Friday, March 11, 2016
After Three Hour Hearing, Bethlehem Parking Garage Approved
Yesterday, Bethlehem's Planning Commission approved plans for a city-owned South Side parking garage, which will be connected to Dennis Benner's Greenway Park Building by a pedestrian bridge that goes across the Greenway. St. Luke's University Health Network and Lehigh University have both already committed to be tenants at that $20 million venture. The hospital, in particular, wanted a bridge leading to their offices for patients with mobility problems. The garage took away a small portion of the greenway, but the greenway was getting more than twice that amount of land back. The vote was 4 to 1, with Jim Fiorentino opposed.
It was a three hour hearing in which Al Wurth (Lehigh Prof), Peter Crownfield (retired teacher) and Breenna Holland (Lehigh Prof) competed at seeing who could monopolize the discussion the most. I got some really good digs from Wurth, like "I think all developments name themselves after that which they displace or destroy" and "white elephant of a financial disaster." Environmental lawyer Don Miles was there, too, as President of the local Sierra Club and pal of CACLV's Alan Jennings, who he described as the "Godfather of the Greenway." A Bethlehem resident who actually lives there as on his feet more often than anyone.
Developer Dennis Benner had a pretty good line, too. For years, he's been a whipping boy for Lehigh's Birkenstocks, who are still miffed about losing their "Maze garden," a collection of weeds at a Bethlehem gateway. He was asked to raise the walkway from its current height of 19'. He was asked to limit the walkway to just one floor. He responded to all the complaints with this:
"I could be standing at that street corner and handing out gold bars, and someone would still complain."
Here's what happened to me. After about 1 1/2 hours, I no longer was listening, though I tried. I looked at the reporters covering this event, and they were mostly staring off into space, too. It was just too repetitive.I was nodding off when suddenly, Bethlehem Parking Authority Jim Broughal's phone started ringing.
It's no ordinary ring tone.
It's a quacking duck.
He turned it off.
A minute later, the phone began quacking again.
Unlike me, the Planning Commission listened to everyone and asked questions. Though Wurth tried to play cute and act as though he was being barred from questioning this plan, he was up at least four times.
In the end, the plan was endorsed. Whether this is wise financially is a good question, but a Planning Commission does not make that call. It only decides on whether the Plan complies with the SALDO (Subdivision and land Development Ordinance).
After three hours, my head was spinning and the Planning Commission went on to another matter - a site plan for the demolition of the Masonic Temple. I listened to Tracy Samuelson describe the project for about ten minutes, and realized that nothing she was saying registered. My brain had turned to mush.
So I left. I'll look through my notes later today to see if I understand them.
If you want to tell me I'm full of shit, you're probably right.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
33 comments:
Bernie,
Did you aquire the nodd from hamilton hanna herion herpie hook-up hotspot pool side, or from palumpas boys in blue perpatrating the same false sack o goods and hope too¿!)$
Sad state of affairs when those large and incharge are the true cancerious infection there transient transplants are siposidly perpatrating as a cure¿!)$
REDD
The Lehigh Professors are against progress and growth in the city. A few years ago, one of these professors actually proposed the idea that there should be no cars in South Bethlehem, and that people should park on the outskirts of town and be shuttled in and out. They don't like cars, ergo they don't like garages for cars. Unfortunately, they live and work in one of the most car-dependent metropolitan areas in the country. To change that the Lehigh Valley would need a significant upgrade to the public transportation system, but that will never happen because of the high cost.
Build the garage, so that the office buildings get built.
Will the Benner's be receiving any "free"life long parking spaces in any of the garages or lot's? Does anyone get "free" spaces in any of the garages? If I recall, Lou Pecktor gets several "free" spaces behind his office, anyone else?
I only know what I read of the Planning Commission discussions but I am finding little about what I think should have been one of the Commission's major planning concerns. First, I believe that Mr. Benner's project as envisioned with the current proposed tenants is in isolation an appropriate use for an urban area. It will indeed increase the City tax base as well as allow the employees of the tenants to become potential customers for the business district. I also accept the reasoning that the garage is necessary for this project and others proposed nearby to be built. No private developer would invest in commercial structures in the automobile dependent Lehigh Valley without some guarantee of very nearby convenient parking. Finally I am not highly concerned about the effects of this parking structure on the western end of the South Bethlehem Greenway park. Any linkage to park land and trails extending in a westerly direction would have directed park users off the Greenway east of the garage site and onto the pedestrian walkway on the Fahy Bridge crossing the river and linking to the canal towpath park on the north side of the river. What is of great concern to me and what I believe should also be a high concern of the Planning Commission are the serious vehicular traffic issues that already exist near the proposed garage site. I frequently drive through that area and the intersections along Third and Fourth Streets are already functioning at very low levels of service with near gridlock occurring during peak traffic hours. What do the Bethlehem planners and traffic engineers believe will happen when more dense development is encouraged and what will their proposed solution be to an already bad traffic situation? I like the proposed development but I am not sure Bethlehem has adequate infrastructure available to support any increased vehicular traffic in that area. There are also no clear alternative routes for through traffic to avoid the area. The increased traffic congestion could in fact make the corridor less, not more, attractive for potential customers and visitors. This should have been a legitimate concern of the Planning Commission.
I don't understand. Lehigh University had a representative there pushing for the project and three of there professors don't want it? The professors should go and talk to there administration and get it together. I go over there several times a month and parking is hard to find. Build the garage and the building and keep things moving forward.
Sorry we made your brain hurt, Bernie! I understand if you were exhausted by the discussion and lost track of what was being said, so I'll just fill in two holes in your first crack at summarizing the meeting. First, the only person who asked serious questions on Council was Fiorentino. The others (rubber stampers?) conveyed no interest in the concerns expressed by anyone who spoke, including residents who live on the same block as the garage and who explained how it would negatively impact their parking, access to the greenway, and air quality. Second, to update your record, the Lehigh Professors who opposed the loss of the Maze Garden were successful in getting a new garden, thanks to the efforts of students who used the former Maze garden to run programs for kids at the Bethlehem Boys and Girls Club. It's a bigger and better space, and we're all quite pleased it worked out so well, despite none of us actually owning a pair of birkenstocks. The issue raised at this meeting was about public expenditure/burden for private benefit and about a lack of concern for citizens who will suffer the negative externalities created by the garage. As previous comments have noted, there are better ways to get citizens into downtown areas, and better places to put a garage than in the center of an already traffic congested area. Northside garages are on the edges of the main street area. They provide an an anchor connected to the business people want to go to, which creates foot traffic for all businesses in between. Parking garages attached by glass walkways to single buildings don't put feet on the street in the same way. However, the previously proposed garage on Polk Street (which vanished from the agenda) would have done this much better. There is lots more that was said, but that's a start. Regarding the comment about LU professors trying to work with the University, it's harder than you might imagine to do this when the Developer is an alum who owns an enormous amount of property in the area and the university has no urban planning program staffed by faculty who are urban planners rather than real estate developers (which the Business School provides). The university gets lots of the real estate director perspective and practically none of the urban planner perspective. Citizens could help by listening to what we are saying, and helping to amplify the points they agree with because we all want the right kind of development in South Bethlehem, but we don't want the kind that gives huge wins to the developer while exploiting and destroying our existing community capital. -Breena Holland
Bernie, your brain appears to have been unusually numb last evening. Thankfully Ms. Holland has given us her perspective - which you'd have to admit is a tad more informative. Perhaps you should try some organic produce to revitalize your synapses? Viagra for the mind.
I love how Ms. Holland labels anyone who disagrees with her and her wing nuts as "rubber stampers". It could't be possible that they just have a different opinion on the project. Representatives of St. Lukes, Lehigh and neighboring businesses not only want this project but are willing to show up to meetings to state so! A majority of Hollands crew doesn't even live or own a business in the area, not sure how they even have a dog in this fight. The University is in full agreement and has a need for additional parking in the area. This project will replace a vacant lot that has been empty for years, replace several buildings that have been deemed unlivable and condemned with a new building that provides new office space, 600+ much needed parking spaces, and most of all hundreds of new customers in the area that will help support the local businesses. I was at the meeting and you are right Bernie, people are starting to zone out on this group and realize how out of touch they are with reality.
Once again the intersection of politicians and developers yields a project designed without regard to the people of this city. Could the Mayor have used the levers of power in a way such that the concerns of neighbors and nearby businesses would be taken into account? Of course. Did he? Of course not. A parking garage? Sure. The City needs leaders with the sense to know how to blend the needs and wants of all parties, not just those developers who feather their campaign coffers.
I just looked at the pictures you posted of the proposes building. It looks beautiful! If you compare what is there now with those pictures I'm not sure what the argument or their point is? That area is full of run down buildings and could really use some upgrades! Let them bitch. BUILD IT!!!!!!
Bernie's brain is very numb due to the arrival of Bethlehem hero Jim Gregory. The idea of hot, jailhouse sex is driving Bernie crazy. Be carful Bernie, Gregory is reputed to be a power top.
By "rubber stampers?" I was referring people on the commission who never disagree with the more powerful officials in the city, such as the mayor. Note the "?" was there for a reason. Do the other fellows on that commission ever disagree with what is proposed by the mayor? Maybe Bernie knows. We could tally their votes on projects and find out. I don't have the data, I just have the predication based on what I read in the paper. It is an open question. And if by "the University" you mean the administrators, you are probably right. But faculty often disagree with the administrators; for instance, the faculty voted against supporting the casino and the university trustees supported it. Everyone wants a building on the corner and I agree what is going there will look better than the vacant lot there now. That's part of why Mr. Benner can successfully apply pressure to get whatever he wants there. And its his right to try to maximize his own benefits, since he is apparently taking on even more monetary risk than the parking authority in building him a garage. But it's also the job of elected and appointed officials to think about how to distribute public benefits more broadly, and certainly to minimize harm to the community. The benefits and costs of this project will be mixed. Those of us who think too much is being given away are most out of touch with how little money it takes for a developer to buy a local politician's brain.
One thing we all know for sure is that people hate to park in parking decks and much rather prefer on street or lot parking. Will this be another half-filled deck?
Everybody I've talked to would like to see the 3rd & New site developed. My questions are
1. Why is the Parking Authority building a massive parking structure that their own parking study shows is not needed?
2. Why are the city & P.A. willing to spend millions for 1 developer? (If he wants parking, he could be told to build it at his expense.)
3. Why did the city push to ignore the historic guidelines, zoning requirements, and the Municipalities Planning code?
4. Why are the Parking Authority & the city working to concentrate parking and traffic in an area that is — according to their own spokespeople — already very congested?
5. Is it even legal for the Parking Authority & the city to create major traffic, parking, and air quality problems for the residents of Vine Street & Graham Place?
I think it would be very interesting to know if members of the planning commission generally vote to approve anything the administration wants.
Isn't it just like St. Jennings to take sole credit for the Greenway. It makes me want to puke.
Fiorentino gets it right again.
Keep your eyes on this guy, he's going places.
"Bernie's brain is very numb due to the arrival of Bethlehem hero Jim Gregory. The idea of hot, jailhouse sex is driving Bernie crazy. Be carful Bernie, Gregory is reputed to be a power top."
Gregory's bizarre screed on LVL today shows that his brain either rotted while in prison, or already was when he went in. Guy is babbling like an idiot. Does he pace 4' x 6' squares on the floor? Power top my arse.
What story was he using to make his comeback?
@8:41,
Another question is whether the space leased to SLUHN and LU will be real estate tax exempt? Benner isn't building without some kind of guaranteed immediate income, or reduction in expense.
Made it through planning.....next stop rubber stamp from city council.
Benner will get reduced RE taxes the first 10 yrs as 3rd & New qualifies under LERTA.
Breena, Thank you for your comment. I usually do better, but find it very difficult to listen to the same people over and over. The gentleman who lives on Graham Place and who has four children really did have different things to say each time, he got up, so I do not fault him. Nor do I fault Don Miles, who only spoke twice and directed his second remarks to what he considered a misinterpretation of the law regarding SALDO. You, Peter and Al all made good points concerning the desirability of a parking garage and whether it makes business sense or is good for the economic development of the south side. But the Planning Commission does not weight in on whether something is or is not a good idea, and many of the concerns expressed by you all were misplaced. I will make that more clear in my second post. Also, the three of you were repetitive. Sometimes less is more. This is a mistake I make as a writer, so don't take this as a personal shot. It is not. I admire your willingness to stand up for your beliefs.
Bernie, while the Planning Commission cannot review financial appropriateness, the state zoning code clearly directs it to evaluate issues such as traffic congestion (S. New Street and Brodhead will be nightmares during rush hour when 600 cars try to get in and out), the adverse impact upon the adjacent homeowners (losing all direct pedestrian access to the Greenway), and most importantly the degradation of the Greenway public park that the massive aerial walkway and narrowing of the pathway that will impose (loss of some access, viewscape destruction, denial of light and air due to the walkway and the high buildings walling it in). As I mentioned, the Pa. Supreme Court in December 2013, for the first time in 40 years, declared that municipalities have a duty as public trustees to enforce the protections of Article I, Section 27 of the Pa. Constitution, which guarantees Pennsylvanians "clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment". Bethlehem's Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance has a similar demand in Section 1318.11(b).
Thursday evening the Bethlehem Planning Commision ignored those statutory and constitutional duties and railroaded this project of major environmental impact through a single meeting review (although it had two more months to consider it). Only 2 of the 5 Commissioners even asked a substantive question during more than 2 hours of public comment. They ignored -- without explanation -- my request that they obtain independent expert opinion on the environmental issue raised by the public comments.
Sure, the issue of the bond and whether it makes financial sense was not on the table at the Commission. But everything else was -- and it was there legal duty to do a thorough review. I was a municipal solicitor for 24 years and advised a planning commission at hundreds of meetings: never have I seen a planning commission shirk its duties so blatantly.
Don, I know Jim Broughal is well aware of that decision. In BT, where he is Solicitor, he recommended that the Twp hire a consultant to weigh in on the environmental impact of every proposed subdivision, and they did so. You are correct that traffic congestion, environmental impact and even the aerial easement are all legitimate considerations. I don't agree, however, that these considerations were ignored and believe that the PC had a basis for approving or rejecting the plan.
Most of the concerns expressed by others are irrelevant. Peter Crownfield and Wurth argued that the City was going this to benefit one developer and made other arguments suggesting this is a bad financial decision. Assume this is true. It is irrelevant to SALDO. Crownfield argued that the PC was ignoring historic guidelines. They don't make that call. That comes from the Historic District Comm'n and the City Council. There was evidence that this will NOT cause congestion as well. The argument that a garage makes more sense on Polk Street, again, is not within the purview of the PC. Nor do they decide or have a right to demand a pedestrian traffic study. The concerns about walkability were expressed by two professors who drive to campus and drive to this meeting.I believe that if it were up to them, they would be the only ones allowed to drive on the south side. I also don;t think this will have the negative effect n the greenway that you describe. When all is said and done, it will probably be a positive impact.
For all intents and purposes that Planning Commission had just one qualified member.
It's clear exactly who the rubber stampers are and what they bring to the process.
They contribute nothing.
Bernie, thanks for the reasoned response.
On "less is more," I did ask one question several times at that meeting, and that was because no one would answer it. The traffic study was not publicly available at the meeting and it's pretty clear it did not consider the implications of walling in New Street by closing off Graham Place. Obviously, if the study had done that, the consultant would have indicated so. But the fact that no one on the PC bothered to ask any questions related to that needed to be underlined, if only to get people to start to take the traffic issue more seriously. Didn't the traffic engineer say that "in theory garages are not traffic attractors because they are not destinations." In theory that's true -- a garage is not a destination -- but this garage is attached to its destinations by two glass walkways, so what's the difference. When the traffic builds up going south on New Street due to closing the eastern side of Graham Place, people in the garage are going to scoot out the back of that garage (rather than into that traffic on New Street), putting traffic right back on the western side of the street that they are closing off (Graham Place). The traffic study admits that a buildup would be likely be a problem at the western end of Graham Place. But it had not even considered how much worse it would be with Graham Place closed on the east end of the block, pushing more parkers out the western exit to the area that already has an acknowledged buildup problem. If parking planners had bothered talking to people who lived there, some of these concerns might have come up and been addressed before it was time to shove it through planning.
Second, when people's concerns are ignored, they go to whatever forum there is to express them. I thought the PC was an advisory body, so it could make recommendations. Am I wrong about that? If residents are going to lose their parking as a consequence of the garage, wouldn't the PC be able to make a recommendation that parking for them be accommodated within the garage? The issue is closely linked to the traffic study that was before the PC. It's pretty obvious that the Comfort Suites was involved in the planning. What accommodations did they get? Is that who is getting the 57 parking contracts in the parking study that are listed as earning $0/year? I thought someone like you would at least care about why some party is getting free parking in the garage funded by parking and taxpayer dollars, and I thought the PC might see reason to suggest accommodating the residents who are losing their spaces because of it, especially if it was made clear that there would be plenty of space in the garage, and that 57 of them are already being given away for free. If the recommendation came from the PC, it might matter. What are those folks who are going to lose their parking supposed to do now? Is the city planner going to try to go to bat for them?
Is it possible, Bernie, that these are things worth discussing at a PC meeting, and that people just don't want to be bothered with the additional time and effort that takes? Rather than considering how to address the problems, people just act like they don't exist. If there was an effort to address the problems, the "positive impact" you guess will be there would be even bigger, right?
You've got to give Eric Evans some major credit for doing something different than signing off on the mayor's proposals in the Martin Tower rezoning decision. It's pretty clear it's not easy, and no one appears to be remotely as good at it as Fiorentino was on Thursday. Shall we bother to make bets on whether he'll be reappointed to the PC? -BH
Also, Professor Wurth does not drive to campus! Since I've been at LU, he's been hit on his bike by a car twice, resulting in serious injuries. I have no idea why you would make an assumption that he drives. Folks generally make jokes about tying balloons to his bike when we want him to show up to events so we can sure he makes it to the event rather than the emergency room. I do drive to campus, but would prefer not to. I Iive 2.3 miles north of campus (near Liberty High) and would much prefer to ride my bike, but the danger of crossing the Fahy Bridge makes that unreasonable except when I have large amounts of time to navigate the bridge and the south side on foot. -BH
Fiorentino should be appointment to the Mayor's
seat.
" Do the other fellows on that commission ever disagree with what is proposed by the mayor? Maybe Bernie knows"
The answer to that is clearly a Yes, and one need look no further than the Martin Tower dispute for an example. The Planning Commission actually tables that matter when it was first brought before them, and recommended approval by a 3-2 vote, but completely changed the ordinance. Matt Malozi is more than willing to think for himself.
I happen to agree with this proposal myself, and no one has ever called me a "rubber stamper."
Jim Fiorentino is the sole dissenter here. I would suggest you ask him about that rubber stamper insinuation.
We tend to get angry at those who do not agree with us, but it is unfair to lash out at these volunteers who are paid nothing for their service.
3 members of the PC are clear rubber stamps for developers & have demonstrated such over & over including the newest member appointed by Donchez. If Fiorentino voted against the plan it is clearly flawed as he is the only clear thinking independent member willing to stand up & be counted. He should be our next Mayor & will have substantial support. The traffic study that endorsed this size garage at that location has to be challenged as to its independence--who did the study & what are the connections politically?
Benner should be forced to pay for 1/2 of this garage & whoever got 57 free spaces needs to be divulged as part of the city ethics code!!
City council needs to slow this down & ask some serious questions before they put city financial backing to this boondoggle.
Crownfield talking about air pollution? Didn't he oppose the single hauler garbage issue? Seems very hypocritical to talk about air pollution when we have 23 garbage trucks running up and down our streets polluting our air.
I would say his arguments are inconsistent, not that he is a hypocrite.
Post a Comment