Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We will call this meeting to order on this Planning Commission on Thursday, May 28, 2026. And we will go right into the regular agenda.

Okay.

Sorry, I should have asked if you were ready.

I have not been in this. room before for a meeting, so let me figure out how to get set up.

Take your time, Jacob. We're good. We got all night.

All night.

Okay.

Perfect. Okay. You can see that now. Okay. Item 2.1 is public hearing and recommendation. And I believe, has your agenda been updated to say recommendation? I think it previously said consideration, but.

It does online at least. Okay.

Public hearing and recommendation of Terry Bishop's request for review of the Bishop Development Agreement allowing to increase the number of lots in a subdivision to 13 for a seven-acre parcel located at 2424 West, 900 North. So, as mentioned, this development agreement will allow for 13 lots with a one-third acre lot size. There was a previous general plan amendment that this body gave a positive recommendation to, but the city council denied. But the direction was given by the city council to go for this development agreement and and keep the general plan designation as vldra and the proposed development agreement is just a increase of one lot from vldra so it has some of the other vldr components but it really is mostly just to keep the general plan designation the same but allow for the one additional lot so with that i'll turn it over to the planning commission for any questions thank you jacob does anybody have questions for staff

Is the applicant present? Come on up.

I am, Terry Bishop.

Good to see you all again. And I don't know that I have anything to add to this, except that I do appreciate Kim and his staff and the energy that they've put into helping come up with the agreement to limit us to the 13 lots, whereas the zone change that we requested could have gone as far as 17, but we didn't want to do that. We were... We think it looks best at 13, and that's where we want to stay. So I don't know that we're asking for anything different except for your approval. So thank you very much.

Any other questions for the applicant? All right. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. This is a public hearing. If anybody is here that would like to speak to item 2.1, we will open the public hearing now. Seeing none, we will close the public hearing and I'll entertain a motion over further discussion.

I have questions, but I'm not... I don't know who to address them to or exactly how to frame it, but one of them is so that maybe it's to the staff, going from 12 lots to 13 lots, that's the BLD, right? Explain that to me. Let's start there.

Yeah. Essentially the decision, my understanding is they wanted to leave the general plan designation as BLDRA but just grant one additional lot, which typically would have kind of carried it over into that VLDR section, but they didn't want to have that potential, I guess, risk of the maximization of the density, so the city council decided to go this route, is to leave the general plan designation and just do a development agreement to allow one additional lot.

Okay, but actually answers They could go to 17 otherwise, but it could yeah, but I guess that's the purpose of this is to right cap it Yeah, why not stay at 12?

Why not yeah?

Really really ugly subdivision Prevented us from making it look nice and then as you may recall, when we met last time.

Can I have you come to the mic? Yeah, sorry.

Sorry. That's why I didn't notice. Folks watching at home want to hear.

I didn't know. When we met last time, there was like 14 families that all showed up, and everyone was in favor of this. Gary was actually in the meeting where it was called out that we've never seen that many people agree on one single thing. And this whole neighborhood believes that this, and I've showed them all our different possibilities, and they all agreed that this is by far the one that fits in and blends in with what's already there. And that's why.

OK. Yeah. It's interesting to think that putting one more lot would make it a nicer development than the 12.

Technically, it's one more lot. But the way the roads are and stuff, it could have actually limited us even lower than the 12 lots, possibly. They also, the city council, agreed upon leaving the most strips smaller as they were. Just when would you say, Kim? A year ago? Two years ago?

I don't know. Yeah, it's been a while.

Where the most strips now have gotten larger. And it cut our roads down, our lot sizes down as well. And the roads are not as wide as well. It just changed a few things. So they agreed to go back with the prior.

Right. It felt like the development agreement was the best way to do it.

Just to make the development all blend nice.

Thank you. Thank you. This is exactly the sort of situation a development agreement is for. Property owner has development rights. This can really only be limited in a few guises, that being general plan and what we can do with zoning. And the city is clearly seeing the benefit, also wanting to not just rip the lid off. Neighbors are speaking to it. So in terms of representation of the city, both elected members and the local community are all in favor of it. This is a slam dunk from my perspective. You're slam dunking today. It's overrated.

Any other discussion? Or a motion?

I can make the motion, just thinking someone, anyone looking for that experience here? Go for it. All right, we'll go for it. Item 2.1. It's just so funny how gun-shy people get up here. Item 2.1, public hearing and consideration of Terry and Bishop's request for review of the Bishop Development Agreement. Consideration.

That's right.

Recommendation. It's updated here and it's not there. I'm going to read what you printed out for me. Recommendation. I move that we give a positive recommendation with the findings that this development agreement is consistent with the overarching goals of the city that in this instance it better represents what's in the best interest of the city. And that's clearly been recognized by the city council, by the community. Include all DRCs and leave it at that.

Second.

Motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? When will that go to city council? Yeah.

Oh, you won. Jordan. It will be June 9th. We did pre-advertise it. Yeah, June.

Okay, June 9th. June 9th. June 9th. All right, item 2.2. Okay.

Okay. Item 2.2 is public hearing and recommendation of Lehigh City's request for review of amendments to the Lehigh City Development Code Chapter 35, Community Forestry, adding requirements for trees affected by migratory birds and clarifying the city's recommended public tree planting list. There are some minor changes to wording kind of in the chapter, but probably the main change that should be noted is it now includes a paragraph referencing federal and state laws that protect words, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle protection. Act and it requires that a written survey from an environmental consultant be provided before true removal of trees that have migratory nests that either in the past or present and that comes at the expense of the landowner developer so with that I'll turn it over to the Planning Commission for any questions thank you Jacob any questions for staff

Yes, I'll ask a question.

Sorry. Go ahead. We're not getting out of here until 10 p.m.

I just want you to know that. As I understand it, this is just following in line more federal and state regulations that are already there. Yes. Right?

Okay. And Jessica's here. Yeah, Jessica can speak to it as well.

Well, I guess it's up to the chair. Please. Absolutely.

I'm Jessica Smith, urban forester for Lehigh City. This was... decided or seen that it was needed for us to protect migratory birds with the developments happening here. Down here on the south side, along the lake, there's quite a few. And so we just, we are the first defense to shut down development. Not only does it protect the birds, It protects the city, but it also protects the developer in the state and the federal. There were just kind of that first line of defense. We just felt like we needed a paragraph in there to give us the leg to stand on.

So although the federal guidelines supersede our code anyway, we're just more codifying the federal guidelines.

Yeah, so we don't enforce the laws. We're just that first one to shut down development. And so that's what it is. And then asking the developer to get that environmental consultant study before they start ripping down the trees.

Thank you for your work on this. This is a public hearing. If there's anybody here in the public that would like to speak to item 2.2, we'll open the public hearing now. With the mad rush slowing down, we will close the public hearing and bring it back for further discussion or a motion.

I do think it's important that we don't say shut down development, because that's not the intent, I don't think. To shut down is to change behavior. Is that right? Just all kinds of questions.

Would you like to speak to that?

I mean, it's terminology, but I just don't know.

I agree. I tend to interrupt. So we shut down the tree removal. The development can still happen as long as it's not disruptive close to the nesting birds. So that's what we're doing is shutting down that part of it. But other parts of the development can continue, like the roadways or homes away from the trees where the nesting birds are.

Thank you for the clarification.

Yeah, because even as it's written, it's to pause situations before they cross over into federal situations. Any other questions, comments, concerns?

Only concerned that it doesn't address the airspeed velocity of the unladen swallow.

Next topic.

That's a deep cut for those of you. European or African. Monty Python for everyone who's giving us weird looks now. Do you mind if we have the findings page I forgot my Okay item 2.2 public hearing and recommendation of Lehigh City's request for

Review of amendments to the Lehigh City Development Code Chapter 35, community forestry, adding requirements for trees affected by migratory birds and clarifying the city's recommended public tree planting list.

Sorry, I don't, I took out that page.

That's all right. I move that we give a positive recommendation with the findings listed in the findings of motions and please include all DRC comments.

Second we have the motion in a second all in favor aye any opposed All right

And last but not least, 2.3 is public hearing and recommendation of Lehigh City's request for a review of an amendment to Chapter 26 of the Development Code, accessory uses, updating the requirements for detached accessory dwelling units to meet 2026 state legislation. So the biggest changes with the most recent wave of state legislation is that we are required to reduce the minimum lot or the lot size requirement to 11,000 square feet. It's previously been at 14,520. Conversions of an existing accessory building to a detached ADU can no longer be a conditional use permit, so you won't see any more of those. I think you only saw two or three of them at the most. Parking requirements were also changed. Under 650 square feet, you only have to have one parking stall. Otherwise, if you're more than that, you would still be required to have two. And most detached ADUs are larger than that, 650 square feet. And then we had a minimum, or had a maximum detached ADU size for the finished area, but one of the other changes is that the size can just, has to be smaller than the home now for the finished area. The city did add a few other items in, including us, which it's other places in the code, but it was just to be very clear that the setback needs to be six feet between the dwelling and the accessory dwelling unit. And with that, I'll turn it over to the Planning Commission for any questions.

Thank you, Jacob. Any questions for staff? As you are the applicant, I believe in this case, Jacob, did you want to say anything else?

No, this has been an interesting meeting. We've had a couple of items where we're being asked to do things by powers above us.

So, yeah, things are good. Is there anything in here that is... More or less than the state code? Or is this strictly to just bring us equal?

Yeah. This is all, I mean, the state is trying to, you know, make it easier to do detached ADUs. And we were pretty, I would say we were in a pretty good place. Some cities, I'm sure, have to make more updates. But obviously, yeah, this is going to loosen things up a little bit. We can still have restricted areas, but really this is more just to guide some of the details, the parking, the size, square footage of the lot.

I did have one note that the letters in section 26.040, they should go to M because there is already an I. So you'd put two I's on there?

I think that I is like a subset of H. The formatting always gets weird when you do the track changes. We'll make sure it's correct.

It is confusing, though.

I see that.

All right. Sorry. This is a public hearing. Anybody from the public would like to speak to this item, you're welcome to do so now. We'll open the hearing now.

I understand that we're going down to state code and we're doing this to meet state code, but 11,000 square foot lot seems really small to put an ADU on there at some point. Let's just put apartments and neighborhoods at this point. So just my opinion. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hey, my name is Marshall Gary. So one, someday I want to actually build a backyard cottage in Lehigh. I'd love to be a small builder and help provide some housing stock to people who need it. I'm really cognizant of just how tough it is. One thing that, so anyway, I appreciate I'm not in love with state generally forcing cities to do stuff, but I appreciate that this is becoming a little bit easier to do. Little show and tell. Small show and tell. One thing that just confuses me is how the language that I saw on this and that I saw on the Engage Lehigh page seemed like Malicious compliance like we're gonna do the bare minimum and we're not like it seemed like we actually don't want people to build the attache to use That's the vibe I'm getting. I don't know if that's the actual intent, but that's that's what I read or that that's how I interpreted it and that doesn't make sense to me, so I'm just confused and I'd like to understand more like Do you just don't like it? Detaché, do you not like backyard cottages and don't want them built or anything? I just, one real quick, wanted to share some of the books that I've read that have influenced my thinking. Last time I spoke at Planning Commission, I talked about incremental developers and how we were looking at the overlay zone. And I thought that just didn't really make much sense. And I feel like this is a great way to help foster incremental development. Anyway, so here are some of the books that I've read that So this one actually is a sequel to a book that I have read. I haven't read this one, but I read the first one called The High Cost of Reparking. But I don't have the physical book. Transit. This one is really great. We're in a housing trap. This can help. This one's really good anyway. So main question is, do you like backyard cottages? Do you not like backyard cottages? What's your intent here? And I also wanted to share this with you. Strong Towns and the Incremental Development Alliance have worked together to put a couple of housing tool kits, and they're working on a third one. So they have two working on a third one released this year. Here's just a link to it. Basically, if you want to support locals being able to build housing and not just big developers building housing, this is from people who've actually done it and how to do it and how to be successful at it. So that's all I have. I'll pass these around to everybody. Thank you.

Thank you. Thanks, Marshall.

Oh, yeah, especially with the parking. I don't understand why we're requiring two off-street parking spaces when we have so much on-street parking that's empty everywhere. And also, if you make a driveway cut, you're losing on-street parking spaces. for off-street parking spaces, so it's not really a net gain. So I don't really understand that either. I prefer it to be more nuanced than just like a blanket thou shalt build two off-street parking spaces, commandment number 11.

Thank you. Would anybody else like to speak to this item? Seeing none, we will close the public hearing. Did you want to address anything you heard?

I guess the only thing I would say is, I mean, Lehigh City, even before the state stepped in and started requiring us to allow detached ADUs, we were one of the first ones to allow them. And, yeah, we've slowly had to whittle down as the state kind of stepped in and required it, and I guess to copy what you said. We kind of have been given these commandments that we have to write it this way. That's how it is now. I mean, this code is essentially exactly word for word what the state legislature passed. I'd say we do like detached ADUs, but I think there is concern about how do you fit certain size detached ADU in a backyard with the setback requirements that we have as well.

So I don't know if you have anything you want to add to that, Kim, but yeah.

would say we are supportive of them we've seen a lot of the internals the the detached ones are less common but we have seen quite a few over the last two or three years since we started allowing them from my personal opinion I'm excited that we have more flexibility I am worried like the other public comment that

some areas are going to be interesting, right? About does it really work in certain spots? Yes, we are moving towards compliance with the state, but I don't think that's necessarily an indication that we're just trying to do the bare minimum. Is there a sentiment that maybe we had more control? I think maybe about where they could go or what they could be done, but I don't think that's a sentiment, and I don't want to speak for this body, per se, but for me personally, I don't think that's a indication that we do not like them or do not want them in our city. But we are also trying to be compliant with the state.

I'd also say that I think it's perfectly fine to acknowledge that there is, like, Lehigh City doesn't represent one single voice, right? It's not like there's the entity that is Lehigh City that wants A or B. It's a tension between various visions, and that vision is reflected through elected officials, through appointments to professional hires. They're, just speaking from my experience, serving on this body for the last several years. We've seen proposals for ADUs have had their tussles in our previous chambers, both with people wanting to build, neighborhoods that don't want the ADUs. And so all that tension gets captured in various policy shifts and changes. Undoubtedly, there are those who are. Marshall, what was your exact language? Malicious compliance. I love that. Yeah. Not laughing at. It gave me a good chuckle. I'd never heard that phrasing before, and I really like it. But it's an incremental step, and I think that's about what we expect and see with policy, right, is... Going a little deeper into the the waters and if it's a positive thing Maybe we go a little bit deeper still I take I Take the point on parking for instance. We've talked in this very room and not this very room Excuse me in that previous room. I guess we just got real comfortable here. It feels like home already but about the calming nature that on street parking has that drivers naturally slow down when the street is a little more crowded, and so on-street parking actually can serve as an important mechanism to help us to better comply with speed limits and, of course, more importantly than simply complying for the sake of complying, but that makes it a safer space as well. Undoubtedly, this also reflects those who don't want to see that on street parking. There's that dream and vision of streets where there are cars in the driveway and little cookie-cutter neighborhoods. But I do like that this is a step a little bit toward what I suppose we should be addressing in the room, but Marshall, since you're the only one who's commented. toward that natural development. Boston, I think, is a great example of more natural development, where you've got these once three-story, single-family, wealthy homes that in time became three-level condominiums, effectively. as the years went on, as properties divided up to accommodate the growing population. Anyhow, I guess that's my reaction. I've seen incremental stuff. I doubt that we would see much more viable from the... Much more change. Yeah, that that most would be comfortable pursuing presently, but I think it's important to continue talking about. strong towns, right, and these other elements that you always bring to bear, and how there is an importance to cities kind of naturally having that further development. We don't have to just level a place and have it turn into condominiums that neighborhoods can, in fact... have one phase in which they're built, but then they can be reconceived with ADUs or the house ends up becoming two separate units and so forth. So all that to say, I don't know that there's an entity to speak to, but this is probably as realistic of a step in further development as we're going to see in the immediate future.

Any other comments?

Yes. Thank you. Now that I forgot what it was, it was a good one. It would come back. So I'd love to address a little bit more about the comment 11,000 square foot lot. Is that big enough to accommodate an ADU in the back and two parking spots?

That's a good question. I think it will depend on the individual lot, right? Some lots are wider, some are skinnier. It will also depend on, is the applicant planning to do a one-story versus a two-story ADU? I think a lot of, or if they're a conversion of an existing accessory building versus a new build, I think there's going to be a lot of situations where 11,000 square foot loss, due to setback requirements, is going to really narrow it or make it impossible. But I do think there will be a handful creative individuals who will be able to make it work, and that's great.

Because I think what you said about the setbacks.

Yeah, because as soon as you go to two stories, you have to meet the setbacks for the zone, right? You keep it one story, or if you're a conversion, the setbacks are much smaller for the rear and the side yards. So, yeah, I don't have a perfect answer for you. That is the answer. I think it's going to depend on each individual situation. and what their lot looks like, if they're going to be able to do it or not.

Jacob, does an ADU require a kitchen?

Kitchen, bathroom, living facility.

Yep.

You have to have all three. If you just have two, it's a fun hobby space for your teenagers.

Okay.

Or anyone, it doesn't have to just be teenagers.

Then do these ATUs, do they hook into the sewer line that's already existing there, or do they have their own? It's existing. Existing.

That's in here somewhere. Yeah, it's one of the I's. It's one of the I's? It's one of the I's that Tyson mentioned.

There it is. All utility services shall be connected to the primary.

If the primary dwelling is connected to septic, how does that work? Sorry, I didn't know I was going to get so interested in this all of a sudden. But here we are. Here we are.

Gary. Gary. I think the way it's written now, it would just connect into the existing sewer system, and so they'd have to share septic. It would probably have to be upsized. Okay.

Well, just because it says connected to the primary dwelling, but if the primary dwelling is on septic. Yeah. Okay. That would still be okay.

But there's very few places where that would be applicable. Sure.

I know that would be pretty rare today. Okay. Any other questions, comments, deliberation, or a motion?

I would like to make a motion, Mr. Chair.

I'd love to hear one, although you can do it if I want to or not. That's true.

I'm going to make a motion. On item 2.3, public hearing and recommendation of Lehigh City's request for review of an amendment to Chapter 26 of the Development Code, accessory uses updating requirements for detached accessory dwelling units to meet the 2026 state legislation. I recommend that we move for approval. I recommend approval to the city council based on that we will bring into compliance with the state legislation code, add some clarity to what's needed to do the NADU, and it conforms to the general intent purposes of the general plan. And if there are any DRC comments, please include those.

Second.

Can I make one comment?

I would expect it almost, actually.

Can we please change the formatting so it matches? Because I think that would solve your double I. If you just capitalized all the letters like they are on the left side of the page, EFGH, if you followed that same formatting on the second column of the page, I think it might solve that double I problem. Sorry, that was all. Does your motion still stand? How would that impact the motion? Does your second still stand? The second still stands. All right. Motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right. City business.

The only thing I can think of is Art we do have a work session scheduled for next Thursday a week from tonight We're still waiting to get a confirmation on from the sanctuary is what we were trying to line up so we could go on a tour of that and If we don't get confirmation, we'll have to either cancel or change if you want to go to a different location I think we've decided on the, which, by the way, just as a return and report type thing, the Perry Homes, I think you guys are probably all pretty plugged in, that that was denied. But if you still wanted to go see that overlook, there were, I think, two that definitely wanted to go. But I think at this point, we were going to try and do both of them next Thursday. But I think... We were trying to line up the sanctuary. And as we got thinking, it would probably eat up definitely the whole hour and a half. So I think we'd just say, if you still are interested, just get a hold of, was it Angie? Angie, yeah. Yeah. And you could just go individually. So yeah, we'll keep you posted. I'm hoping by next Monday we'll have the sanctuary people on board. And I would think we'd just meet up there on site instead of trying to arrange

Oh, no fun bus?

Well. My neighbor across the street has one.

I can ask her.

There you go.

We have one. We have one here.

Yeah. And then, yeah, our next regular meeting after that would be June 11th. And there's about seven items on there, so it's definitely a bigger meeting than this one was. And then, yeah. Yeah. No, no other meeting in June because of roundup week and we'll probably oh Yeah The July work session fell on July 2nd. We felt like that's probably gonna be people out of town.

So real Independence Day. Yeah It's the Congress celebrate 250 years of awesome freedom

Okay, that's all I have.

So we are not having a work session in July, is that what you're saying? Correct.

Okay.

It would be the tour. Yeah, so we'll send something out first of the week. Hopefully I've texted a backup person, the original guy. We went there as staff, and I reached out to the same person, and he just hasn't responded. So I had a second contact who's one of the architects that worked on the project. I'm waiting to hear back from him. Hopefully one of the two will get back to me. So right now it's tentatively planned to meet on site at the sanctuary at 530, but we'll confirm Monday and give you details.

And I'm deleting this July 2nd ORC meeting right now on my calendar with confidence.

You can wipe it out.

So if the sanctuary doesn't work out and there's a backup, one thing, I don't know, I would love to walk Main Street and talk to a couple of business owners down there and get their feel for

what's going on and what you'd like to see okay and we are at the council's direction working on some amendments to mixed-use to the mixed-use zone so maybe that would be worth you know maybe we could kind of brief you on where that draft is at and then we could go walk Main Street I yeah I think that's it a good that's some time Oh, yeah. And Lehigh Bakery, there's a lot. Well, they might be closed.

And the focaccia place.

Yeah. Okay. We'll figure something out. We're hoping the sanctuary. I think you guys would really enjoy seeing in that project. Okay.

Thank you, Kim. We'd entertain a motion.

I'm going to make a motion that we adjourn.

Second. Motion to second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Aye.