LANSDALE — A new use on one of Lansdale’s largest industrial properties has been voted down, for now.

Council’s Code committee heard details this week about a new use that could spur creation of one of the biggest buildings in town, if not for a pair of no votes that have already been made.

“What came forward was a zoning text amendment. It would change our zoning code to allow buildings in industrial-zoned districts for automated high-bar warehousing,” said borough Director of Community Development Jason Van Dame.

“These buildings need a pretty big area. The way they’re built, they’re built as an automated racking system, so the robots can move all of the products,” he said.

Discussion by council’s Code committee on Wednesday night centered on the property at 1000 North Cannon Avenue, which was once the site of the American Olean Tile plant and produced tiles for homes worldwide for nearly 80 years, before being closed in the late 1990s, according to MediaNews Group and Lansdale Historical Society archives.

Starting in January 2020, developer Stoltz Properties presented plans to the borough to expand the warehouse buildings already on the site, and construct several new ones, resulting in approval that summer of a code change reducing parking requirements, then a subsequent plan approval in September 2020 for a total of 1.5 million square feet in warehouse space, just under half to be newly built, on the roughly 115-acre industrial parcel.

Attorney Amee Farrell made the case to the code committee Wednesday for a new text change that could pave the way for an updated plan, that’s been up for discussion at the town’s planning commission for the past several months.

“It would allow for a narrowly-defined use, which currently doesn’t exist as defined under the ordinance, which emphasizes robotic stacking, storage, sorting type of systems that are internal to the building, similar to traditional warehousing, but much more robotic in nature,” Farrell said.

“The idea with that use is that the building goes up, instead of out, so they can take advantage of and utilize those robotic systems,” she said.

As she spoke, Farrell showed the code committee a concept plan with the property colorized, the existing and approved buildings outlined, and a new proposed building highlighted in off-white on the southeastern section of the property.

“There is no specific user identified, that’s coming in here yet. As you can imagine, there’s a fairly small number of clients, and shipping and delivery-type users,” who could use such a facility, Farrell said.

“The issue with contracting with those types of potential tenants, is they require confirmation of zoning prior to entering into a lease. They understand we have to go through a land development process prior to construction, but generally they need to be certain that the use itself is permitted under a zoning ordinance,” she said.

Under the draft amendment up for discussion, the new robotic warehousing use would be allowed only on properties in the industrial district, of 80 acres or more — “so not everywhere, but this one of course would be one of them,” she said. If the amendment and subsequent plan were approved, the current buildings on the site would be taken down, and those proposed under the 2020 plan would not be built, and instead the applicant would construct a much taller building allowable under the proposed new text.

“The biggest thing in the ordinance, versus what exists currently, really has to do with the allowable height increase,” Farrell said.

Current borough codes currently allow a maximum building height in that zone of 65 feet, according to Van Dame, which could roughly double under the proposed amendment.

“The text amendment they came forward with would take what currently would be a maximum height of 65 feet, up to a maximum height of 130 feet — 120 feet of building, with an additional ten feet of allowance,” he said.

“The current site is actually approved for additional warehouse space today. The text amendment would change that project to a reduced footprint, but a much higher, larger-volume structure,” Van Dame said.

Doing so would require setback requirements that are “drastically increased”, Farrell told the committee, which go “well beyond the one-to-one that’s part of the ordinance requirements.” Current rear and side yard minimum setbacks of eight feet would be increased to 150 to 200 feet “in most instance,” and to 250 to 300 feet when adjacent to a residential district.

“We’re trying to take into account those adjacencies,” she said.

Doing so would also reduce the building coverage on the property “from a currently allowable 50 percent,” to roughly 30 percent, and allow for additional buffering around parking and loading areas, Farrell said.

“None of those buffers, or none of those additional setbacks, are in play currently. They’re all proposed under our ordinance,” she said.

The planning commission did not approve the text amendment, and Farrell said “their biggest concern really had to do with the overall height” along with the traffic impact generated by the building. The 2020 plan called for a total of 204 loading docks on the various buildings, while the new version with the taller building requires 71 loading docs, “so there’s actually less truck traffic,” with more use of smaller vans instead, she said.

“We’re really just here for some initial feedback, and a sense of whether this is something that, despite some of the planning commission’s concerns, is something that makes sense to continue having a conversation,” she said.

Councilwoman Meg Currie Teoh asked if the new building would operate 24/7, and Farrell said it would, but so do the current tenants on the site now. Teoh then asked about the traffic amounts, and Farrell said hard figures could be calculated during land development, but employees would likely work three or four shifts throughout the day.

Councilman Mark Ladley asked what would be comparable to the building height under the proposed code, and Teoh said the town’s main water tower, operated by the North Penn Water Authority near Third and Richardson Streets, is roughly 130 feet tall and close to the 120 foot height allowed by the proposed code. Ladley then asked what type of vehicles would enter and exit the site, and Farrell said it would likely be a combination of large trailers and small vans.

“You all know who the couple of big players are, but I can’t say their names,” she said.

Early estimates are that the building would generate roughly 200 truck trips per day, “and by trucks they mean semi-, tractor-trailer trucks.” Mayor Garry Herbert asked if the local roads leading in and out of the site could handle that amount of traffic, and Farrell said that question and any traffic improvements would be addressed during land development.

“We think, ultimately, that a traffic study is going to show that the number of trucks that you would anticipate from this use, is really not all that different from the full development that’s currently approved,” she said.

Ladley said he often walks in that area and has two main concerns: the impact of that truck traffic going over rail crossings in the area, and of those trucks going through nearby residential streets.

“I’m picturing 200 semis going up and down there, and the roads and how wide they are,” he said.

Planning commission member Sam Carlo added that that board was concerned about that truck traffic downtown: “They’re going to be going up and down Main Street all the time.”

“I think it would totally change the appearance of Main Street. I wouldn’t want to be sitting outside Stove and Tap, with 200 trucks coming by all day,” Carlo said.

Resident Carole Farrell added another consideration: what if the main tenant leaves? “If this pulls out, what are you going to do with this building, that’s how many stories high? What do you then do with this building that’s just sitting there?” Ladley said he had seen similar buildings, but largely along highways and not near residential neighborhoods: “I just don’t think we’re structured for something like this. It’s just not the right location.”

Committee chairman Rich DiGregorio added one other concern: “going down Cannon to Main, making that right hand turn, with all of those semis,” could create conflicts and backups with other traffic in that area.

The code committee then chose not to vote the proposed text amendment ahead to full council, and the attorney for the developer said she’d return for future discussions.

Lansdale’s borough council next meets at 7 p.m. on May 18 and the code committee next meets at 7:30 p.m. on June 1, both at the borough municipal building, 1 Vine Street. For more information visit www.Lansdale.org.

We invite you to use our commenting platform to engage in insightful conversations about issues in our community. We reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable to us, and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy the law, regulation, or government request. We might permanently block any user who abuses these conditions.