PALMER TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION

PUBLIC MEETING     SEPTEMBER 8, 2009    7:00 P.M.

 

The regular monthly meeting of the Palmer Township Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, September 8, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in the Palmer Library meeting room with the following in attendance:  Chairman Tom Grube, Vice Chairman Virginia Rickert, members Ron Grandinetti, Rich Wilkins and Jeff Young.  Also present were Planning Director Cyndie Carman, Solicitor Charles Bruno, Engineer Brian Harman and Supervisor Liaison Robert Lammi.  Absent from the meeting were Tony Rizzolino and Jo-Ann Stoneback.

 

Minutes of Public Meeting of August 11, 2009 – On motion by Rickert, seconded by Grandinetti, and agreed by all, the minutes were approved as written.  

 

OLD BUSINESS

 

      WOODRIDGE FALLS III, Grandview Dr., Palmer LP & Woodmont Properties

      Zoning Text Amendment - Conditional Use - Preliminary Plan

 

Attorney James Preston and Engineer Don Frederickson were present seeking approval for this Preliminary plan as well as the zoning text amendment.  Frederickson stated they had received relief by Zoning Hearing Board conditioned that the text amendment was approved. Commission reviewed the proposed text amendment.  Rickert noted that one of the issues that was discussed at the last meeting was the height of the buildings and this is addressed in the text amendment.  At the last meeting this Commission was comfortable with this plan but waited until they appeared before the zoning Hearing Board.  They questioned the action for the conditional use and the solicitor stated they could hold off on that action until the final plan stage.  Wilkins asked about any waivers and no one had any problems with them. Young stated he had some concerns with the amendment and wanted to review it.  He wondered how this will affect other places in township, in the future. Carman stated in reviewing this from the beginning she looked at not just how this will help the applicant but how this helps the township as a whole.   She noted that the increasing of the density is keeping with the recommendations that were recently released by Lehigh Valley Planning Commission who are encouraging municipalities to allow density increases under certain conditions.  She is comfortable that these changes will apply elsewhere in township and will provide incentives to others.

 

Young asked what kind of conditions and she noted that it could be to provide additional density in exchange for a developer to provide significant infrastructure issues but would be up to the Board of Supervisors to approve.  Young asked Lammi if he remember that in the past when we had these bonuses with no teeth into the context and developers benefitted from it and then it had to be taken away.  Lammi responded that they had to wait to see what the density was going to be to see what the bonuses were and they will be discussed on a case by case basis.  Young questioned the off street parking and what is applicant asking for that the ordinance doesn’t cover now.  Carman responded that the present ordinance requires 2 parking spaces per unit regardless of the number of bedrooms.  They are asking to reduce the number of parking for the one bedroom units.  The applicant had previously looked at eliminating the need for overflow parking for visitors but has now received deferral of those spaces by the Zoning Hearing Board. There is an attachment to this approval and it will be in the improvements agreement that if in the future the Township feels a need for this overflow parking the developer will be responsible to install it.  This will be up to two years.  Young questioned the roofs for the increased heights and wanted to make sure we don’t end up with flat roofs at 48 ft.  Carman stated this would not exclude them from asking for this.  Jeff feels that if anything was over 35 feet it would have to be a peaked roof.  This should be in the ordinance some place.  

 

Young then questioned the accessory structures being allowed in the apartment section.  Carman stated they are proposing garage structures outside of the apartment “ring”.   Young asked if any other accessory structures, like sheds would be allowed?   He stated they should be more specific; they do not want multiple accessory structures.  This amendment is specific to low rise apartment buildings but this will be looked into in case there are any future submissions for a low rise apartment complex.  We certainly don’t want multiple accessory building, other than garages and Bruno has to figure out the wording for this.  It was noted that the setback would be reduced from 80 feet to 10 feet but would require a buffer.  Bruno suggested at this time that everyone knows what is proposed for this project and they are not looking for this amendment to change for this project but for future projects and other places in township.  This amendment should be looked at further as no one has to make a recommendation tonight.  Bruno recommended this be discussed later and noted that Young raised some very good points. This will not be voted on tonight.

 

Rickert motioned to recommend preliminary plan approval for Woodridge Falls III conditioned that the proposed zoning text amendment be approved; departmental comments dated 8/11/09 are satisfied as well as the township engineer’s letter dated 8/7/09; the following waivers be approved –

 

·        Preliminary Plan Checklist Item C.4: Approximate location of buildings or Drainage channels within 200-feet of the boundaries of the tract;

·        Preliminary Plan Checklist Item D.9 and D.10: Locations of individual mature trees of greater than 6-inches trunk diameter, other than within forested areas and tree lines, and locations of individual trees greater than 18-inches trunk diameter;

·        §165-59.F(1): Right-of-way width and cartway width (within the private driveways 50-feet right-of-way and 26-foot cartway required, no right-of-way and 25-foot cartway provided);

·        §165-59.F(3)(b): Length of vertical curve on a Collector Street;

·        §165-59.F(3)(c): Length of vertical curve on a Local Street (within private driveways);

·        §165-63.K(2)(d): Maximum depth of flow in the emergency spillway of 1-foot (2-feet proposed);

·        §165-63.K(3): Maximum inside slope of an earthen detention basin embankment of 4:1 (3:1 provided); and that the following deferrals be approved –

·        §165-69.C(1): Requirement for sidewalks within street right-of-way (within the private driveway); and

·        §165-75.A: Requirement for curb along streets (within the driveway along the townhouse areas).

 

Recommendation is also based on the conditional use being approved as well as the zoning map amendment.  Wilkins seconded this motion.  Young asked about the parking spaces and Carman noted this was granted by the Zoning Hearing Board so we didn’t have to do anything on this. 

Grube asked if there were any comments by the audience.

 

Gayne Knitowski – 1223 Anna Marie Street stated he had a problem with the 48 foot height for the apartments.  Why isn’t this Board looking into how this will affect the surrounding homes.  He was told that the apartments are 800 feet from surrounding properties along Anna Marie Street.  There are some buildings that are closer but they sit down in a knoll and they are 48 feet.  The closest building to Anna Marie Street properties is approximately 600 feet.  There will be ample screenings on an embankment.  The top elevation of the berm is 328 feet with plantings on top of that.  Carman stated that apartments are a permitted use in this area and could already to go 45 feet with conditional use approval. 

 

Grube called for a vote which was approved by all.

 

The Commission is not making any recommendations on the text amendment but it was decided to take comments on it from the audience. 

 

Mr. Bill Dengler, 136 Glenmoor Cr. asked about the height issue.  The wording in the HDR2 district is exactly the same as HDR.  Why not make the change for both districts, why only considering this district and only one project.

 

NEW BUSINESS:

 

                  NORTHWOOD CENTER, Rt. 248 b/w Kingston Rd. & Northwood Ave., Strausser Enterprises - Sketch Plan

 

Owner, Gary Strausser and his Engineer Domenick Colangelo were present with plans for this development.  Strausser stated that they had submitted their plans and application for preliminary plan review.  At that time they did not submit a required traffic study so they are requesting that their application be reviewed as a sketch plan.  They are in the process of doing the traffic study and it will be submitted when completed.  Colangelo noted the location and the tenants will be Sheetz, a retail store and a CVS on the site.   It will be a right turn in and right turn out only off of 248.  There will be a driveway connection on Kingston Road and Northwood Avenue.  Strausser is going to try to preserve the bank on corner.  He stated he is going to try to move it into the Wolf’s Run development.   Right now he doesn’t know what the retail store will be.  The extension of Nightingale Drive will actually be a private driveway to the back of the stores.  Carman noted the overlay district recommends a shared drive to get traffic off of 248.  Young asked where the overlay ends.  The bank on the corner is in the overlay district.  Wilkins stated if someone leaves the complex going south they have to go out onto Northwood Avenue to the light or go to Kingston Road where there isn’t a light.  Is this a possible location to install a traffic signal?   Lammi noted the township has been looking at Van Buren Road and 248 and signalizing that intersection but it would be extremely expensive.  They are trying to make that intersection safer which may mean not allowing left turns onto 248 from Van Buren Road.  Rickert asked if there could be a signal at Kingston and Rt. 248?  Lammi stated maybe as part of this project and the traffic study would show this.  Grube asked Strausser if this project would be phased as far as building.  Strausser replied he needs to work with the bank.  They are moving into the one building and they can’t be closed for normal hours but he feels all the site work will be done at one time and then the buildings built.  Any thought on screening due to the homes across street?  There will be a lighting plan submitted.   Use the overlay district screening requirements and this would really help with the glare across the street.  There were no further comments or questions by the Commission.  Grube asked if there were any audience comments.

 

Mr. Saul Grandinetti asked if there was any consideration for the people who live across the street from that land as far as noise/light or are buildings far enough away?  The lighting plan will be submitted and the engineer and planning director will review it.  Commission thanked Strausser for attending.

 

      FINEGAN FUNERAL HOME, 4080 Wm. Penn Hwy., Finegan Funeral Home

                  Conditional Use - Site Plan

 

Owner John Finegan, Attorney Dan Cohen and engineer Don Frederickson were present with their plan for a proposed funeral home being put in an existing building.  Bruno stated this is a conditional use request along with the site plan review.  Funeral homes need conditional use approval for the GC district that the property is located.  Cohen stated there are no issues with the township engineer’s review letter.  Engineer stated they will meet with the engineers on a few issues.  There are a few waivers they will be asking for and will be applied for shortly.  Grube asked what they are doing with the rear alley.  The attorneys will have to discuss the title work for the status of the easement on the south side.   Bruno stated to Cohen that all unopen streets require that the adjoining parties must be informed.  The main entrance will closed off on William Penn Highway.  Frederickson showed an architectural drawing of the building.   Rickert stated she didn’t have a problem with anything except the parking.  Carman informed all that this was discussed at the Zoning Hearing Board and they did not need to get zoning approval for any parking since they met the requirements.  Cohen distributed a calculation of funerals during various times.  On average they will have services once a week.  When it was a restaurant there was significant more parking required than they anticipate for a funeral home.  They have 25 spaces.  Average attendance is 45 people or 15 cars and they come and go during a viewing.  Finegan noted they had surveyed the neighborhood and there was only 1 house without a 2 car driveway/garage.  There is a lot of off-street parking in the neighborhood.  Rickert asked if you know it is a larger funeral do you suggest another place or does the client choose?  Finegan stated for extreme circumstances they will suggest another place.  Everyone agrees that the use will be less as far as off site parking.  Young commented that planning has never encouraged a plan to go through with on street parking; plans need to stand on their own.  Cohen stated again that they did not need any parking variances.  Young asked where their sign would be.  Frederickson noted it would be the same sign as now except it will be reduced in height.  He also stated they will be paving what is stoned; landscaping between the parking and building and they are trying to get the parking away from building as far as they can.  On motion by Wilkins, seconded by Young, and agreed by all, the Commission voted to recommend approval by the Board of Supervisors for the conditional use and site plan conditioned that the township engineer’s letter dated September 4, 2009 is satisfied; all departmental comments are satisfactorily addressed; waivers are submitted and approved by the Board of Supervisors and all title searches are cleared.  Commission did stated they did not have any recommendation on any waivers as they were not submitted but will be for the Board of Supervisors’ meeting.

 

      TOWNHOUSES AT WILLIAMSON STREET – Final Major Subdivision Plan

 

Mr. Ed Melhem, owner and his engineer Don Frederickson were present with final plans for their development on Williamson Street.  Frederickson noted there will be a lot dedicated to the township which will include the storm water management along the roadway.  The applicant had met with the Board of Supervisors and they decided it should be publicly owned. Frederickson noted there were no problems with the engineer’s review letter.  Grube commented that they usually try to pass a final plan onto the Board of Supervisors as a clean plan.  He felt there were too many comments for a final plan.  Frederickson stated they were just clean up comments and a few were items that he had to get guidance from before they could do anything with them.  He asked that this plan be put forward since they have done everything they need to and it’s been years in front of this Commission.  Young asked if there were any waivers.  Frederickson stated they need guidance on which way to go for the waiver.  If they put fencing around the detention pond it will be placed in the township sight triangle.  The ordinance also states it needs to be planted.  They would need approval to have this fence placed in the sight triangle.  Harman recommended the waiver should be given to put the plantings and fence in the township clear sight triangle.  Frederickson stated this is what they wanted to do and then there will also be a buffer.  There were no questions or comments from the Commission. Bruno stated they need to submit an extension until the end of October to allow the plan time to get to the Board of Supervisors.  Frederickson also asked that it gets moved along so the rezoning can be worked on.  On motion by Young, seconded by Grandinetti, and agreed by all, the Commission voted to recommend final approval of the plan conditioned that all conditions of the preliminary plan approval are satisfied; comments of the township engineer’s letter dated September 4, 2009 are satisfactorily addressed; all departmental comments dated September 8, 2009 are satisfied; zoning map amendment is approved by the Board of Supervisors; voluntary traffic and drainage improvements contribution and the recreation fee are addressed to the satisfaction of the Board of Supervisors and all required right-of-way areas are dedicated to the township.

 

      PUBLIC COMMENT – None.

 

      PLANNING DIRECTOR’S COMMENTS – Carman distributed a letter to the Commission from Forks Township which states they are working with URDC on a township comprehensive plan and they were asking for any comments on how this would affect our township.  If anyone is interested in reviewing it they should contact her and she will get a copy to them.  Grube stated his interest in this.

 

      On motion by Young, seconded by Grube, and agreed by all, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.

                                                                                          Diane Grube, Corr. Sec.