PALMER TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION

November 12, 2008

The regular meeting of the Palmer Township Planning Commission was held on Wednesday, November 12, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. with all members in attendance except Rizzolino. Also present was Planning Director George Kinney, Solicitor Charles Bruno and Engineer Brian Harmon. Chairman Grube convened the meeting by leading those present in the Pledge to the Flag.

MINUTES FROM OCTOBER – On motion by Rickert, seconded by Wilkins, and agreed by five, Stoneback abstaining, the minutes were approved as written.

VICTOR RICCI – Park Avenue – Victor Ricci, owner of property was present along with his engineer, Barry Good of Barry Isett & Associates. The township engineer’s letter was reviewed. Ricci noted that the recreational vehicle center will be removed and relocated to the second floor of the new building. The lower level of this new proposed building will consist of two retail businesses equaling less than 1,000 sq. ft. Sidewalks for the frontage of Park Avenue and Rt. 248 were discussed. Ricci noted years ago they proposed to install sidewalk on 248 and were told they would not be allowed due to the sewer underground. He would like a deferral for sidewalks along these two roadways. It is very dangerous for pedestrians to walk along these roads. Brian Harman agrees that the corner is the problem. If a deferral is requested it is usually shown on the plan. This should be shown as well as the easement through the property. Ricci noted he has steps now for pedestrians to use but they are not an identified easement. If a new owner came they could get rid of the steps. There needs to be an easement on this. Harman noted he would like to see the sidewalk to the steps and then the easement through the property so people can walk through here. Ricci asked where they want to see this. He needed suggestions on this. Is there any type of restrictions on this? Does anyone have a preferred route? Harman stated he didn’t have a preferred route but suggested one that at some point in the future could become a sidewalk should the deferral become inactive and the sidewalk would need to be installed. Rickert felt interior was a good due to the dangerous roads. This easement needs to be shown on the plan as well as the sidewalk for the deferral request.

Ricci noted that they can’t make the entrance any smaller than 300’ or the fire trucks can’t make the turn. The proposed bank/salon building is in the back of the parking lot and won’t generate much traffic. If they have to make the exit right turn only there will be a problem with trucks traveling thru residential areas. Can this stay as is? Commission’s feelings is that this has worked for years and feels this will not be a problem to stay as is. Applicant is asking for a waiver of the street lighting/street trees. Grube noted that all requests would be deferral not waivers and everything must be shown on the plan. Good noted he had a letter for these deferrals but it will have to be revised and submitted to Kinney. Good asked about the voluntary traffic contribution stating that since their proposal is going to be a very low impact will this be required. This is a Board of Supervisors issue and should be discussed with them. Good noted that Penn dot does allow sign posts within clear sight triangle. The sign is raised and not in the clear sight triangle. Harman noted they received from Penn dot the HOP’s for both of these proposals and they agreed that the sign and sign post placements are okay. Young asked if they were going to have signs for the new businesses and Ricci stated they have already been through the Zoning Hearing Board for this and there will be signs on the building, no free standing signs. As far as the lighting plan Good and Ricci feel it would be difficult to create a new lighting plan. This market has been in place for years. They will definitely have lights for the new proposed building but they ask that they not have to prepare a lighting plan for the existing area. Harman noted this should be deferred to the lighting consultant. They should include this request with all the other information that has to be submitted to Kinney. Good feels there isn’t a whole lot there that they can’t comply with. The township departmental comments were reviewed and noted that the new sq. footage is 4,000 sq. ft. so a sprinkler system is not required. They will install the 2 knox boxes that are required. Young asked if they will have to come back to this Commission when they get their tenants or is this something the zoning officer looks at. Bruno stated they would go to the zoning officer for uses based on allowable uses in this district. Ricci noted they went before the Zoning Hearing Board and were approved for the most stringent use to calculate the parking. There were no other comments or questions by the Commission or applicant. Grube motioned to table action on this plan. Motion was seconded by Young Grube asked if there were any questions on the motion. Seeing none he called for a vote which was approved by all.

EASTON SUBURBAN WATER AUTHORITY – Hartley Avenue – Craig Swinsburg, representative of the Water Authority and their engineer Ryan Christman were present seeking clarification on the engineer’s letter as well as the bike path subject i.e., where is it to be? Width? Harman noted that the township’s standard for the bike path is 12 foot wide paved path. Does the township want this within the easement or in the right-of-way? With the grade outside the right-of-way you are getting into the retaining wall. If they go behind curb there needs to be room for street trees but they can move it in as far as possible. The storm sewer system along South Nulton Avenue property frontage was discussed. This system was previously proposed and approved through the Remaly Industrial Park subdivision and this would be the time to install it. Christman asked if this was their responsibility and Bruno stated yes. This is something that will be for each individual lot along the roadway. Christman stated they had a conference call with DEP and received some comments from them and a geotechnical engineer. Then they received different opinions from the consultant and noted this is very confusing. There will be a meeting on December 1^st to discuss this system. Christman asked if they could review the waivers/deferrals and Bruno recommended the Commission could comment on these but not make any decision until the plan is voted on. As far as the sidewalks Commission noted that the bike path would take the place of the sidewalks but feel the curbing should not be deferred. They should provide an easement area for future bike path. Storm water on Nulton Avenue was then discussed that was based on someone else’s design. Can they use someone else’s design? Bruno noted yes, this design has been approved and can use the approved system. Christman noted there are not many planning issues but the major issue is the storm water issue. They need to get approval for this from DEP but noted that it doesn’t meet the township ordinance issue. He has concerns from various directions. DEP wants infiltration to get rid of the water. This is not allowed by township ordinance. Young asked who makes the final call. When does this stop. Bruno noted that by our ordinance we have the final say however if something is received from DEP and they have good support for what they are requesting then there may be a waiver with the ordinance. Christman noted they can’t get a waiver for the ordinance. Bruno noted we have to work on one thing at a time. See what happens with the meeting on the first but noted that an extension would be needed for this project. A verbal extension has been given to 12/31/08. Rickert motioned to table action on this plan pending resolution to the storm water issue. Motion was seconded by Stoneback. Grube asked for any questions on the motion. Seeing none he called for a vote which was approved by all.

VILLAGES AT WOLF’S RUN – STAGE 1 - FINAL PLAN – Mr. Phil Seibert was present and stated that this submittal is just creating 1 lot, Lot #200 which has frontage on Van Buren Road. The creation of this lot does not involve construction of any improvements to Van Buren Road and there are no buildings presently planned for this lot. Seibert stated they were asked to submit a revised staging plan which he did. He also noted that they had rearranged the first 6 stages. Stage 2 will include 22 lots and the connection of Scotty and Stephanie Drives and all utilities in the East Village as well as road improvements along Van Buren Road. Stage 1 Mr. Strausser will be posting security for all improvements thru stage 6. The first homes built in Stage 2 will be the ones further into the development and work outward. All construction access will be on the construction road off of Van Buren Road that has been approved thru lot 1. There will be no construction vehicles thru Scotty or Stephanie Drives. Seibert noted there are no comments in the engineer’s letter to review as they have made all planning issue changes and they have no other. Departmental comments were reviewed with no problems. Grube highlighted for the audience what the Commission is looking at for this staging plan. He noted there are no buildings being reviewed Wilkins noted last month there was some confusion on this plan and this straightens out a lot of questions. Grube then called for questions from the audience.

Bill Dengler – 138 Glenmoor Circle – Commented on the construction road in stage 1. Is the purpose of this is so this lot can be built? Did the proposed buyer of this lot agree with this road to stay through the stages 2 thru 6? Seibert stated yes they are obligated to follow this plan. Dengler noted he saw on the plan that there was a schedule for stages 2 thru 12 and that stage 2 is the bridge which would be in 2009. Is that a fixed or tentative date? Seibert responded that it is a tentative date. Dengler stated this development started with a preliminary plan for stage 2; is there a preliminary plan required for this stage? Bruno responded no that they went thru the preliminary plan stage and are now in the final plan stage. Dengler asked if things can discuss at this stage. Bruno explained that preliminary plans stage has all the pertinent information on that which has already been approved.

Betty Bergbower – 102 Glenmoor Circle – asked what was the time frame of stage 1? Commission noted they don’t have anything on this yet.

Art Schlessinger - 19 Canterbury Lane – would like to be clear as to whether or not this is going to be a residential building in a residential area or not. Can’t answer this – there is no plan for this yet.

Bruno – the land development plan for the life care facility is still on the table but not being talked about tonight. This is just for the creation of this lot. There has been nothing new.

Dengler – stated he heard Mr. Weston is redesigning this building. Wants to know when this is coming back to this Commission.

Grube noted they can not tell them; we have no idea – we have no plan. We don’t know.

Kevin Conlin - 9 Canterbury Lane – asked if the combination of 2 lots is a requirement? Grube responded they are not combining anything.

Bruno explained that lot 200 is part of a larger portion and is being divided, not added to.

Gloria Padula - 1 Canterbury Lane asked the Commission that when this is approved to please take into consideration the impact of the traffic and the community. Their community is self sufficient and causes no problems to the township. They would like the courtesy and understanding. If building is built as the assisted living and there is a parking lot there could be a craft show in parking lot. Also making a left out of their development is very difficult.

Mary Dengler - 138 Glenmoor Circle stated she has been coming to these meetings so many times and she gets the impression that this Board doesn’t want to hear from them and that these decisions have already made and that Mr. Strausser has met with all of you. Each Commission member objected to this allegation. If he keeps coming back it’s his prerogative.

Tony Davis - 139 Glenmoor Circle asked if this lot can become a lot for residential. Bruno stated this lot must develop pursuant to our ordinance. If they decide to build a single family lot and it is a permitted use then it’s okay.

Dengler – 138 Glenmoor Circle asked if someone was to come along and request a change for zoning use, is it possible? Bruno noted anyone can request a zoning use change to the Board of Supervisors but they have to entertain this request.

There being no further comments or questions Grube called for a vote. On motion by Rickert, seconded by Wilkins and agreed by all, the Commission voted to recommend final approval of the revised preliminary plan conditioned that the township engineer’s letter dated July 2, 2008 and departmental comments dated July 8, 2008 are fulfilled.

On motion by Stoneback, seconded by Young, and agreed by all, the Commission recommended final approval for Stage One conditioned that all comments in the township engineer’s letter dated November 7, 2008 and departmental comments dated November 12, 2008 be complied with.

Planning Director – Kinney hoped everyone enjoyed their first edition of the planning commission pamphlet. Some reviewed it already and noted it was a good idea.

Kinney also noted that he received a call from a restaurant that was interested in the Don Pablo’s site.

Public comment – none.

Grube wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving!

On motion by Young, seconded by Rickert, and agreed by all, the meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m.

Diane Grube, Corr. Sec.