PALMER TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION

May 13, 2008

The regular monthly meeting of the Palmer Township Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. with all members in attendance except Young. Grube convened the meeting by leading those present with the Pledge to the Flag.

MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING – On motion by Stoneback, seconded by Grandinetti, and agreed by all, the minutes of the April meeting were approved as written.

VILLAGES AT WOLF’S RUN – Van Buren Road – Revised Preliminary Plan – Phil Siebert, Ott Consulting, William Hissam of Strausser Enterprises were present with plans for the Villages at Wolf’s Run. Siebert reviewed plans he had and noted that they had made progress with the conditions that were placed on the plan previously. Siebert noted the Developer felt he wanted to make a change to the preliminary plan. He would like to sell approx. 20 units a year so he would like to divide into more phases. This submitted plan would be considered a revised phasing plan changing from 2 phases to 13. Stage 1 would be approximately 20 homes and the roadways except for the land that is the sedimentation basins and the cul-de-sac. Siebert noted they would rename some roads which was a comment by the Code Department and also they have relocated a pedestrian path slightly. There was discussion about the construction vehicles traveling over roads during construction. Siebert stated construction will be starting on the east side of development and going west, his intent would be to finish a phase before he started another. It was noted that the bridge construction won’t be until 2014. If he does one stage per year it would be 2013 but noted that if the market climbs he would submit an amended plan. Developer noted that they did not want the note on plan that relates to the access easement/driveway to Clover Hill Road driveway. This driveway currently provides access to a land locked parcel which contains two buildings. There is a proposal to incorporate this land into the development and therefore there would be public road access at that point. It was noted that the developer is responsibility of care, maintenance of all roadways during all seasons until these roadways are turned over to township. Alleyways are private, streets are public. Are there any changes to the bike path along Van Buren Road? Siebert noted nothing changed, it is still proposed to be a 12’ wide path. Wilkins discussed the construction roadway noting that for over 6 years these construction vehicles will be right in the back yard of the Glenmoor residents. This is unacceptable to him. Also, why won’t bridge be until 2014? He noted he thought this was the strong link for this development. Seibert noted Strausser would put it in his bond in the first stage but noted that it will take more than a year to obtain permits for the bridge. He noted he would be applying for the permits with the final plan applications. This would be the first thing they would do prior to building any homes on the west side of the creek. Some Commission members thought the bridge was going to be done in the early stages of the development. Departmental comments were reviewed. Planning Director’s comments noted that the developer was asking for a waiver of requirement that suggests not more than four stages. Siebert noted this request is due to the economy and feels the phasing would be better with the amount of homes in each phase. There is an existing tree line between this development and the Glenmoor development. Wilkins does not feel this tree line is significant for the residents in the development. Rizzolino asked about the bike path and why does it stop at the soccer fields. How does it connect to Van Buren Road? Siebert noted it stops at soccer fields because this is not their property, it is township property. This is something the Board of Supervisors should discuss. There is a simple decision to fix this, just permit the developer to go across their property to Van Buren Road. Will have to check the preliminary plan. Everyone feels it should be connected. Stoneback asked if there is anything in our ordinance that states how long a project could take. Bruno noted that within 5 years after they received preliminary approval they must receive final approval, then 1 year for public improvements to be complete. Once project starts is there a time limit; nothing for build out just completing the improvements. If there is a code change after the 5 year time period the new code applies. Kinney discussed the street trees/lighting noted he would like to see, if phased, that these remain adequate with each stage. That each phase has their street lights turned on and street trees in place. He would like to avoid any problems with this. Grandinetti also felt the tree line is not adequate and that the residents at Glenmoor would not be happy with what would be going on for years. The road will be right up against the properties. Siebert noted the road is there so they stay out of the flood plain and that they will stone and stabilize this road. Every year it will be less truck traffic with the construction being complete. Grube noted he had a problem with the number of phases and bridge development. He stated he understands the number of phases due to the economy. Rickert felt she had a problem with the bridge more so than the phasing. Hissam noted they were looking at 2 years for permit and always said they would do the bridge before the 2^nd phase. It could change with the economy. Commission members feel the first stage should have access to bridge even before the second stage is built. Wilkins feels they need the bridge for emergency vehicles. This was the big discussion when this development first came in. Wilkins feels the developer feels it’s not that important now and with a minimum of 2 years for permits is not acceptable. They received preliminary approval already and that was a condition that the bridge permit gets applied for. Siebert stated he will have to discuss this with the developer. Dillman noted they could have been doing something on the bridge already. Siebert noted they have met with DEP and discussed the Meilinger’s situation. He also stated they have satisfied Dr. Ruggle’s issues and that they can’t do what he thought they could. Dillman asked if the actual plans have been designed yet and was told no. They just did the calculations for waterway opening not the structural design. The hydraulic design was prepared but not submitted. If the Commission approves this plan the bridge wouldn’t be until phase 7 and they are not in agreement with this. Siebert was asked if they had any communications with Mandy Companies and Siebert noted they provided them with copies of the Van Buren Road plans. They have not had any further discussion. Rizzolino stated he still wants to see path connected. Rickert did not have a problem with the staging but has a problem with the bridge not getting done. Feels they should reconsider timing on the bridge and show that they are actively working to solve this matter. Bridge/buffering/bike path connections are the issues with this plan. Siebert noted they have revised plans that were revised from the newest township engineer’s

comments which will be forwarded to the engineer for review. There were no further comments by the Commission members, engineer or Planning Director. Grube asked for comments from the audience.

Rich Milberg - 36 Edinburgh asked during the bridge construction would there be closing of any roads. Siebert noted there would have to be. Milberg asked about the traffic from the Majestic building noting that there would be hundreds of vehicles to this building. They would have to find an alternate route. The roadway would have to be closed to get the bridge built. This is something that would have to be discussed when the time got closer. There would have to be a time when the road would have to be closed completely but then it could be closed a lane at a time. Grube then called for a vote. On motion by Grandinetti, seconded by Wilkins, and agreed by all, the Commission voted to table action on this plan.

EASTON AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT – High School Natatorium – Mr. Joe Kish from the School District was present along with Terry DeGroot of Terraform Engineering and Attorney Alan McFall. The School district is proposing a natatorium and noted that the existing gym space would be used for a fitness center, locker rooms, something in that respect. A parking space calculation sheet was distributed to all. This was then discussed. DeGroot noted they have a total of 975 spaces throughout site. Their required spaces is 747. There are 771 spaces closest to the school building and an addition 204 at the west end of the property. If they lose the 50 spaces at this proposed natatorium they will still have 925. Commission members noted they had no further questions or comments as everything has been answered. Brian Harman asked that a preliminary plan include all spaces on the property along with all calculations required. Commission thanked the gentlemen for coming. As this is a sketch plan there is no action required.

PROPOSED ORDINANCES – At the last meeting Dillman distributed proposed ordinance changes for the Standard Construction Requirements that they will be going by as well as distributing to contractors at pre-construction meetings and for use guidelines for contractors doing work in the township. This proposal has general information in it as well for use by contractors. This is a revision to the SALDO. On motion by Wilkins, seconded by Grube, and agreed by all, the Commission voted to recommend approval of the changes of the Standard Construction Requirements by the Board of Supervisors.

Improvements Security Ordinance – Bruno noted there have been proposed changes made in improvements security ordinances. If over the course of time developers need extensions for their security this will allow the township to update their security and costs improvements. This also gives us the ability to revisit the amount that the township has security for. It would not change the percentage that was originally approved. On motion by Rickert, seconded by Wilkins, and agreed by all, the Commission voted to recommend approval of the Improvements Security Ordinance by the Board of Supervisors.

Gil Greene - 32 Edinburgh Dr. – asked if these improvement security changes would apply to current developments? Bruno told him that any ordinance would apply to those developments that are approved following the adopting of the ordinance. Other developments are still required to go by the rules in place now.

Planning Director – Kinney discussed street lighting in new developments. Typically they are placed at corners throughout the developments. He noted there is quite a lot of time between the placement of the light and the energizing of them. The electric company will not deal with the developer and the township does not want to pay for the lights until everything is done. This is something that has to be looked into. It’s not right that a resident buys a home and doesn’t get lighting for 5 phases later. Need a procedure for this. What percentage of the development being completed before lights are to be energized.

Meeting adjourned 8:30 p.m.

Diane Grube, Corr. Sec.