the rezoning with the higher density is a higher amount of impervious surface than what would be generated with the by right type of plan which could have a negative impact on the Saucon Creek. As I said before, there will be a traffic impact here that's throwing additional traffic out on to a fairly busily traveled highway or roadway. There are apartments, the Saucon Apartments, there that this Council has approved. I will admit that across the street the Township Council approved a project known as Society Hill which is also high density, but I think at this point in time it's the Township's position that with those apartments and with Society Hill that there is enough high density zoning in that area without this Council having the need to change this particular parcel which as I said acts as a buffer and is currently in a low density residential zone. I want to thank you for your time, and again ask that you please consider these items when you're deliberating and the Township's request that the property not be rezoned."

President Gregory asked if Lower Saucon Township commissioned its own traffic study to see what the actual impact would be. Attorney Treadwell replied "I don't believe so, no. The Township engineer reviewed the study prepared by the applicant." President Gregory queried whether Attorney Treadwell knows what Society Hill was zoned prior to that development. Attorney Treadwell commented he does not. President Gregory asked if the response could be obtained before the next meeting.

Mr. Donchez asked how many units exist at Society Hill, and was informed by Attorney Treadwell there are 214 units.

Tim Reinhard, 1765 Creek Road, stated he has no comment at this point.

Shelagh Maloney, 1919 Creek Road, said she is also speaking on behalf of Chris Cummings, Matt Cummings, and Susan Cummings. Recalling that in 1999 Society Hill was brought up as a comparison because it is directly across the street, Ms. Maloney thought that it is still lower density per acre than Saucon View. Ms. Maloney, with reference to the two to one vote of the Planning Commission to recommend this proposed rezoning under the logic as reported by the press that sixty units had less impact than seventeen, said that does not make sense to the residents. Ms. Maloney, focusing on the traffic, said it is a huge issue not only on Creek Road but in the Boroughs of Hellertown and Lower Saucon that will be affected by this proposal. Ms. Maloney continued on to say "the argument that apartments produce less traffic than single family homes shouldn't apply when the number of units proposed is more than three times the number of single family homes that could be built on this same property if it would've been built to that capacity as Mr. Reilly represents it being the most efficient use of the property. And, we respect the fact that Mr. Reilly is a businessman and that he has tried many ways with great diplomacy�to think of ways to make an expansion palatable to the surrounding neighborhood, and made argument and said that his proposed project would minimize the impact on Creek Road. But, we don't buy, as Mr. Treadwell said, the scare tactics that I feel are being represented when he proposes�the worst case scenario of optimal development�with�tree razing and street widening�". Focusing on street widening, Ms. Maloney said if there are traffic calming measures in place even with the widening it should not be that much of an impact because if the roadway is widened the humps should be even more necessary. Ms. Maloney pointed out there is a creek that runs right by Creek Road that she thought might be within the first eight feet where it had been mentioned that the roadway would be widened. She added there is a historic mill associated with the Heller homestead right along the corridor directly across the street from the nine acre parcel in question that is also within the first eight feet on that side of the road. Ms. Maloney stressed that, without exception, the residents prefer single family homes to the proposed project not only because of the number but also the nature of the dwellings. Ms. Maloney asserted that more apartments do not belong in the neighborhood especially directly adjacent to Creek Road. Acknowledging that as a developer Mr. Reilly has to make the bottom line work, Ms. Maloney pointed out there is a property zoned RG less than a mile away where someone is proposing to build twenty-two town homes which, she noted, is not "maxing it out". Ms. Maloney communicated she does not understand why everything proposed for this parcel "has to be maxed out". Ms. Maloney felt that the same protections to Creek Road that are being discussed in conjunction with the apartment development should also accompany any single family development as well, especially considering the uniqueness of the corridor and the danger of additional traffic. Ms. Maloney, expressing her understanding is that zoning decisions should not be made on the basis of a single project or for financial reasons, said she fails "to see how this situation does not prevent exactly this scenario. Downgrading this parcel of land would set a dangerous precedent on our street and the surrounding areas which will experience continuing pressures for development." Mentioning behind the scenes discussions, Ms. Maloney stressed "the underlying issue to us is the rezoning, and we don't want to see that property rezoned." Turning to the fact that apartments are proposed, Ms. Maloney said "apartments tend to decline. Homes tend to be improved." Focusing on a letter dated August 28, 2002 previously sent to Council, Ms. Maloney quoted from a paragraph, as follows: "Three years ago, some of you spoke eloquently for the protection not only of this unique area but also for the responsibility of stewardship that any city holds for its citizens. Each person who purchased property here did so with faith in the stability of the zoning classification of this area. In 1999, Council overwhelmingly supported the maintenance of the rural residential zoning of this parcel, and we as residents hope that you still see the soundness and long-term benefit of not downgrading this land."

Debra Sacarakis, 1632 Major Street, said she and her parents, John and Julia Sacarakis who are residents of Lower Saucon, are owners of the property under discussion at Friedensville and Creek Roads for some twenty years. She continued on to say that because of the age of her parents "and�the market, we are really interested in selling this property. And, we have an agreement of sale with J. B. Reilly and Landmark Communities. In our estimation, the plans put forth by Mr. Reilly provide distinctive housing that respects Creek Road, especially if access is through the existing units. If the agreement of sale does not go through with Mr. Reilly, the property will remain on the market. The property will more than likely be sold. We have had interest from several builders and several developers�, and with a developer other than Mr. Reilly there's no access for any kind of units except for Creek Road. I thought these comments would have some bearing on this discussion."

Stephen Antalics, 737 Ridge Street, noting that Attorney Broughal is the Solicitor for the Bethlehem (water) Authority and the Parking Authority and draws some compensation, said that "in a sense makes him an employee of the City of Bethlehem". Mr. Antalics added that Attorney Broughal was also the legal representative for J&L Development pertaining to the Durkee property. Noting that Attorney Broughal is the legal representative for Landmark Communities, Mr. Antalics commented that an employee of the City is appealing a case to another arm of the City, the Planning Commission, and is appearing before another arm of the City, City Council. Mr. Antalics queried whether there is an implied or potential conflict of interest.

Attorney Broughal advised that the Bethlehem Authority is an independent authority, and is not governed by or controlled by the City, other than appointments by the Mayor every four years. Attorney Broughal further advised he is not paid by the City of Bethlehem, and is paid by the Bethlehem Authority. Attorney Broughal continued on to say the same is true for the Bethlehem Parking Authority that is an independent authority, and advised he was hired by the Board of Directors of both the Bethlehem Authority and the Bethlehem Parking Authority, and was not appointed by the Mayor or City Council for those positions.

Attorney Spadoni suggested that the matter be considered and the evidence in full from the public hearing reviewed and the discussion not degenerate into those types of issues unless related to the case and must be confronted. Given Attorney Broughal's response, Attorney Spadoni commented that is appropriate response to Mr. Antalics' concerns.

Joann Jones, 1966 Creek Road, stated she is a member of the Southeast Bethlehem Conservation Association and said she opposes the rezoning about as much as she can oppose anything. Ms. Jones stressed that Creek Road is a beautiful, rural, residential, historical community in Bethlehem. Noting that many people enjoy the area including walking, biking, and pushing strollers, Ms. Jones continued on to say the area is lovely, small, has trees, and is an asset to the City. Pointing out there is a lot of land there such as cornfields which is one of the things that makes it so lovely, Ms. Jones said this particular parcel is a cornfield, and there are other cornfields on that road. She asserted that the major problem "we have with these apartments that are there now is that it is the kind of development that is as far away from what we need or what is good for the type of community that we have, and to extend it would only make it worse, especially when you consider the fact that there are more cornfields. And, if you allow these apartments on the corner, right at the mouth of Creek Road, it definitely, as the developer said, changes that community. It's not something that we want. We beg you, please don't do it."

The appropriate Ordinance will be placed on the September 3, 2002 Council Agenda for First Reading.

The second Public Hearing was adjourned at 9:31 pm.

President Gregory called for a recess.

The meeting was reconvened at 9:47 pm.

4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The minutes of August 20, 2002 were approved.

5. COURTESY OF THE FLOOR (for public comment on ordinances and resolutions to be voted on by Council this evening)

None.

6. OLD BUSINESS

Council Proposal - Removing Motor Vehicle Sales and Service from LI District

Mr. Callahan, with reference to the Council proposal made at the August 20, 2002 meeting that would Remove Motor Vehicle Sales and Service from the LI District, noted the comment had been made that there currently does not exist motor vehicle sales and service uses in the LI District and asked if that is the case and whether there was the opportunity to look at the proposal from a planning perspective.

Tony Hanna, Director of Community and Economic Development, commented that some research was started in anticipation of the upcoming Planning Commission meeting. Darlene Heller, Planning Director, advised there are a few in LI and CG and a couple that are non-conforming in Residential zones. Ms. Heller stated that the bureau is still taking a look at the matter, what zoning districts would permit that use, and how it would affect the City overall. Mr. Hanna noted there are four used automotive service facilities in LI, four in CG, three new and one used and two non-conforming. Mr. Hanna, commenting that there are no new dealerships in LI, observed that the majority exist along the Union Boulevard corridor and one on Broad Street. The three new dealerships are all along the Broad Street corridor, and there are new dealerships in the CG zone which is permitted by right under current zoning as a special exception.

Mr. Callahan inquired what would happen to the dealerships if Council were to move forward with the amendment. Mr. Hanna replied they would become grandfathered under their present use and could continue to operate the same use, and would be rendered non-conforming. Any expansion would have to be dealt with by the Zoning Hearing Board. Recounting the original premise for going forward with the proposal was, once the former Milham Chevrolet moved out of the CG District, at that point no automotive dealers would exist in the City in LI, Mr. Callahan said that is not the case. Mr. Callahan quoted from the August 20, 2002 minutes in which it was stated that motor vehicle sales and service centers would all be located in Commercial Districts as a result of the proposal. Mr. Callahan queried whether Council wants to move forward now that there is new information, and later added that the information presented at the last meeting was incorrect.

Mr. Schweder, thanking Mr. Callahan and Mr. Hanna for endorsing the proposal that there needs to be consistency in the Ordinance, thought that is what Council voted on. Continuing on to say the proposal has been forwarded to the Planning Commission for their recommendation to City Council, Mr. Schweder denoted at that point City Council would offer their reasons for voting and determine whether the proposal should proceed to become legislation.

7. COMMUNICATIONS

C. Director of Planning - Home Office Zoning Text Amendment

The Clerk read a letter dated August 27, 2002 from Darlene L. Heller, Director of Planning, which presented the recommendation made at the August 20, 2002 City Council Meeting that Section 1318.30(a)(1) of the zoning ordinance be amended to clarify that only a residential occupant may operate a home office within a residence.

President Gregory stated that the Amendment will be considered under Bill 22 later in the Agenda.

D. Deputy Director of Community Development - Highway Safety Project Grant

The Clerk read a letter dated August 29, 2002 from Dana B. Grubb, Deputy Director of Community Development, which requested that consideration be given to a resolution to facilitate execution of grant documents concerning grant contracts for the Highway Safety Project Grant which will provide $29,970 to the City's Police Department to support the continuation of the Sobriety Checkpoint and Expanded DUI/Underage Drinking Enforcement Program.

President Gregory stated that authorizing Resolution 11 A is listed on the Agenda.

E. Assistant City Solicitor - Records Destruction Resolution - Police Department

The Clerk read a memorandum dated August 29, 2002 from William Alexander Karras, Assistant City Solicitor, to which was attached a proposed resolution to destroy records from the Police Department listed on the attached exhibit, according to the schedule contained in the Municipal Records Retention Act.

President Gregory stated that authorizing Resolution 11 I is listed on the Agenda.

8 . REPORTS

A. President of Council

None.

B. Mayor

None.

9. ORDINANCES FOR FINAL PASSAGE

A. Bill No. 19 - 2002 - Amending Zoning Ordinance - Article 1302.76 - Definitions

The Clerk read Bill No. 19 - 2002, Amending Zoning Ordinance - Article 1302.76 - Definitions, on Final Reading.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Delgrosso, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Schweder, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Gregory, 7. Bill No. 19 - 2002, hereafter to be known as Ordinance 4135, was declared adopted.

B. Bill No. 20 - 2002 - Amending Zoning Ordinance - Article 1310.02(a)(8) - Outdoor Dining - CB District

The Clerk read Bill No. 20 - 2002 - Amending Zoning Ordinance - Article 1310.02(a)(8) - Outdoor Dining - CB District, on Final Reading.

Amendment to Bill No. 20 - 2002

Mr. Delgrosso and Mr. Schweder sponsored the following Amendment:

That the following in Section 1. which reads as follows:

1310.02(a)(8) Restaurant for the sale and consumption of food and beverage without drive-in service. (Outdoor dining may be permitted as long as an encroachment permit is also approved by the Public Works Department, if necessary.)

shall be amended to read as follows:

1310.02(a)(8) Restaurant for the sale and consumption of food and beverage without drive-in service. (Outdoor dining may be permitted between the hours of 6:00 AM and midnight as long as an encroachment permit is also approved by the Public Works Department, if necessary.)

Voting AYE on the Amendment: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Delgrosso, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Schweder, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Gregory, 7. The Amendment passed

Voting AYE on Bill 20 - 2002, as Amended: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Delgrosso, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Schweder, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Gregory, 7. Bill No. 20 - 2002, hereafter to be known as Ordinance 4136, was declared adopted.

C. Bill No. 21 - 2002 - Amending Zoning Ordinance Article 1311.02(a)(4) - Outdoor Dining - CG District

The Clerk read Bill No. 21 - 2002 - Amending Zoning Ordinance Article 1311.02(a)(4) - Outdoor Dining - CG District, on Final Reading.

Amendment to Bill No. 21 - 2002

Mr. Delgrosso and Mr. Schweder sponsored the following Amendment:

That the following in SECTION 1. which reads as follows:

1311.02(a)(4) Restaurant and drive-in restaurant. (Outdoor dining may be permitted as long as an encroachment permit is also approved by the Public Works Department, if necessary.)

shall be amended to read as follows:

1311.02(a)(4) Restaurant and drive-in restaurant. (Outdoor dining may be permitted between the hours of 6:00 AM and midnight as long as an encroachment permit is also approved by the Public Works Department, if necessary.)

Voting AYE on the Amendment: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Delgrosso, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Schweder, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Gregory, 7. The Amendment passed

Voting AYE on Bill 21 - 2002, as Amended: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Delgrosso, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Schweder, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Gregory, 7. Bill No. 21 - 2002, hereafter to be known as Ordinance 4137, was declared adopted.

D. Bill No. 22 - 2002 - Amending Zoning Ordinance Article 1318.30(a)(1) - Home Office in Rental Dwelling Unit

The Clerk read Bill No. 22 - 2002 - Amending Zoning Ordinance Article 1318.30(a)(1) - Home Office in Rental Dwelling Unit, on Final Reading.

Amendment to Bill No. 22 - 2002

Mr. Delgrosso and Mr. Schweder sponsored the following Amendment:

That the following in SECTION 1. which reads as follows:

1318.30(a)(1) No persons other than the occupant shall work at or use the property as a meeting place for the purpose of traveling to a work site. There shall be no parking of trailers, construction or landscaping equipment, cement mixers or other similar equipment on the property.

shall be amended to read as follows:

1318.30(a)(1) No persons other than the residential lessee or owner occupant or other family members residing in the dwelling shall work at or use the property as a meeting place for the purpose of traveling to a work site. There shall be no parking of trailers, construction or landscaping equipment, cement mixers or other similar equipment on the property.

Voting AYE on the Amendment: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Delgrosso, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Schweder, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Gregory, 7. The Amendment passed

Voting AYE on Bill 22 - 2002, as Amended: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Delgrosso, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Schweder, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Gregory, 7. Bill No. 22 - 2002, hereafter to be known as Ordinance 4138, was declared adopted.

E. Bill No. 23 - 2002 - Amending Zoning Ordinance - Article 1320 - Signs

The Clerk read Bill No. 23 - 2002 - Amending Zoning Ordinance - Article 1320 - Signs, on Final Reading.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Delgrosso, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Schweder, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Gregory, 7. Bill No. 23 - 2002, hereafter to be known as Ordinance 4139, was declared adopted.

F. Bill No. 24 - 2002 - Amending Subdivision and Development Ordinance - Article 1345.02 - Submitting Plans for Approval

The Clerk read Bill No. 24 - 2002 - Amending Subdivision and Development Ordinance - Article 1345.02 - Submitting Plans for Approval, on Final Reading.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Delgrosso, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Schweder, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Gregory, 7. Bill No. 24 - 2002, hereafter to be known as Ordinance 4140, was declared adopted.

G. Bill No. 25 - 2002 - Amending General Fund Budget - Tobacco Grant, DUI Overtime, Marvine Dental and Prenatal Programs, Northampton County Drug and Alcohol Grant, Osteoporosis Grant, Highway Safety Grant, and ALERT Partnership Grant

The Clerk read Bill No. 25 - 2002 - Amending General Fund Budget - Tobacco Grant, DUI Overtime, Marvine Dental and Prenatal Programs, Northampton County Drug and Alcohol Grant, Osteoporosis Grant, Highway Safety Grant, and ALERT Partnership Grant, on Final Reading.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Delgrosso, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Schweder, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Gregory, 7. Bill No. 25 - 2002, hereafter to be known as Ordinance 4141, was declared adopted.

H. Bill No. 26 - 2002 - Amending Non-Utility Capital Budget - Water Utility Assessment Grant

The Clerk read Bill No. 26 - 2002 - Amending Non-Utility Capital Budget - Water Utility Assessment Grant, on Final Reading.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Delgrosso, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Schweder, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Gregory, 7. Bill No. 26 - 2002, hereafter to be known as Ordinance 4142, was declared adopted.

I. Bill No. 27 - 2002 - Amending Article 121 - Restrictions on Budget Transfers

The Clerk read Bill No. 27 - 2002 - Amending Article 121 - Restrictions on Budget Transfers, on Final Reading.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Delgrosso, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Schweder, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Gregory, 7. Bill No. 27 - 2002, hereafter to be known as Ordinance 4143, was declared adopted.

10. NEW ORDINANCES

A. Bill No. 29 - 2002 - Rezoning Eastern End of East Broad Street

President Gregory noted that the underlined sections in paragraphs (4) and (5) of Bill No. 29 - 2002 are revisions from the original proposal in accordance with Council's action at the August 20, 2002 Public Hearing so that the zoning on the YMCA property will be changed from RM to RT in order to remain consistent with the residential neighborhood, instead of being rezoned to CG General Commercial.

The Clerk read Bill No. 29 - 2002, sponsored by Mr. Donchez and Mr. Callahan, and titled:

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PART 13 OF THE CODIFIED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AS AMENDED, KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, BY AMENDING THE CITY ZONING MAP.

Mr. Schweder said his understanding of the proposal is that in the area bounded by Elm, Broad, Wood, and East Market Streets it would be changed to General Commercial and would make part of it available for a fast food restaurant. If that is the case, with what transpired, the time, effort, and financial investment of Moravian Village, Mr. Schweder stressed he cannot find the logic for taking Residential land that abuts it and changing it into Commercial zoning and giving those uses by right to someone to come in and develop it.

Mr. Hanna explained the logic was that, in view of the uses there including office buildings, post office, the high-rise for the elderly, the Administration did not see at least in the short and long term, the potential for any of those uses being flipped or changed to some commercial use since the present uses seem to be stable and solid institutional uses. Stating there was cognizance of the uses, Mr. Hanna said "we felt that it would be more consistent to rezone that as Commercial because that's more consistent with the current uses that exist there."

Recalling it has been learned over the last year that the value of property zoned Residential is significantly less in value than land zoned Commercial, Mr. Schweder stressed that the proposal makes it a lot more attractive for someone to change the property and drastically increase the value of the property. Mr. Schweder remarked that, in light of what is around the area, he sees no rationale for why the area would be rezoned to Commercial with the level of investment that has been made through Moravian Village.

Amendment to Bill No. 29 - 2002 - Deleting Section 5

Mr. Schweder said he would like to move to take the area out of the proposal and have the property remain as it is which is Residential.

Commenting he does not think there would be a problem with that request, Mr. Hanna communicated that the rezoning made some sense in that the Administration was trying to maintain some consistency in some of the boundaries, and in taking into consideration the existing uses. Mr. Hanna informed Mr. Schweder that if the property were to remain Residential the current uses would not be impacted.

Attorney Spadoni advised that the amendment would require a second and vote by the majority of Council.

Mr. Schweder moved to delete Section 5 of Bill No. 29 - 2002 to take the area out of the proposal and have the property remain as it is which is Residential, and Mrs. Belinski seconded the motion. The Amendment is as follows:

That Section 5. which reads as follows:

SECTION 5. That the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania be amended by changing all the "RM - Residential" symbols and indications as shown on the City Zoning Map in the area described as follows:

ALL THAT CERTAIN tract or parcel of ground situate in the Seventh (7th) Ward and Fifteenth (15th) Ward of the City of Bethlehem, County of Northampton, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, bounded and described as follows, to wit:

BEGINNING at a point, said point being the intersection of the centerline of East Market Street, a street eighty (80) feet wide with the centerline of Wood Street, a street seventy (70) feet wide, thence along the centerline of Wood Street in a northwardly direction five hundred sixty-six feet more or less (566'+) to a point, said point being the intersection of the centerline of Wood Street and the centerline of East Broad Street, a street ninety (90) feet wide, thence along the centerline of East Broad Street in a westwardly direction eight hundred fifty-eight feet more or less (858'+) to a point, said point being the intersection of the centerline of East Broad Street and the centerline of Elm Street, a street eighty (80) feet wide, thence along the centerline of Elm Street in a southwardly direction five hundred sixty-six feet more or less (566'+) to a point, said point being the intersection of the centerline of Elm Street and East Market Street, thence along the centerline of East Market Street in a eastwardly direction eight hundred fifty-eight feet more or less (858'+) to a point, said point being the place of beginning.

BOUNDED on the North by the northern half of East Broad Street, on the East by the eastern half of Wood Street, on the South by the southern half of East Market Street and on the West by the western half of Elm Street.

to those of an "CG - General Commercial" District.

is hereby deleted in its entirety.

That SECTION 6. which reads as follows:

All Ordinances and parts of Ordinances inconsistent herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed.

is hereby renumbered SECTION 5.

Mr. Delgrosso asked if readvertising and another public hearing are required. Attorney Spadoni, turning to Section 10610 (b) of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, replied that the amendment must be readvertised at least ten days prior to enactment, but another public hearing is not required.

Mr. Callahan, expressing his support of the amendment, recalled that a resident addressed the Members at the previous City Council Meeting concerning rezoning the vacant parcel behind the YMCA, and noted there is the potential for commercial development of the lot. In order to preserve the character of land, Mr. Callahan restated his support of the property remaining Residential zoning.

Voting AYE on the Amendment: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Delgrosso, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Schweder, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Gregory, 7. The Amendment passed.

Mr. Callahan was informed by Joseph Leeson, City Solicitor, that he concurs with Attorney Spadoni that the Amendment must be readvertised and another public hearing is not required.

Voting AYE on Bill No. 29 - 2002, as Amended: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Delgrosso, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Schweder, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Gregory, 7. Bill No. 29 - 2002 was declared passed on First Reading.

11. RESOLUTIONS

A. Authorizing Execution of Documents - PennDot Highway Safety Program Grant

Mr. Donchez and Mr. Delgrosso sponsored Resolution 13,894 which authorized the Mayor and Controller to execute grant documents for Highway Safety Grant Project No. J8 02-40-1.

Mr. Schweder inquired about the frequency of the DUI patrols.

Francis Donchez, Police Commissioner, advised that the Traffic Bureau handles the operation which is usually not done according to a set schedule that is sometimes contingent upon the weather. Police Commissioner Donchez affirmed that the patrols are done in the winter months.

Mr. Schweder, observing it is a yearly grant, asked if the number of times listed is the frequency with which it would be done in a given year.

Police Commissioner Donchez responded that eight checkpoints seems like a low number and he would check on the number.

Mr. Schweder queried whether the nine Police Officers at a checkpoint would otherwise be on duty.

Police Commissioner Donchez, replying no, explained that all of the activities listed are done on an overtime basis which are funded by the grant, and the program does not take any Officers from the street.

Mr. Schweder, turning to the Cops in Shops program, inquired whether the Police Officers enter liquor establishments.

Police Commissioner Donchez, responding yes, exemplified that a Police Officer watches outside of a "six pack shop" on Stefko Boulevard while another Officer is inside in plain clothes. If someone underage tried to purchase alcohol, then the individual would be carded and an arrest would be made. Police Commissioner Donchez advised that the Police check as many establishments as they can. Police Commissioner Donchez continued on to advise that the owners of the establishments are fully aware of the program and the presence of the Police Officers. Police Commissioner Donchez, informing Mr. Schweder that the Police would go into beer distributors, stated that the Police would check on retail establishments but not bars or taverns.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Delgrosso, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Schweder, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Gregory, 7. The Resolution passed.

Considering Resolutions 11 B through 11 H as a Group

Mr. Schweder and Mr. Donchez moved to consider Resolutions 11 B through 11 H as a group.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Delgrosso, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Schweder, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Gregory, 7. The motion passed.

B. Certificate of Appropriateness - 411 East Fourth Street

Mr. Donchez and Mr. Schweder sponsored Resolution 13,895 which granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the existing slate roof with fiberglass shingles at 411 East Fourth Street.

C. Certificate of Appropriateness - 240 Union Station Plaza

Mr. Donchez and Mr. Schweder sponsored Resolution 13,896 which granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct an addition and other exterior alterations to the Union Station Building at 240 Union Station Plaza.

D. Certificate of Appropriateness - 425 Center Street

Mr. Donchez and Mr. Schweder sponsored Resolution 13,897 which granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to install an outdoor lighting fixture at 425 Center Street.

E. Certificate of Appropriateness - 93-97 West Broad Street

Mr. Donchez and Mr. Schweder sponsored Resolution 13,898 which granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the front fa�ade at 93-97 West Broad Street.

F. Certificate of Appropriateness - 549 Main Street

Mr. Donchez and Mr. Schweder sponsored Resolution 13,899 which granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to install two signs at 549 Main Street.

G. Certificate of Appropriateness - 42 West Market Street

Mr. Donchez and Mr. Schweder sponsored Resolution 13,900 to paint the trim and replace windows at 42 West Market Street.

H. Certificate of Appropriateness - 62 East Market Street

Mr. Donchez and Mr. Schweder sponsored Resolution 13,901 to close in windows at 62 East Market Street.

Voting AYE on Resolutions B through H: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Delgrosso, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Schweder, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Gregory, 7. The Resolutions passed.

I. Records Destruction - Police Department

Mr. Donchez and Mr. Schweder sponsored Resolution 13,902 which authorized the disposition of public records from the Police Department listed on Exhibit A according to the Municipal Records Manual.

Voting AYE on Resolutions B through H: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Delgrosso, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Schweder, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Gregory, 7. The Resolution passed.

12. NEW BUSINESS

Scheduling Public Hearing - Deleting Motor Vehicle Sales and Service in the LI District

Mr. Donchez and Mr. Schweder moved to schedule a Public Hearing on Tuesday, October 1, 2002 at 7:30 PM in Town Hall on the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment initiated by Council at the August 20th City Council Meeting to remove motor vehicle sales and service from the LI Light Industrial District.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Delgrosso, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Schweder, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Gregory, 7. The motion passed.

Fire Department Response - Lehigh University and Moravian College

Mrs. Belinski asked for statistics for each of the last five years on the number of fire related calls at Lehigh University and Moravian College to which the Fire Department responded. In addition, Mrs. Belinski asked the costs for labor and equipment per hour.

Kevin Moyzan, Fire Commissioner, indicated he would provide the information.

President Gregory, with reference to the newspaper article today, said, if the Fire Department is dealing with a lot of nuisance fire related calls at Lehigh University, his concern is how it will impact the Fire Department's service to taxpaying citizens.

Fire Commissioner Moyzan, stating there is a need to respond to Lehigh University when there are alarms, explained that previously procedures were being followed where there was some investigation as to what type of alarm occurred before the Fire Department reported. Fire Commissioner Moyzan advised that, by Code, it is very clear if there is an alarm the local Fire Department must be notified, and added that was not being done before. Fire Commissioner Moyzan observed that the potential for getting into a situation where there is no response from the Fire Department and there is a serious situation is not something in which anyone would want to be caught. Informing the Members there have been lengthy meetings prior to when the procedure was changed, Fire Commissioner Moyzan stated that among the things discussed were the number of times the Fire Department responded to Lehigh University and whether the change would increase the number of responses. Acknowledging that the number of Fire Department responses at Lehigh University's campus has increased, Fire Commissioner Moyzan said along with that, if there are a number of false alarms, then there is reason to address the issue and make corrections in order to eliminate those. Fire Commissioner Moyzan noted that, between discovering why the Fire Department is responding and documenting the reasons, there should be a reduction in the number of alarms in the long term because those situations should be corrected. Fire Commissioner Moyzan mentioned that a similar situation existed with Muhlenberg College in Allentown and the Allentown Fire Department. He continued on to explain that the causes of the alarms were investigated, changes were made, and the number of false alarms was greatly reduced.

President Gregory inquired whether there are any penalties for false alarms.

Fire Commissioner Moyzan replied that now Lehigh University security police are handling penalties and fines on their end if required. Fire Commissioner Moyzan added that the Department has been informed that Lehigh University will try to make corrections, and cooperatively the City will work on public education.

President Gregory pointed out that, if the problem continues, then the identification of offenders should be reviewed. Fire Commissioner Moyzan confirmed to President Gregory that the matter is being evaluated monthly.

Notification of Businesses in LI - Light Industrial District - Deleting Motor Vehicle Sales and Service in the LI District

Mr. Callahan asked how many businesses or business owners are located in the LI - Light Industrial District.

Mr. Hanna, noting that the numbers are not presently available tonight, explained that as part of the analysis being done for the Planning Commission it will be included in a report to be generated for the Planning Commission that will be shared with City Council. Mr. Hanna continued on to say that the Department will be reviewing the LI zone and the impact of the text amendment proposed by City Council at the August 20, 2002 City Council Meeting.

Mr. Callahan, remarking that the public hearing date is approaching very quickly, asked if it is the Administration's intent to inform property owners in the LI District about the proposal.

Mr. Hanna commented that the affected businesses would be made aware that they would be impacted by the text amendments.

Mr. Callahan, while noting there are currently four individual businesses that would become non-conforming uses, pointed out that the argument could be made that anyone in LI is affected because a by right use of property located in that zoning district would be taken away.

Mr. Hanna affirmed that property owners would be informed about the potential for the change and their input would be obtained.

Mr. Callahan requested that all property owners in the LI District be notified of the proposed change to delete motor vehicle sales and service in the LI District.

13. COURTESY OF THE FLOOR

None.

14. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:37 p.m.
ATTEST:

City Clerk