PALMER TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION

AUGUST 12, 2008

The regular monthly meeting of the Palmer Township Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 12, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. with all members in attendance except Grube and Stoneback. Also present were Planning Director George Kinney, Engineer Brian Harman and Solicitor Charles Bruno. Vice Chairperson Rickert convened the meeting by leading those present in the Pledge to the Flag.

PREVIOUS MINUTES – The minutes from the July meeting were approved as written on motion by Grandinetti, seconded by Wilkins, and agreed by all.

Charles Bruno announced to the applicants that due to the fact there are only four members of the Commission tonight they would need a 4-0 vote to get the plan passed along to the Board of Supervisors and noted they have a choice to follow through with their plan tonight or ask to have it tabled and return next month.

VILLAGES AT WOLF’S RUN – Revised Preliminary Plan – Van Buren Road - Siebert noted that when the chairperson introduced the plan and noted it was a revised preliminary plan that was incorrect, that it was a final plan. Bruno stated that this plan was submitted previously and that this plan is for staging of the development and that it is for more than phasing. Since the preliminary plan was not approved for staging it must go that route – have the preliminary plan for staging approved first. He further informed everyone that the applicant is here for tonight for just the staging of the development. This is the first step that has to be accomplished tonight. Siebert noted then that there really isn’t that much for discussion tonight. He was asked if there was anything new from last month. Siebert noted nothing concerning the staging. Siebert informed the Commission that in the first stage they would be taking care of the bonding for the improvements for the first 6 stages which includes the bridge and the improvements to Van Buren Road. The township engineer’s letter of July 2, 2008 deals with the preliminary plan and that is the letter this Commission should go by. Next month they could make submission for the final plan for the preliminary plan if this goes through tonight. Siebert noted they were keeping the two plans separate; the overall plan and the staging plan. Siebert stated they have made an application to the Zoning Hearing Board for the issues for the Weston project for the parking in the flood plain and the height requirement of the building. These issues have to be addressed by zoning before they would come before this Commission. Rickert asked the Planning Director and Township Engineer if they have anything to add. Kinney reviewed some general engineer comments. Conditions were outlined in the township engineer’s letter dated July 2, 2008. Wilkins motioned to recommend approval of the revised plan with the following conditions set: All township engineer’s comments in their letter of July 2, 2008 to be satisfied; all departmental comments of July 8, 2008 to be satisfied; retain construction access consistent with the originally approved preliminary plan; reorganize staging from south to north in the East Village; retain original plan note for the easement of access Lot #53 of Fox Run Estates, consistent with the originally approved preliminary plan; enter into an agreement to extend the pedestrian/bicycle path through the Fox Run athletic fields; obtain approvals from the Northampton County Conservation District; modify plan note 1 (stages 1 through 6) and plan note 1 (stages 7 through 13) to require the satisfaction installation of sidewalks, driveway aprons, and street trees prior to beginning the construction of any stage. Motion also includes a waiver request for approval of the requirement to permit multiple stages containing less than 25% of the total number of dwelling and deferrals for the installation of the pavement wearing course, sidewalks and driveway aprons and the installation of street trees until such time as each building stage is completed. The motion was seconded by Grandinetti.

Rickert asked if there were any questions on the motion on the floor.

Bill Dengler - 138 Glenmoor Circle asked if this approval of includes approval of construction road? Rickert noted the motion on the floor is that this applicant must be consistent with what was originally approved. Brian Harman noted the construction road will be on the north end of the development off of Van Buren Road. Dengler asked what happened to the traffic coming in thru Scotty Drive and was told that they can not do that. Another resident of Glenmoor asked how close to property line will this construction road be also stating it will be there for at least 6 years. Harman noted the location is approximately 30 – 40 feet south of the property line and further stated this location was determined by the Northampton County Conservancy District. Dengler and other residents asked why can’t this road run further to the south and stay right in line in the cul-de-sac; why can’t it be further away from the rear yards? Why don’t you put the construction road along the creek/give us some consideration and have the road further away from the rear yards. There is a lot of property to move it. Another resident noted the applicant is asking for more stages than are allowed and he is opposed to the stretching out the stages in this development.

Bob Guernick - 136 Glenmoor Circle asked how can they build for 6 years. He stated he was told by his real estate agent that there was not going to be any building in this area.

John Halligan – 12 Cantebury Lane asked what happened to the southern entrance that was connecting the West Village to the East Village. Siebert noted that was abandoned due to cost. Halligan asked why this construction road is being the only road considered; why not consider a vehicular bridge to use. Siebert stated they abandoned any ideas of crossing a bridge early in planning stage of this development since the requirements for a bridge were out of budget range due to price and that this money has to be used for the bridge on Van Buren Road.

Rickert asked if there were any further comments on this motion. Seeing none she thanked everyone for their comments and called for a vote. Grandinetti first stated that this construction road item should be passed on to the Board of Supervisors to get resolved. Rickert then called for a vote which was approved by all.

PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENT – Rickert noted in reviewing the township ordinance there are times when they realize something is in need of revising. Kinney noted there were a few major inconsistencies that need to be corrected and reviewed these changes which are as follows:

§190-210CB.

(2338) Life-Care Facility.

(a) Density to be determined with input from Planning Commission, Township Engineer and Solicitor. Suggestions below:

The maximum gross density within a life-care community shall not exceed five (5) dwelling units per acre. For the purposes of this section, four (4) beds for patient, resident and/or staff person use provided within the life-care facility shall be deemed the equivalent of one (1) dwelling unit. (Source – South Middletown Township)

-or-

The allowable density of a life/care facility shall be determined by the review authority through the Conditional Use Permit process. (Source – Pasadena, California)

(b) A minimum tract area of six acres is required.

~~(c) Maximum impervious coverage: 60%~~

~~(d) Maximum height: 2 1/2 stories or 35 feet, whichever is more restrictive.~~

(ed) Support facilities.

A life-care facility may provide dwelling units in any combination of single or multiple-family dwellings and shall include a continuum of care and services including independent living, assisted living and skilled nursing home facilities. Additional facilities provided as part of the life care community may include:

[1] Any office or retail facilities ~~shall be~~ for the use of residents and their guests only. No outside advertising is permitted. The office or retail uses may occupy a maximum of 10% of the total floor area and shall be limited to the following uses: barbershop, beauty parlor, pharmacy (as an adjunct to the life-care nursing facility), commissary, newsstand, gift shop, snack bar/coffee shop, thrift shop and handicraft shop. A sit down restaurant open to the general public may also be allowed as an accessory use if completely integrated with the overall development and not within a freestanding structure.

[2] Nursing home. Any nursing home shall be designed to eventually primarily serve the residents of the life care center. Long-term nursing beds within this facility shall not exceed one bed per three dwelling units.

[3] Other noncommercial support facilities may include lounge areas, reading rooms, craft rooms, common dining facilities, activity rooms, library, community center, recreation rooms and similar uses.

(fe) Recreation area. At least 35% of the site shall be maintained as open areas, which shall not include detention basins, parking lots, accessory buildings or any impervious surfaces except those used for recreational purposes (including paved trails). At least 20% of the site, which may be considered part of the open areas, shall be developed for passive recreation. This area shall include outdoor sitting areas and pedestrian walks. No outdoor sitting areas shall be located on slopes in excess of 8%.

(gf)Transportation. The developer of a life-care facility shall outline a transportation service that will be provided to the residents of the life-care facility to reach essential services, unless the site is serviced by the public bus system. The life-care center should also include a covered bus stop or other appropriate area for the loading and unloading of bus passengers.

(g) Parking. To be determined. For consideration: 0.5 per resident/bed + 1 per each staff person.

Rickert noted the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission has received these proposals and we are awaiting comment by that Commission. Grandinetti motioned to recommend approval of these text changes which were discussed. Motion was seconded by Rizzolino. Rickert asked if there were any questions on the motion.

Resident from 16 Glenmoor Circle asked how many acres the proposed life care facility is requesting and was told 10. He stated that the approval of this ordinance would allow 200 beds. He also noted that health care facilities provide transportation so where do the residents park. Bruno informed the gentleman that this has to be worked out during the conditional use request process. The residents will have cars, employees have cars. Rickert noted this parking situation will be discussed during a submission on this. Another resident asked about the height requirement and if the zoning laws will be changed. Solicitor felt it would not.

Rickert then called for a voted which was approved by all.

Villages at Wolf’s Run – final plan - On motion by Wilkins, seconded by Grandinetti, and agreed by all, the Commission voted to table action on this final plan.

TOWNHOUSES ON WILLIAMSON STREET – Don Frederickson and Ed Melhem, developer and Attorney Steven Goudsouzian. Frederickson reviewed the history of this plan and what took place over the past few years. One issue is that they are proposing a lot line adjustment as the adjoining owner would like a section of this property, but the township engineer stated in their letter that they would like to see the full property frontage improvements and now the property owner is not interested in this. Frederickson requested that the carbonite requirements be waived since this project started prior to this requirement. There is a rezoning request that has been passed previously by the Board of Supervisors but there were zoning variances to be satisfied. This went to court and has been resolved. Now they are back here for their approval in addition to the rezoning request. This plan is before this Commission with their proposed conditional use/rezoning request/subdivision plan. This project was in Zoning litigation and there was an objector but the issue has been addressed by planting of the berm/landscaping. Is being addressed but not complete at this time. Kinney pointed out the staff comments as well as there being a number of requirements that were to be submitted with plans and have not been. He noted the landscape plan does not have a decent legend as well as a tree legend. Frederickson noted this is going to be a typical condo development and Kinney noted before this goes to the Board of Supervisors the landscape plan needs to be submitted. Also the waiver for the carbonate requirements must be submitted in writing. Kinney recommended that this plan be tabled until more information is submitted. Frederickson noted they will return next month with a more complete submission. Grandinetti motioned to table this plan. Wilkins seconded the motion. Rickert asked for comments on the motion and seeing none she called for a vote which was approved by all to table this plan at this time.

PALMER BUSINESS PARK – Nick Pugliese, developer, Don Frederickson, Engineer were present. Frederickson noted prior to this proposal there was a submittal and an approval for a restaurant but now would like to use it as a medical building. The footprint is identical as is the parking. It would be a 2 story building and occupied by professionals. There are other doctors offices in the neighborhood and feels this is a good proposal. Frederickson noted this is a sketch plan and they would like to have the same considerations and comments that Mr. Pugliese received for the previous plan. Rickert asked about the shared parking that was proposed for the restaurant and Frederickson stated that that will not be necessary for a doctor’s office. There will not be much traffic as the doctor does most of his work in the hospital. The traffic will be much less than a restaurant. Pugliese asked about the truck turn around for trash trucks, etc. He would have to verify this and have the information with the submission. He would need to reaffirm what was previously approved. Frederickson noted the largest fire vehicle will not fit around the building. This is to go to the fire department staff for review. They would like to proceed with this lot first and then extend to the other lot. They had previously received approval to have the driveway less than 100 feet from intersection; and noted that the swale and sidewalk are not to extended along Kunkle Drive; and felt they were grandfathered on the storm water management ordinances. Rickert asked for comments from members and they stated they were okay with the concept; Wilkins felt it was better that the restaurant. Applicant noted they would withdraw the preliminary plan that was previously approved. Commission also noted they were okay with what waivers that were discussed.

EASTON AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT – Edgewood Avenue - deferral requests – Joe Kish, representative of the School District and James Mazeika of Barry Isett & Associates were present with a request for a deferral for their project on Edgewood Avenue. This request would be for the improvements, sidewalks, pathways, driveway aprons and fences as well as street lighting, street trees, tree preservation and historic buildings, monuments and lot pins and curbing. The representative noted that the school district has utilized this existing site with minor modifications and improvements and feel these improvements should not be warranted. Rickert noted she is familiar with the site but finds it confusing if it for the front of the property or rear of the property. Parking deferral requests are for the complex not just a specific place. Kish was asked if anyone walk to this school and he stated once in a while someone does. He noted they will not be dropping off students on Edgewood Avenue anymore, there will be a drop off site. They do have enough parking for the site. Spaces in the rear are marked. They are asking for deferral of requirements that are typical for a new land development, such as roadway improvements; etc. Bruno stated procedural there is a problem. This was a conditional use approval, never a land development submission and you can’t ask for a deferral on a plan when there wasn’t a plan submitted. There is no conditional use application made at this time. Need direction as to which way to go. There needs to be a conditional use application before it gets to the Board of Supervisors. It was noted that they were asking to modify the originally conditional use approval. Bruno noted there are 2 choices – recommend approval or denial to the Board of Supervisors conditioned with submitting conditional use modification. Rickert felt in regards to the bike path this is important. Harman noted they do not have an issue but they have to go thru the procedure and noted they would not object if they were not there. Rickert noted she felt the amendments requested are not needed in this area. Harman noted he did not disagree and other Commission members felt this way also. Wilkins motioned to recommend approval of the deferral requests for the following sections of the ordinance – 165-57; 156-69; 165-70; 165-73; 165-74; 165-75 which pertain to improvements, conditioned that the applicant enters into a agreement with the township in regards to the bike path. Feels the bike way should be protected, and that a conditional use application is submitted. Motion was seconded by Grandinetti. Rickert asked for questions from the audience and seeing none called for a vote which was approved by all.

WOODRIDGE FALLS – Stephen A. Santola, representative from Woodmont Properties was present along with their Solicitor James Preston and Engineer Don Frederickson. Mr. Santola reviewed their proposed project and noted that it is a difficult site but feel they have a good design. He noted they would be connecting Grandview Drive which would become a signalized intersection and there is a lot of open space. There will be an earthen/landscaped berm around property for buffering the neighbors. The overhead wires will run along utility poles, not underground. He stated the center of the development is their focal point which could consist of a dog run; gathering place; activity place. At this time Frederickson reviewed the site plan stating there will be a regional detention pond. Frederickson stated he felt the layout fits the land and they have a good type of apartments for this area. The proposal is for a 318 unit residential development consisting 100 townhouses, 216 low-rise apartments and 2 single family lots. They are also proposing some private driveways with off street parking for overflow. The homes will have garages and 2 off street parking. There will be the relocation of power line placed along utility poles. Dunkle Street will not be continued due to the bad intersection at Freemansburg Avenue and they will not extend any streets from the Woodridge Falls development. The traffic signal at Freemansburg Avenue is a big point. There was discussion on this signal and Supervisor Lammi noted it will be going out for bid in 2 – 3 months. The township needed to acquire property for this project. Tom Rance – Berks Street asked about the light and when it was going to be in. Frederickson stated he was working with the township on this. They are not proposing sidewalks for this development so this is something that would need to be discussed. Kinney suggested a bicycle path in this area. Commission members noted it is a good idea not to have the driveways coming out into the roadway. Frederickson stated the applicant needs help to make this a successful project and the applicant is willing to work with township staff. He noted they are aware that they need zoning relief on some items. Kinney also suggested that a large project like this should have a community meeting to get everyone’s feelings. Bruno noted this is only a sketch plan and informed everyone on the process that they will need to take. Rickert ask if there were any questions.

Tim Fuehrer – Grandview Drive – stated there was a previous plan approval for Zawarski and with that plan the traffic was going to be a burden on Grandview Drive and Berks Street. With this plan increasing from 157 single to over 300 units how will this extension alleviate the traffic. Frederickson noted some of the apartments are 1 bedroom and some are 2 bedroom which will be less traffic than the single family homes. This is going to be a very different lifestyle development than the normal single family home lifestyle. John Henning - Glen Avenue – discussed the school district numbers.

Rickert thanked everyone for their comments as well as the applicant for their presentation.

PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT – Kinney stated that there was a sketch plan proposed for a site and noted this is how we got to the zoning amendment. It is for a distribution center. Porsche regional headquarters is proposing a regional office in a portion of the Chrin Commerce Center. It will consist of offices, parts distribution/warehousing and training center for dealers. There will be little activity at a facility like this. Zoning ordinance does not have provisions for this. Kinney noted he wanted to get this proposed ordinance into the mix when the township was making other changes to it. This would limit the number of docking bays, etc. and they can’t maintain docking bays on both sides. He noted this proposal was for Lot 7 and 8 combined in the development. Porsche wuld like to break ground in October with completion in February. There was some discussion on the amendment and it was noted that if Porsche would every leave there is still a usable facility. Good use for this area, a high end user. This is a difference with limited distribution center and a trucking company terminal. There will be fewer trucks and vehicular movement. The route that trucks can take to this area would be Newlins Mill Road, Van Buren Road, Hollo Road, Commerce Way and Rt. 248. Solicitor Bruno noted that what this Commission is passing will benefit the entire zone. This proposal is very desirable for this area. Grandinetti motioned to to recommend approval of the proposed zoning text. Motion was seconded by Rizzolino. Rickert asked if there were any questions on the motion. Richard Milburn – Edenberg Road asked if this change would effect the Majestic Project and was told yes it will because this is in the zoning district that they are amending, this will effect this zoning district wherever it is. Lammi stated they agreed to 200,000 sq. ft. building with no thru docks. Bruno informed all that the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission has reviewed this amendment noted they have no objection to this amendment. Rickert called for a vote which was approved by all.

SUBURBAN WATER AUTHORITY – No one was present tonight. Bruno noted they have a timing issue. There are storm water issues that need to be resolved. Bruno recommended the Commission deny the plan conditioned that their recommendation be recinded if a time extension is received thru the end of September. On motion by Wilkins, seconded by Grandinetti, and agreed by all, the Board recommended denial of this plan to the Board of Supervisors conditioned that this recommendation be recinded if a time extension through the end of September is received.

Planning Director’s comments – Kinney showed the Commission the board he made of Freemansburg Avenue and discussed a zoning overlay for this area. This is something that needs to be reviewed and he noted he had a request from Mr. Buckl on Freemansburg Avenue at Sheridan Drive to be included in this study. He informed the Commission that he needs guidance as to how far he should go on Freemansburg Avenue. There are a lot of choices for this. Commission feels he should do the complete roadway from boundary line to boundary line. Kinney will look to see if there is any economic development money thru the county.

On motion by Wilkins, seconded by Grandinetti, and agreed by all, the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.

Diane Grube, Corr. Sec.