BETHLEHEM, Pa. — City planners are taking a 30-day extension to further review land development plans for a 3 1/2-story, eight-unit apartment building proposed for West Union Boulevard.

Planners on Thursday weren’t comfortable giving the project the green light, as the property owner, Nicholas Bozakis, and his team submitted elevations and architectural details from a different, yet mostly similar, project from across town drawn up by the same architect.

Now, officials will look to render a decision by Feb. 28.

Planners next meet at 5 p.m. Feb. 12 in Bethlehem Town Hall, 10 E. Church. St.

‘Just slight modification’ needed

Bozakis owns Nick’s on Main Italian restaurant about a block away from the proposed project site at 62-68 W. Union Blvd.

Bozakis’s townhome project nearby calls for demolishing 68 W. Union — 62 W. Union previously was razed — to put up a multi-family building with eight apartments, 13 off-street parking spaces and vehicle access from Masslich Street to the east.

However, city officials said the submitted architectural elevations were “labeled as and reflective” of another six-unit project at 1275 E. Fourth St., owned by Macada Partners of Bethlehem.

That project was about 2 1/2 miles from the applicant’s project site just a short ways off Main Street.

Plans for both sites were completed by the same architect: Christian Architects of Nazareth.

“Their building very closely represents what’s proposed here at this site.”

Kevin Horvath, project design engineer with Keystone Consulting Engineers

Kevin Horvath, project design engineer with Keystone Consulting Engineers, said his team provided plans for a 3.5-story building with the same dimensions as the one proposed for the site on West Union.

He said the new project would almost match the other, with three stories in the front and 3 1/2 in the back, and have the same number of windows, a central hallway and slab patio outside.

But instead of the garage and two exterior doors as in the East Fourth Street site, Horvath said the West Union building’s lower level would feature two additional apartments.

“Their building very closely represents what’s proposed here at this site,” Horvath said. “It’s a slight modification to convert what’s [shown in the drawings], a garage and storage, to two additional dwelling units.”

Horvath also said Bozakis was “happy to provide” a curb ramp at the northeast corner of the site, per request from the city. The project also will come with improvements to the site’s front and rear sidewalks.

‘To be in-keeping with neighborhood context’

In a project review letter from the city, Assistant Director Planning and Zoning Craig Pfeiffer said officials notified the applicant to submit proper plans for the site ahead of the meeting on Thursday, Jan. 8.

The front of the building should be built “to be in-keeping with neighborhood context in terms of massing, façade materials and a visual and physical break between the second and third floors,” Pfeiffer said in the letter.

“I would need to see a clearer rendering of what this is going to look like to feel confident. I can’t just base it off of a different project.”

Bethlehem City Planning Commission member Richard Pongracz

Planning officials, nervous of setting a precedent for future developments, said they did not want to provide an approval on Thursday without the proper plans in hand.

“Certainly it seems like there was adequate time from December 31st to today to submit the architectural plans and elevations as it pertains to the project on West Union,” planning Chairman Robert Melosky said.

Planner Richard Pongracz said, “I would need to see a clearer rendering of what this is going to look like to feel confident.

“I can’t just base it off of a different project,” he said.

‘Out of no disrespect’

Joy Cohen, another member of the Planning Commission, said it was her understanding the project documents were submitted without the architect’s knowledge.

Bozakis said that wasn’t the case, and he actually planned to meet with the architect again that evening.

Horvath said it was all a misunderstanding on his part, adding that the city’s development procedures were “unique.” Potential revisions of plans along the way can get costly, he said.

Bozakis “has had every intention of developing these plans further with the architect of record,” Horvath said.

“Honestly, I really didn’t think it was that big of a stretch in terms of what we’re proposing and to provide an adequate representation of that using this drawing.”

Kevin Horvath, project design engineer with Keystone Consulting Engineers

“Honestly, I really didn’t think it was that big of a stretch in terms of what we’re proposing and to provide an adequate representation of that using this drawing,” Horvath said.

“It was out of no disrespect whatsoever that we didn’t do this.”

Horvath said they would submit the proper renderings to the panel for review and allow the 30-day extension.

As land development plans were submitted on Oct. 31, and project applicants are entitled to a decision from planners within 90 days, the planning commission would have had to vote Thursday unless given an extension by the developers, according to planning commission solicitor Matthew Deschler.

“We’ll see you in a month,” Melsoky said to Horvath and Bozakis.