PALMER TWP., Pa. — A hearing on a proposed 170-unit apartment complex has been continued to next month, with an expectation that it could stretch even longer for Palmer Township Board of Supervisors.
Monday’s conditional use hearing on Allura at Palmer, an apartment complex intended for 1309 Van Buren Road, focused mostly on the project’s adherence to the township’s zoning code, by which the developers have largely abided.
However, a condition regarding a right-of-way that could affect the overall project was just barely touched on before the meeting ended, with an intent to continue on April 28.
The complex, backed by developer Wolf’s Run Land LLC, would consist of two six-story buildings and one four-story building, 385 parking spaces, and both private and public spaces.
Last May, the board had denied a final plan for 140 townhomes and 45 parking spaces on the property.
It cited “failure to comply with the design of the Preliminary Plan, failure to comply with conditions of the Preliminary Plan approval, and failure to demonstrate undue hardship for requested waivers.”
Attorney Mike Peters, representing Wolf’s Run Land, spent most of the meeting reviewing zoning code requirements the developer has met.
He also questioned planner and landscape architect Chris Brown of Brown Design Corp on the particulars.
Peters and Brown assured the board they have met a list of conditional use standards and criteria, including general regulations regarding the land’s suitability for the development and maintaining the area’s character.
Review of additional criteria showed Wolf’s Run Land fits most township standards, though the township engineer still must review a traffic impact study.
Regulations limit development
In a March 12 letter, the township Planning Commission recommended conditional use approval with various conditions, several of which were addressed Monday.
The letter says conditional use is recommended only if “the Applicant provides a widened cartway and additional Right of Way along Van Buren Road, consisting of a 20’ driving lane (half cartway width), a 10’ multi-use path, and a 50’ ultimate right of way (half width of right of way).”
"It’s going to affect the overall density of the project.”Chris Brown of Brown Design Corp.
Brown said that the right-of-way requirement might affect the entire project, as “it’s not just the right-of-way width, but I believe its intent is for a wider cartway with a wider pedestrian walkway than what’s required, and with all that comes additional grading."
“I believe, because of the slope and the topography and the 3-to-1 limitations that we have on proposed grading, I think the impact would be greater than 20 feet," he said.
"Also the impact of the project, if we were to take that right-of-way line and move it, all of our setbacks are regulated by that right-of-way line.
"So that right-of-way line is going to push our buildings and our parking further into the site, which we think could actually result in some further disturbance to the western end of our building."
Ultimately, adjusting the right-of-way line could affect the developer’s ability to reach a desired density, reduce overall acreage for the project and limit development, Brown said.
"Then it’s going to affect the overall density of the project,” he said.
Brown referenced the nearby Glenmoor 55+ community, which also did not fit the parameters of the right-of-way ordinance.
'Not one of them matches the other'
Brown said the current proposal for the Allura apartments features a 15-foot cartway stemming from the center traffic line, an 8 1/2-foot lawn strip, a 5-foot sidewalk, and then the right-of-way line.
“We wanted to share this to show that there's numerous configurations that exist on either side of our property along Van Buren," he said.
"There's probably five different configurations of your right-of-way along Van Buren, and not one of them matches the other."
"There’s room for discussion and negotiation” that could result in mutually beneficial outcomes.Chris Brown of Brown Design Corp.
Brown later said that to meet the requirement, developers would have to cut into the woodlands surrounding the property, reducing or potentially eliminating the forestry, which is part of the appeal for the complex.
Planners Vice Chairman Jeffrey Young questioned whether the township’s comprehensive plan was considered during the planning.
Young emphasized “that has a big impact on what we do and what we think.”
Brown acknowledged the comment, and said it would affect the developers, as well.
"There’s room for discussion and negotiation” that could result in mutually beneficial outcomes, he said.
Shortly thereafter, the hearing concluded with more commentary from Brown, as well as three other experts, in April.
An additional meeting likely will be scheduled for May to accommodate another expert witness on the project.
