Lansdale seeks to add uses, density near proposed Church Road townhouses

A planned project to build apartments near the SEPTA station on Pennbrook Parkway could soon have a new look.

Borough officials held a public hearing on those plans in mid-March, with lengthy talks about what they’d like to see there, and delayed a vote on a zoning change needed to make the project happen.

“If there was a desire to see some slight increase in density, to allow a few affordable units, that would be something that would be appropriate to suggest at this time,” developer Chris Canavan of W. B. Homes said.

In early February council’s code committee first saw a draft of plans by developer W.B. Homes to redevelop a 6-acre parking lot at 1180 Church Road into a proposed complex of 74 single-family attached homes, a plan first pitched to the town’s planning commission in April 2025.

The property currently falls within the town’s industrial zoning with the transit overlay atop, which borough staff have said currently allows a mix of uses but requires a maximum 20-acre lot size to do so. Later that month council saw a first draft of those plans and voted to advertise a public hearing on a code change needed as a first step for that project to proceed.

During their March 18 meeting, Canavan and borough solicitor Patrick Hitchens outlined the next approvals sought by the developer, including a text amendment to borough zoning codes to change the minimum width of single-family attached dwellings on the site, and to create a new “small parcel transit-oriented development” code. W.B. is currently the equitable owner of “a 6.6-acre parking lot, for lack of a better word,” that’s located within the town’s transit-oriented overlay district of roughly 28 acres of property with industrial zoning. 

“The way the current ordinance is written, it is only applicable for tracts that are 20 acres or larger. So there is no provision, within the current TOD overlay district, for sub-parcels within that area,” Canavan said.

That code was written during development of the nearby Station Square complex across Church Road, and the site now up for development is “arguably the closest that you can get, without actually being at the train station,” the developer argued.

“So from a transit-oriented basis, it’s an appropriate place for some sort of development,” he said.

The text amendment proposed by the developer would not change any uses within the TOD zone, but would allow doing so on smaller parcels. The main talks at the planning commission centered on whether the small parcel code would require a mix of uses as part of such developments, or a parcel could be developed as only residential or only non-residential.         

“Didn’t take away the option to do any of those uses, it just didn’t require, within that subset, that mix of uses,” Canavan said.

After the planning commission and code committee both approved the small parcel ordinance, subsequent discussions raised the question of whether the original ordinance should be updated. If the code change to create the small parcel rules is allowed, the developer said, WB would then have to come back to council for conditional use approval to secure permission for the use, then have their plans vetted and approved.

“When we do our conditional use application, we have to prove that the mixes that are intended within the overall TOD are still met, even with just our parcel going fully residential,” Canavan said.

Roughly 40,000 square feet of commercial space currently exists within the overall 28-acre TOD zone, as does a vacant pad site that could host nonresidential, plus a municipal parking lot, Pennbrook station, and over 100,000 square feet of industrial space in the building complex that now contains a pickleball and gymnastics facility and indoor storage nearby, he said.

“From our viewpoint, the additional 74 townhomes that we are proposing are an appropriate mix because of the amount of commercial and retail that exists within that area,” he said.

“This ordinance does two things: it allows for the redevelopment of a site that’s already been developed, within the TOD, because it takes away that 20-acre minimum. And then there are some structural changes that are basically to bring some of the definitions in alignment,” for widths, heights, and other regulations changed with newer codes, Canavan said.

Hitchens added that he concurred on the process, that the council and the public could sound off on the code as advertised, and on changes relating to preserving the mixed-use requirement in the entire overlay zone, but not the small parcel area.

Council sounds off

Councilman Andrew Carroll kicked off questions by asking if the six-acre parcel could be developed as mixed-use “in any way, shape or form,” and the developer said it could, but “I think what’s lacking over there is more residential.” One pad site remains empty, and roughly 40,000 square feet of commercial retail space is also still open, and new residential could spur development there.

“I think each of those businesses would probably better flourish, that are over there if there was more residential there to walk,” he said.

Any new business in those parcels could also benefit from a mix of neighbors: the current apartments near Pennbrook station already are occupied by renters, while the new townhouses proposed by WB would be owner-occupied and likely a different demographic.

“I think both of those, together, make that a much more flourishing mix of uses, to support what are there already,” Canavan said.

The developer has also had preliminary talks with SEPTA about the project, and the transit agency indicated it was “very supportive.”

“They were happy to see more potential commuters being there, rather than having to get into cars. Their main comment back to us was to make sure that the access from the parking lot to their rail station isn’t well marked,” and visibility upgrades to the driveways and markings could be part of the project.

“So you just want to build houses?” Carroll answered, and Canavan replied, “I will note that our name is WB Homes – that is what the nature of our proposal is.”

The councilman then asked if the development could include a commercial space with an option to convert into residential later on, like the apartments atop the borough’s Madison parking lot, built in the late 2010s, where some commercial space was later converted into apartments, and Canavan said that could be an option.

“You’ve got business owners there. We don’t want to be in competition with them; we’d like to see them flourish with the people that we bring in. I just don’t think it’s the right spot for additional neighborhood retail. All we’re doing tonight is creating a context in which to do this,” Canavan said.

Councilman Mike Yetter asked if the site’s proximity to Stony Creek Park could include walkability features such as a trail connection, and the developer said they are “looking to do a trail access” into the park’s trail network.

Councilman BJ Breish then asked if the developer could commit in writing to looking into a mix of uses instead of just residential, and Canavan said that could be done during conditional use approvals, after the zoning change approval to allow the small parcel development.

Breish then asked about a similar WB project up for discussion at Fifth Street and Valley Forge Road, and said he had concerns about the affordability of both new projects and who could afford to live there.

“The way I asked it was, would you consider an affordability component to your project on Fifth Street? If there was a density incentive, or bonus of some sort for density?” the councilman said. “Is now the time to be having that conversation?”

Canavan answered that he was open to the discussion: “If you believe that it would be in the best interest of the borough” to revisit the density maximum of 12 units per acre. In another municipality, that town required 20 percent of units in a similar project to meet certain affordability criteria, and WB could share info about that project with the town and council to consider it further, he said.

Breish then asked if WB would be interested in doing so on that site, and Canavan said it was “something we could look at” as talks continue. Breish then asked about traffic within the development and pedestrian safety features such as crosswalks and curb bump-outs, and the developer said those specifics could be addressed as plans are refined,  but walkability would be key.

“The focal point is to get people to walk toward the train station, to walk toward the commercial that is on the other side of Church, to walk toward the adjacent park, and we have a pretty robust sidewalk network throughout the development,” in the latest plans, Canavan said.

Regarding traffic, the developer has already started to look into pedestrian features such as raised crosswalks meant to slow traffic, and have started early talks with SEPTA on how and where to do so. Breish then asked if the council could consider reducing or removing minimum parking requirements for the project, and Hitchens said the current draft ordinance has language addressing traffic and safety, but doesn’t address the affordability component.

Councilman Garry Herbert asked if the group should add or vote ahead of new language to add that affordability component right away, or hold a future hearing to discuss an updated version, and Hitchens said his advice would be to do the latter.

“It might not be ready in an additional month, but that’s okay. I just would not recommend you do it on the fly,” the attorney said.

The town’s planning commission has already had similar talks along those lines, Razzak added, and “they can thoroughly take a look at it.”

Public voice support

Several residents also shared thoughts on the project, including Dominic Visturia, who said he had concerns about the mixed-use being removed and thought the town should encourage more density and mixed uses where possible, noting a turnaround in pedestrian traffic at the Madison apartments during First Fridays now.

“I’m thinking about five years down the line, 15 years down the line, 50 years down the line. What kind of money is going to come to this town? And the only way to do that is with mixed use,” Visturia said. “I think there definitely needs to be some kind of commercial aspect there.”

Geary Kochersperger said he also backed the project and the small parcel change, but not removing a mixed-use requirement, and cited language from the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission that cited transit-oriented development as “compact, mixed-use development within an easy walk of a transit station.”

“The key here is mixed use. Without access to commerce, many of the daily needs of the residents cannot be met without relying on an automobile,” he said. “We can see with our own bifurcated Main Street corridor that it only takes a block or two of missing storefronts to discourage and isolate pedestrian foot traffic.”

Alex Sickler said he also backed the project and a mixed-use requirement, and noted the proximity of a hotel on the other side of the parking lot up for development that could house visitors to town.

“I know the last thing I wanted to do, after driving for hours, was to jump back in the car or wait for a train to go get dinner,” he said, before describing a daring dash across Church Road he made prior to the meeting.

“Crossing Church Road doesn’t feel like a relaxing walk through a cozy neighborhood. You’re crossing a busy road that reminds you that cars are the priority.”

Shannon DeBellis said she saw a link between a trail connection near the Pennbrook site and the traffic and pedestrian safety concerns voiced in recent months by residents in the town’s west ward.

“Having an ice cream shop back there, or a brewery back there, is something that really appeals to me, in addition to additional housing. More people can be in our town, and walk through our town. I’m very much in favor of that, and we would definitely use it,” she said.

Meghan Kochersperger echoed the timeline questions raised by Breish, saying she and neighbors had heard earlier talks about the project but didn’t know when to make specific requests or raise concerns, then asked what draft of the possible code change text she had seen. Hitchens answered that she and residents had likely seen a newer draft with red lines indicating modifications since the first code was advertised, and Canavan said all drafts would not remove anything from current codes, only allow more options for development on smaller parcels.

Meghan then asked that any future draft include a restaurant as one possible use in a commercial portion of a mixed-use small parcel project, since that use was cited by others nearby: “It should be a specific use that the residents there can actually use, on a regular basis,” she said.

“It’s a blank slate, and it’s a prime location, being right next to Pennbrook station. We only get one chance, as a town, to make this right. It’s an opportunity to mold Lansdale to be the Lansdale that we want,” Meghan said.

Clark Benchouk asked Canavan where those living in the development would go grocery shopping, and Hitchens said the developer could address specific questions like that during the land development process, after the code change to allow the small parcel development is on the books.

Dominic Frascella then said he saw Lansdale featured as a successful example of transit-oriented developments in literature from the Montgomery County Planning Commission, and said the new development would be less dense than many current neighborhoods.

“It’s not passing the vibe check of being TOD. There’s a whole lot of asphalt there, a whole lot of parking for cars,” he said. “I’m sure the developer is kind of taken aback; it’s not very often he comes to a meeting where the residents are saying ‘Build more, not less.'”

Mayor Rachel Bollens added that she was “100 percent in for mixed-use” and for adding more units to the site if possible.

“Families like mine are being priced out of Lansdale. I don’t want to see generations like ours have to leave. This is the opportunity. I know we don’t want to keep going back to the drawing board, but this is permanent,” she said.

After the close of the comments, Canavan said he appreciated the input and said he and WB were open to another round of talks with the planning commission on the mixed uses and incentives, with more density on the site.

“I’d be foolish, as a developer of houses, not to look at more density as an opportunity,” he said.

Council then voted unanimously to ask staff to revise the small parcel code change to incorporate the feedback on the mixed-use requirement and density incentives, and Canavan said he’d be back at future meetings with another draft.

This article appears courtesy of a content share agreement between Fideri News Network and The Reporter. To read more stories like this, visit https://www.thereporteronline.com