PALMER TOWNSHIP BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING
A regular meeting of
the Palmer Township
2. APPROVAL OF DISBURSEMENT
OF FUNDS –
INFORMATION
The reports will be provided at the meeting.
DISCUSSION
On
motion by Mitchell, seconded by Panella, and agreed by all, the Board approved
the disbursement of funds for
3. APPROVAL
OF MINUTES –
DISCUSSION
On
motion by Smith, seconded by Panella, and agreed by all, the Board approved the
minutes of
4. CONDITIONAL
USE HEARING FOR THE ESTATES AT KNOBHILL
INFORMATION
The Board needs to approve/disapprove the
conditional use request for The Estates at Knobhill.
DISCUSSION
Bruno stated this was a public hearing
that was advertised in the Express Times.
Bruno said the developer is requesting approval to construct townhouses
up to 45 feet in height and up to 3.5 stories.
Bruno said pursuant to the Township Zoning Ordinance Section 190-54.F, townhouses
with 3.5 stories or 45 feet may be permitted as a conditional use within the
Medium Density Residential (
Bruno entered the following documents to
the record:
T1
T2
T3 Palmer
Township Departments Comment Sheet
T4
T5
T6 Request
for advertisement from Attorney Bruno’s office to the Express Times
James Preston, Attorney for the Developer,
stated they were seeking conditional use for the increase in height of the
buildings.
Bruno asked who owns the property. Taras Zawarski stated it was owned by Nic
Zawarski and Sons. Bruno confirmed the
request was for a height of 41 feet, and asked how many stories the units would
be. Zawarski
said they would be three stories in height.
A1 Layout
of proposed development site plan.
A2 Exhibit
showing the front elevation of the units
Zawarski said the buildings will contain four
units at a building height of 41 feet and three stories in height.
A3 Floor
plan of the units. Zawarski reviewed the
layout of the units.
A4 Exhibit
out of Historical Homes of Philadelphia Magazine
Zawarski said the photo shows a historical
nature to the buildings that are very much in conformance with the community I
developed.
Colver asked if the garages were slated to
be on the front of all ten units.
Zawarski said they are all front loaded garages. Colver asked the height of each floor in the
units and Zawarski reviewed the information.
Colver said the units with full walk out basements from the back yards would
be something in the neighborhood of 50 some feet off the ground. Zawarski said in drawing the building he focused
on the definition in the township ordinance and said as the building diminishes
in height in the rear, by the definition, we’re at 41 feet regardless of what
unit you’re looking at. Bruno confirmed
that the measurement is based on the front of the buildings. Zawarski said that is correct. Colver said from the back it’s going to
appear 50 to 55 feet above ground and that is what neighbors will see which is immense. Zawarski said the request we’re making is for
an additional six feet in height over what is allowed in the Township Ordinance. Colver asked about the slope to the
neighbors. Zawarski said he worked with
the approved grading plan. Zawarski said he focused on the height he was supposed to
make remaining in compliance with the grading plan. Colver asked what was proposed for the northern
property line. Zawarski said the
approved development plan includes a landscaped buffer along that property
line. Zawarski said he thought they
would be pine trees but he wasn’t sure of the specific height. Colver said these buildings are immense from
the neighboring side and I have some real concerns from that end. Colver asked regarding the swale, where is
the water going when it comes off these houses.
Zawarski said the rain water will be going in the same direction to a
swale and then to the detention pond.
Colver asked how high the third level would be. Zawarski said
approximately ten feet in height. Zawarski
said all would be trestle roofs so there was no chance of additional living
space.
Smith asked about variations in roofs from
unit to unit. Zawarski said there would
be a stagger of two feet from unit to unit.
Zawarski said in addition there is a four foot offset. Smith asked if there are any other houses in
the township that look like this. Zawarski
said probably not, but there are other units in the township that are three
stories in height. Lammi asked to see what
the back of the units would look like.
A5 Exhibit
showed the rear of a unit not incorporating a daylight or walkout.
Panella asked how many of each different
unit. Zawarski
reviewed the unit layouts. Panella said so
the majority of the units will be over 41 feet in the back.
Lammi asked about elevation change from
the north to the south of the project. Zawarski
said he thought there was about a 60 foot change in elevation. Lammi reviewed elevation on the northern part
of the property.
Questions were opened up to the audience.
Mike Lukachek,
Jerry McKee,
George Hemstreet,
James Kenney,
Frank Drago,
Donna Lukachek,
John Pantaleo,
Salvatore Drago,
Attorney
A6 Photograph
of three story building
Jonn said he’d like to look at the big
picture of the project which is to create a quality of distinction and
elegance. Jonn said it’s done with the
gates and street lamps. Jonn said it’s a
classic 1800 row home which is a period design of
Panella asked where Mr. Jonn’s office was
located. Jonn said
Smith said a design like this is usually
on a flat area, not sitting on top of a hill.
Smith said I don’t see any adjoining homes or properties that conform to
this style. Smith asked why would you design this building for the top of a hill. Jonn said it started with the site and this
is the product that the builder wants to build.
Jonn said the intention is a matter of acrobatics to make them in
conformance with the grading plan. Bruno
asked if it was his design. Jonn said
no. Bruno said you were called to give an
opinion of the design of someone else.
Jonn said I was asked to testify to the appropriateness of this
architecture. Bruno asked
Lammi said it’s very attractive for
Smith said the development as a whole is
being designed unique in style and design.
Smith said it’s not the same character of the surrounding area. Jonn said he didn’t know if he could match
the style of housing around it.
Mr. Lukachek
asked if he was aware that the majority of the townhouses back of the homes
would be facing the neighborhoods. Lukachek asked what architectural evidence is there for the
rear of the development. Jonn said the
focus is on the front. Jonn said the
tall windows are repeated on the back and consistent with the detail on the
front.
Mr. Kenney asked if the back of the
buildings would offer any privacy with the height of the windows. Jonn said he couldn’t speak to that. Jonn said there would be variation.
Donna Lukachek
asked if there would be balconies off of the second level. Jonn said yes. Lukachek said they
will be looking down on us all of the time.
Sal Drago said
the rear drawing doesn’t show the walk out basements. Jonn said it’s only in some of the units. Drago said they’re in most of the units.
Robert Brown,
John Pantolae asked if looking at the
homes from the rear would they be aesthetically pleasing to the
neighborhood. Jonn said it would be a
personal opinion.
Linda Dietrick, Senior Analyst, Certified General
Appraiser in PA, and Real Estate Sales person said she reviewed the property
and surrounding area. Dietrick said she
drove through the neighboring streets and said the homes vary in size,
character, and value. Dietrick said most
of her work is with subdivisions in the area.
Dietrick said the
Smith asked Dietrick if a contemporary or
modern style home would have the same appeal there. Dietrick said if attractively done, it could,
it’s hypothetical. Smith asked if other
styles could appeal in that area.
Dietrick said she’d have to see it.
Panella said when you talk about curb appeal, who are they facing. Panella asked who are they showing off
to. Dietrick said she disagrees with the
terminology of showing off. Dietrick
said curb appeal is to the buyer.
Panella requested we stop bringing in
Lammi asked hypothetically, if the
applicant were only asking for the height on the lower buildings and not full
height for the units on the northern end and to the right, would it have a
negative impact. Dietrick said she felt
it would interrupt the integrity of the project because you need harmony
between the units.
Donna Lukachek
asked if this type of building would attract people from the city. Dietrick said it might because of it being
attractive and priced appealingly.
Sal Drago asked Dietrick if all appraisers
had the same opinion of projects.
Dietrick said other appraisers could have a different opinion.
Mr. Kenney said you state it will enhance
the values of area homes, how much, or will it destroy the values. Dietrick said I can’t give you a figure, but
it will be an enhancement. Kenney asked
if lack of privacy will enhance our value.
Dietrick said no matter what is built there it will effect privacy.
Jerry McKee asked Dietrick where she was
from. Dietrick said
Bruno asked if Dietrick had completed
appraisals in the surrounding area. Dietrick
said she studied the neighborhood and studied documents and property values and
assessments with photographs of the houses and then visually looked at the
neighborhood. Bruno asked regarding
increases in property value of any home in the area, did you do an appraisal. Dietrick said no she didn’t she was basing it
on prior experience in the area. Bruno
said if the six feet wasn’t there would it affect the appearance. Dietrick said she feels it needs the height to
keep the appeal.
Bruno asked for any protestants to speak
or present evidence relevant to the project.
John Pantaleo, asked if it was considered
when approved, that a lot of the homes in the area have septic systems and
seepage in the area is becoming worse.
Bruno said that issue isn’t part of tonight’s request and referred him
to the Township Planning Director for information on drainage.
Mike Lukachek, entered
exhibits P1 through P6 - six photos
Lukachek said he
feels the majority of the guidelines for conditional use were written to
protect the surrounding communities. Lukachek reviewed the photos showing the changes in
elevation. Lukachek
said they knew in the back of their mind they were going to ask for this, they
were already advertising on their website.
Lukachek said they created the Knob that was
never there before. Luhachek stated they
said they would leave existing trees at a prior meeting; they left no trees -
maybe a few but not within 300 feet of his home. Lukachek said his
home was 28 feet tall, a two story colonial, and he stated all the guidelines
in the conditional use ordinance are regarding the neighboring community. Bruno asked Mr. Lukachek
how the proposed request of an additional six feet will have a detrimental
effect on the neighborhood. Lukachek said because of what they’ve done with the
elevation to begin with. Lukachek said he didn’t do his homework prior to the plan
being approved, but when it was approved, they were interested in water runoff.
Lukachek said no one thought about the height of the
homes. Lukachek
said any addition in height will impact our neighborhood.
Donna Lukachek, said
calling it Knobhill, the Knob was never there before, I lived there for 38
years. Lukachek
said they could have left us trees but they would have lost land and it would
have been a private community.
Sal Drago, said the developer presentation
was based to his needs only not the surrounding area. Drago said the developer was aware and
proceeded anyway. Drago said the
developer claimed the land was steep and it necessitated the grading, but it
was quite flat and he moved the dirt.
Drago added the developer may feel the Board made up their mind because his
website included features with the additional height. Drago said the code is the code is the code,
which is up to date, and drawn up by professional personnel. Drago asked does it fit in the area, look
around you. Drago said we can call these
castles in the sky, swallow it, and let it be.
Drago said the developer is the only one who benefits because he said it
himself he would be able to get more dollars.
Drago added we strongly support the Planning Commission’s recommendation
to deny.
Bruno asked Mr. Drago how the six
additional feet would have a negative impact on his property or others. Drago said it has a tremendous impact. The land rises tremendously and it would have
a negative impact on many properties.
Barry Fink,
Bob Brown,
Jim Kenney,
Sandra Brown, 2220 King Avenue, said the
contour of the land has been changed, we all know that, I’m curious why there
is a necessity for 3.5 stories, why do we need the 41 to 45. Brown asked if it is necessary to begin
with.
Mr. Hemstreet, said you should be on the
property during a heavy rainfall. Hemstreet
said the project should be shut down until the water run off is resolved.
Jerry McKee,
Colver said we need to address the six
foot height request. Bruno asked the
Board if they shouldn’t hear from the Township Engineer. Lammi asked the Township Engineer regarding
the northern part of the property if the Board approved the same measurements
on the land development. Dillman said
yes. Dillman said regarding the grading done
thus far we would need to do some survey work to see where it is now. Colver confirmed that everything was filed
properly. Dillman said the whole issue
regarding height is separate from the land development process; all those
issues have been addressed. Smith asked
Dillman if the additional six feet in height would in any way change the storm
water calculations. Dillman said it
would not.
Bruno closed the record with exhibits
admitted by
Preston added as argument that the
ordinance allows us to request this additional six foot requirement; we heard
from the developer, architect, appraiser, and I think the record supports this
is not a popular project, but the record supports the request is based on
bonified architectural renderings.
Bruno reviewed with the Board their
responsibility regarding compliance with the township ordinance and criteria
outlined in the township ordinance.
Colver said the bottom line this Board has
to consider is it’s an approved plan and the number of lots and sizes were all
previously approved. Colver said the
grading makes the buildings very high in the back. Colver said the backs of the units seem to
have no architecture to the buildings.
Colver said my quick math on the sizes of height on floors, I come up
with 37 or 38 feet. Colver said somehow
we come up to 41 feet which is only part of the issue. Colver said we need to talk about the third
story. Colver said he sees it as being
too high. Colver said it’s a nice
looking project with curb appeal but my opinion is it doesn’t fit in the
neighborhood. Colver said he doesn’t
feel it fits the spirit of the architectural design.
Mitchell said the ones that have the four
stories in the back will have finished walk out basements.
Lammi said when this first came to us,
this wasn’t the issue, it was a townhouse development with some objections
regarding traffic. Lammi said it was
approved as a townhouse development.
Lammi said would we have approved it as it is now, it would have been
difficult. Lammi said as far as meeting
the conditional use requirements, in many places it does not. Lammi said we have to look at not just a
project on a developer’s perspective but also from the surrounding
neighborhoods perspective. Lammi said he
feels the extra height is substantial especially from the back of the
building. Lammi said he cannot support
this request because it doesn’t meet criteria in the ordinance.
Smith said he has to agree with Lammi and
it not meeting Section 190-208 of the ordinance. Smith said it’s a great looking building but
the back of the buildings that face the neighborhoods are quite large and the
additional six feet makes a huge difference.
Panella said she doesn’t see an excellence
in architectural design being met. Panella
said it’s working against the topography.
Lammi made a motion to deny the
conditional use request based on it not being suitable for the location, and it
having a negative impact on the existing residential area. The motion was seconded by Panella. Bruno referred to his
5. CONDITIONAL
USE HEARING FOR SPRINT SPECTRUM
INFORMATION
The
Board needs to approve/disapprove the conditional use request for Sprint
Spectrum.
DISCUSSION
Bruno stated this
item was advertised for placement of a 140 foot high monopole cellular tower on
a 10+ acre tract of land on the Rizzolino property located at the
southwest corner of the
Bruno entered the following exhibits to the record:
T1
T2 Letter dated
T3
T4
T5 Second Amendment to Site Agreement
T6 First amendment to Site Agreement
T7
T8
T9 Zoning Decision
T10
T11 Bruno letter on
behalf of the Planning Commission dated
T12
T13 Minutes of the Zoning
Hearing Board dated
Erich Schoch, of Fitzpatrick, Wentz, and Bubba, represented the client and entered the following documents to the record:
A1 Site Plan agreement
James Rudolph, STV Inc., Professional Engineer responsible for the plan verified the request and location of the tower.
A3 Photos on the site and surrounding site.
Rudolph explained the photos and views and stated they received zoning relief for setback from the residential area.
Schoch asked Rudolph if the tower would be constructed according to industry standards and comply with collapse procedures. Rudolph reviewed the collapse procedure. Rudolph stated he felt it would collapse according to requirements. Rudolph reviewed fencing and said it complied with the ordinance. Rudolph reviewed the four Sprint cabinets that would be on a concrete pad on site and said shrubs also complied with the ordinance. Rudolph reviewed the access to the site by an existing driveway partially gravel and dirt and stated it was sufficient by the ordinance. Rudolph said it would not require water or sewer. Rudolph said it would have underground telephone wiring, and lighting would not shine off the property.
Schoch asked Rudolph if the proposal conforms to applicable township ordinances, and federal laws. Rudolph said it did. Rudolph said it would be buffered by evergreens and it would create an insignificant amount of storm water.
Panella asked if there would be a light on top for planes. Rudolph said no it is not required if under 200 feet in height. Colver asked about color. Rudolph said it would be gray.
Bruno asked if they
could satisfy the comments of the Township Engineer letter of
Dillman asked about
#27 in the