PALMER TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION

APRIL 12, 2005

The Palmer Township Planning Commission meeting was held on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. with the following in attendance. Young, Grandinetti, Rickert, Wilkins and Rizzolino. Also present were Planning Director Amanda Jensen, Township Engineer Brian Dillman, Solicitor Charles Bruno and Supervisor Liaison Robert Lammi. Chairman Young convened the meeting by leading those present in the Pledge to the Flag.

MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY MEETING – Minutes of the meeting were approved as written on motion by Grandinetti, seconded by Rickert, and agreed by all.

KNOB HILL – Kings Avenue/Haymont St. – Conditional Use Request – Terry Zawarski was present with plans and sketches of the proposed condos. James Preston, Attorney for the applicant was also present and reviewed the sections of the Ordinance that pertains to a requested additional 10 feet in height from 35 to 45. The ordinance now allows 35 ft. in height. Zawarski highlighted the plan noting that approval has already been given for this gated community. He also showed a rendering of other condos in the township which would be a close sketch of the proposed. He gave a detail of the architecture and noted there will not be any living area in the attic, it is just decorative. There will be three bedrooms, a living room, dining room, kitchen, 2 car garage, a family room as well as an owner’s area that includes master bedroom, bathroom and walk-in closets. The grading makes the grounds different levels throughout the development. The maximum of a proposed building would be 41 feet high which is defined in the Zoning Ordinance. Rickert asked what it would look like without the additional requested 10 ft. Zawarski noted he was really only asking for an additional 6 ft. which he pointed out on the sketch. There would not be the architectural roof, it would be flatter, which he feels will take away from the architect of the buildings. Without this conditional use approval he would have to abandon the dormers, have a shallow pitched roof and lower the proposed ceiling height. First and second floors are elevated. Proposed ceilings are 9 ft. but would have to remove a foot from each floor if denied. He feels the selling price of the condos would be in range of $275,000 due to topography build, architecture, and design. Zawarski stated he planned this area design as historic architect. Wilkins noted he visited the site and noticed the topography of this area. Zawarski noted this section is a knob on a hill, hence the name of the development. The rear of units are a split level function and the levels can vary for each individual unit due to the ground elevations in that area. Young asked Dillman if he had any questions or comments and he noted it was purely a planning issue at this point. Young asked about placing garage in the rear and Zawarski noted then they would have to develop alleys for rear alley entrance. Young understood this and asked if there were any comments from the audience.

Mike Lukachek, 614 Haymont Drive distributed pictures and information. He stated that the existing tree line will be replaced by two of the buildings and the developer was asked at a previous meeting if trees were going to be kept. Developer said yes, but there are no trees left. The developer raised the elevation 10 feet and it is higher than his home. Lukachek noted they are going to put in a 4 foot buffer area. He has a 2 story colonial home which is 28 feet tall. Other homes in area are ranch type homes and these new proposed homes will be very high and their back yards will be facing neighborhoods. How tall are these condos going to be when the residents walk out their back door? Lukachek noted that the slope very steep and elevated 10 feet to rear of existing property. He feels the township should protect the existing neighborhoods. We do not live in city; we live in a small community.

James Kenney, 2359 Lawnherst Avenue – agrees with Mr. Lukachek and feels homes in Lawnherst will be towered over. There will not be any privacy as we had. Will ruin property value in the long run. Grading run off into Lawnherst is terrible. Ordinance says 35 feet, keep it there.

Robert Brown – 2220 Kings Ave. – stated they did raise land, more that 10 feet. This area is very apt to lightning strikes, very dangerous with height. What happens if the gates can’t open and there is a fire in a home, how do fire trucks get in. Tractor trailers travel down roadway, block existing drives and mailboxes. Recommend making them less than 25 feet. Don’t need skyscrapers. Young commented that if there is a fire, the trucks will always get in, one way or another.

George Hemstreet – 5 Haymont St. – who is checking on run off. Young asked Mr. Hemstreet to talk to Jensen on this. Hemstreet feels this project should be shut down until something is checked out.

Salvatore Drago – 2223 Eugene St. – read a prepared statement citing reasons the Commission should not recommend this. This is not Philadelphia; we are in the middle of a small community.

Donna Lukachek - 614 Haymont Dr. stated the land in rear yard was elevated and reshaped. There will be very tall buildings in rear of their back yard and feels this is uncalled for.

Carmelo LaDuca – 2211 Eugene Ave – Asked if the height of building is in accordance of fire code. He has concerns on this. Young noted all departments were consulted and noted the Fire Administrator did not make any comment so there is probably not an issue. Jensen will check with him. Lammi noted that the fire department/trucks can reach top of buildings. If gates don’t open, they will get there anyway. Lammi asked that the Fire Chief be contacted before this comes before the Board of Supervisors.

Mike Dombroski -2215 Hackettsview Ave – lives in a ranch house and noted that his house is now level with fire hydrant. They are raising land considerably.

Mike Lukachek – stated sections of code that is relevant to this applicant. These sections were included in the packet that he distributed to the Commission members.

Frank Gotta - 613 Haymont Drive – agrees with what was said in room tonight. He asked when was this portion of the code put into effect. Bruno stated this particular section was adopted in August of 2002. Frank asked why was this put into effect as it is today. Bruno stated this is an unfair question to this Commission. The Board of Supervisors is the legislation body, they made final decision. There has to be a reason why it was put into effect. What has changed in the last 2 ½ years to want to change the environment. We don’t live in Philadelphia as stated before.

Rickert motioned to recommend against the Conditional Use application to erect townhouses up to 45’ in height or 3.5 stories based on the following sections not being met: 190-54F – No unusual excellence in architectural design; 190-208D(1)– Does not conform with the spirit, purposes, intent and all applicable requirements of this ordinance; 190-208D(4) it is not suitable for the particular location in question; 190-208D(7) it will significantly adversely threaten the desirable character of an existing residential area and would affect the character of the neighborhood and abutting lots such as blocking sunlight/casting shadows on existing homes; 190-208E(1) there are no adjoining similar uses. 190-208E(4) – A lack of negative impacts on existing or potential permitted uses of the district or neighboring areas, especially on abutting lots. Rickert noted she did not see any justification for this request inasmuch as permission was already granted for the erection of townhouses without the additional 10’ conditional use application. Wilkins seconded the motion stating Rickert said everything he felt. Bruno asked if the motion was for the 6 feet that the applicant was really requesting and not 10 feet and Rickert amended her motion to state this. Wilkins seconded. Rickert stated she has visited site many times and feels very strongly about this. Young called for a vote which was all yea. Bruno stated that this applicant will be before the BOS April 26 and applicant asked for any information from this Commission pertaining to tonight’s meeting. Bruno stated he will see that they get a copy of information.

COLONIAL BUILDERS - Lawnherst Ave – Barry Fehnel, Developer and his Engineer Don Frederickson were present with plans for a minor subdivision. Young asked if they have any questions or comments on the township engineer’s letter of April 8^th. Frederickson stated not on all but questioned the comment on the trees. He noted it was just brush and Jensen stated there were some trees in amongst the brush and if they would please check these trees; maybe clear the brush from around them. Frederickson asked if they were back by power lines. Jensen and Rizzolino will meet with Frederickson. Frederickson noted they have requested waivers along with the reasons. The first waiver discussed concerned the alignment of the streets and driveways to intersect directly across from each other. This would be disadvantageous to line up driveway with Lawnherst Avenue. It could confuse people driving down the street thinking the roadway continues. Dillman noted the ordinance suggests lining up the driveways but in this instance the developer is correct. He also noted that the proposed way alleviates infiltration makes sense. The second waiver request was regarding the installation of sidewalks. Rickert stated she felt the sidewalks should be installed as there are people in the development that do walk to the shopping center. Frederickson noted there are a lot of storm sewer, swales, and other utilities that come together here. He will check into this. Young asked Dillman where in the planning process do we ask for final grading, he wants to make sure all plans are covered. This plan shows grading. This is where it will be addressed. Frederickson noted the existing berm had been constructed by shopping center officials to have water run into Fehnel’s property. Young asked if there were any further comments or questions. Seeing none he called for a vote. On motion by Rickert, seconded by Grandinetti, and agreed by all, the Commission voted to recommend conditional approval to the Board of Supervisors conditioned that all comments by the engineer in their letter dated April 8, 2005 be satisfied as well as all Departmental comments and that the waivers for sidewalk be denied as it should be part of plan, but the waiver for the driveway alignment be approved.

EASTON SELF STORAGE – Preliminary/Final Plan - Freemansburg Avenue - Mr. Al Marron, Owner, Don Frederickson, Engineer and Attorney Karl Kline were present with their plan. Frederickson stated they had previously met with Jensen, Bruno, Dillman and Paul North from the Pidcock Company to discuss the Hobson Street right-of-way situation and how it can be resolved. A portion of the right-of-way on the east side of street needs to be vacated. The right-of-way is 60 wide but at the north end it is not a full width. This needs to be forwarded to Board of Supervisors. The applicant is proposing a 30’ right-of-way from centerline of cartway that extends from Hobson Street to the east. Roadway and right-of-way are not parallel. There was discussion on the width, cartway, and right-of-way with Hobson Street. The roadway is curbed at 30 feet and as wide as 60 feet at the one end. Young asked if they had any issues with the engineer’s letter. Frederickson noted their lighting plan was approved by the consultant and there are no other problems or comments. Dillman questioned the parking spaces. This has been a discussion over the past few months. Marron noted the number of employees and Frederickson stated they are required to have 52/53 spaces. Young asked if someone parks in the parking lot how do they get access into the building? Marron noted they have to walk along the front of the building to get to the door. If they park on Hobson Street there is a side door that they go into. They should have access through building to parking area. Dillman noted they are to show areas on the plan that are in the building such as office/mfg. If the parking is striped and lined, there will only be spaces for 42 cars.

Conditional Use Request – Frederickson noted they will be installing street trees along Hobson Street from Division to Oregon Streets. Not all the way down to Freemansburg Avenue as this would get into the site triangle problems. The site lighting will have shielded down fixture to prevent light shining onto neighboring residences. There will not be any off site lighting. Waiver/deferral request were discussed. The improvements along Hobson Street. The developer will install curb along property but request a deferral along property fronting Freemansburg Avenue. There will be right-of-way dedication along Freemansburg Avenue. Rickert does not feel improvements along Freemansburg Avenue are necessary, they are more important along Hobson Street. Young asked if they were going to have any type of signs on the property. Marron stated yes one above office and one above the garage. Young feels this should be part of this approval. Frederickson noted zoned district LI allows certain signs and the applicant has already made application for these signs, which area an approval as per ordinance. Rickert feels a lot of outstanding items to be addressed. Jensen felt that after tonight’s discussion there is not much that has to be satisfied on plan.

Motion by Young, seconded by Grandinetti, and agreed by all, the Commission recommend approval of the Conditional Use request to the Board of Supervisors conditioned that the colors discussed are the ones used, the lighting, buffering, and street trees be completed, and the signage be placed where stated.

Motion by Young, seconded by Wilkins, and agreed by all, the Commission voted to recommend approval for the preliminary/final plan to the Board of Supervisors conditioned that all engineering comments in their letter dated April 8, 2005 be satisfied and all departmental comments of March 7, 2005 also be satisfied. Also, in regards to the deferrals the curbing/sidewalks along Freemansburg Avenue should be approved as well as the street trees and roadway widening along but the deferral of sidewalk along north end of Hobson St should not be approved.

NIC ZAWARSKI & SONS – Preliminary/Final – Charlotte Avenue – Marty Zawarski, Owner/Developer; James Preston, Attorney and Brian Ritter, Engineer were present with plans for this office building. Young asked if they had any comments or problems with the township engineer’s comments and they were reviewed. The waiver/deferral request letter was just received and will be reviewed by the engineer. The applicant will get in touch with the zoning officer to have him review the parking area. Zawarski noted that a portion of this area is zoned Residential and he didn’t think this Commission nor the Board of Supervisors would want to see this lot developed as residential due to the close proximity of Triton, which is adjacent to property. Jensen asked if there is another place to access site out of residential area and was told no. Bruno noted this Commission does not typically give comments on variance issues. Preston stated they would like to know where they would want the driveway before they appear before the Zoning Hearing Board. Young noted there has not been much changed from the last time in was before this Commission. It was noted that the deadline for this plan is near and an extension was needed. Preston stated he will contact Bruno with a 60 day extension. On motion by Rickert, seconded by Grandinetti, and agreed by all the Commission voted to table action on this plan.

SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS – Bruno stated Mr. Rizzolino has to sit out on decision making for this applicant but can have input. The applicant needs a majority vote tonight on this. Present for the applicant were Attorney Kate Durso, Scott Chambers, Engineer, Tony DiLorenzo, Sprint Representative. Discussion centered on the screening/buffering of the property they abut. The ordinance allows for Board of Supervisors to act on this. The ordinance requires 4 sides to be screened. They are requesting to place buffering along their property itself where it joins the Schaller property only. There is nothing to shield on the other sides. Rizzolino owns adjoining property and it is a garden/landscape center which is zoned PIC. Neighboring properties were notified of all hearings for this applicant and no one heard anything from them. Wilkins asked Rizzolino as the property owner if there are any risks of his property being built as residence and he responded no, that they would not be selling at any time soon, as a matter of fact they are trying to get the zoning changed. Schaller’s property can’t see this building and there are landscape buffer requirements that must be met in ordinance. A Conditional Use request is before this Commission, and not the Zoning Hearing Board determination. Board of Supervisors makes the final determination of an application. Dorso noted they needed 500’ set back and it was approved by the Zoning Hearing Board. They also received other variances as stated in their decision letter. Bruno noted they were before the Zoning Hearing Board on March 16^th and will again be before the Board in May to clarify some of these conditions. Dorso noted the size of equipment cabinet is a primary issue. Other issue is landscape/buffer which the Zoning Hearing Board did make a decision on. Young asked which decision stands since the buffering is a Board of Supervisors issue decision. There has been a difference of opinion. Young stated he felt that buffering on all sides was needed with the exception of the access road; Wilkins agrees. Young asked since they are going to the Zoning Hearing Board, should we take action? It was noted the deadline is the end of the month. Usually the Planning Commission does not take action until variances are received, they received theirs. Bruno noted they just need clarification on an issue. Young questioned if this Commission should see design of the tower? Dorso noted the approval of these plans would be just as what is before this Commission presently, nothing changed. They just need sealed design plans from the engineer but the site plan will be what is on the plan. Rickert motioned to approve the Conditional Use request for location of tower as shown on plan submitted and reviewed and approved by the Zoning Hearing Board and that they received the necessary clarifications from the Zoning Hearing Board and the issues in the township engineer’s letter dated April 8, 2005. Wilkins seconded the motion. Approval was 4 yea with Rizzolino abstaining.

COMMERCE BANK – SKETCH PLAN - PALMER PARK MALL – Park Avenue - Nick Antanavica of Bolar Engineering, Tim Siegfried, Attorney and John Harter of the North Atlantic Commerce Bank. The applicant is proposing a branch bank with 4 drive thrus and feels there is adequate parking on site as well as several access roadways into bank. Young asked if there were any comments about the township engineer’s comments and the letter was reviewed. They have an application filed for the Zoning Hearing Board for several variances. The applicant noted that they would post the signage around the access roadways for turns not feasible. Young asked for any planning issues comments. Rickert noted it is in the central area of mall, at the main entrance to mall. Did not feel this was a good location with the existing traffic. Young noted further use of the area will make it a very difficult situation to get around. Commission members agreed citing traffic, circulation pattern, would be disastrous, and they would be using prime parking spaces. Rickert noted it would be much easier at another site, right up the road; another area was previously approved for a bank. Feels it is not a place for a branch bank. John Harter did a parking analysis on Friday evening and Saturday mornings in 4 areas and there were only 50% occupancy of spaces used. Young noted they should look at holidays when all the spaces are filled up. Jensen asked if the traffic counts was taken without Carrabba’s and was told yes. Rickert again stated she felt it is not good planning for this area. Grandinetti agrees also. Customers for the bank may have to walk so far with parking spaces being used up for the mall. Wilkins noted that basically when a person pulls into mall you have to immediately decide where to go. They will just go, and not follow signage. The whole parking area is very busy. Feels business would be hindered instead of better. Applicant has Commission’s feelings on the location of this requested building. Parking lot has all it can handle.

TK PARTNERS – Sketch Plan – Milford Street – Keith Turner and Zbigniew Kadziolka owners of the property were present with plans for a proposed building to consist of an office area and show room, and living area on second floor. The business that would be in the lower level would be a roofing/siding business. The area is zoned HI. Township engineer’s comments were reviewed and Dillman explained that a living area/show room area is not allowed but to use as warehouse, with inside storage only was an acceptable use as accessory use. Applicant did not know this would be an acceptable use and they would like to use it, not necessarily with apartments, just warehouse. There are residences in the area and there would be zoning issues as far as commercial next to residential. This is an ideal situation for applicant, to be able to use his property as a warehouse area. Applicant was under the impression he was not able to use as warehousing. Young asked if there would be any retail sales. Applicant said no it would be a showroom for his business, have an area to have displays for products. There would be an office with showroom area. Customers would come into the office and pick out their product they wanted. There would be some traffic for customers, not a lot of traffic. They currently have their business in the Easton area. Lammi noted that he was not in favor of the apartments above, but just the warehousing/office was a good idea. Business office is permitted by right. Apartments would be inconsistent with surrounding businesses. Applicant has Commission’s comments.

Planning Director comments – Four things – Jensen is holding a presentation of the Two Rivers Area Greenway Plan to be given by the Bushkill Streams Conservancy on May 2 in the Township Building. Two members of the Planning Commission need to attend. Everyone please check their schedules and get back to me. This presentation includes portion of Palmer Township and we should consider this for adoption. This meeting will consist of two members of each of the following Boards – Planning Commission, Recreation Board and Board of Supervisors. Two courses available thru LVPC – access management course on April 22 and Basic Course in Subdivision Review. Anyone interested, let Jensen know.

LVPC is now requiring traffic impact study for each plan if it is a requirement of the municipality presently.

Young discussed highlights of tonight’s meeting.

On motion by Rickert, seconded by Wilkins, and agreed by all, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 P.M.

Diane Grube, Corr. Sec.