THURSDAY,
JANUARY 25, 2007
MEMBERS
PRESENT MEMBERS
ABSENT
Jim Zeiters Marlin
Moyer
David Wingeard
Bill Ostermayer
Carol Buskirk
Rick Bolt
Gerald Longenecker
STAFF
PRESENT
Robert Leonard, Zoning Administrator Julie
Hoepfer, Administrative Assistant
Al Brulo, Township Engineer
OTHERS
PRESENT
Chris Keller Bud
Grove
Chris
Jim Cieri Richard
& Linda Dengler
Linda Turns April
Showers
Neil Beech Drew
Williams
Craig Bachick Renee
Regal
Dale Hare
I.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to
order at 7:00 p.m. by Mr. Zeiters.
II.
ROLL CALL
Noted
by recording secretary.
III.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms Buskirk, moved seconded by Mr. Ostermayer to approve the December 21,
2006 regular meeting minutes. The motion
passed unanimously.
IV.
PUBLIC COMMENT
V.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
C. Secretary - Ms. Buskirk
nominated Mr. Moyer for the office of Secretary. Mr. Ostermayer seconded the nomination. Mr. Moyer was unanimously elected Secretary
for the Planning Commission for the 2007 calendar year.
VI.
JMT PRESENTATION
April Showers reviewed the
scope of work for the transportation updates to the Comprehensive Plan and the
SALDO. Ms. Showers indicated this would
be a 10 to 12 month process with special meetings and workshops to be scheduled
as needed. Ms. Showers introduced Neil
Beech who will also be working on the project.
B.
Preliminary and/or Final
Subdivision/Land Development Plans
1. #06.017 F/LD Summit Restaurant EAST – Mr. Hoover was
in attendance to represent the plan.
Mr. Brulo presented
comments from his report dated January 18, 2007:
#2 Provide the
bearings and distances of the consolidated lot and ROW offer for dedication and
then provide a deed of dedication with legal description and plat for the area
being dedicated.
#6 Provide a
sidewalk detail and discuss sidewalk frontage considerations with the Planning
Commission. Mr. Hoover handed out a
correct page 3 showing sidewalks. There
was some discussion regarding sidewalk placement, with the Commission agreeing
they should be shown on the plan, unless the applicant decides to seek a
variance.
#8 Provide
PENNDOT HOP plans
#9 Provide a
photometric plan.
Mr. Leonard presented the following comments:
#4 Sewer
capacity letter is needed.
#8 Provide a map
of the total watershed of this project.
Ms. Buskirk noted the following EAC comments:
#4 How will the
accumulation of silt in the underground infiltration bed be monitored? Mr. Hoover stated that due to the design with
grass and stone buffers, there should not be a build up of silt.
Mr. Longenecker expressed his concern with the
stormwater issues on this tract and emphasized that all stormwater comments need
to be addressed so there are no downstream impacts. Mr. Brulo explained his outstanding issues
with the stormwater plan and asked for calculations and documented flows. Mr. Ostermayer commented that he personally
visited all downstream landowners regarding this project and they seemed
unconcerned.
Motion
Mr. Bolt moved, seconded by Mr. Wingeard, to table plan
#06.017 Summit Restaurant EAST due to outstanding staff and engineering
comments. The motion passed
unanimously. The applicant agreed to submit
an additional time extension.
2. #07.001 F/SB Richard & Linda Dengler – Mr.
Cieri, Act One Consultants, stated this plan proposes a 4 lot subdivision on
Mr. Brulo presented the following comments and reminded
the Commission that he has reviewed only the plan before the members tonight:
2E. Proposed
driveways cannot interfere with the existing drainage along
#3 Provide metes
and bounds description of the ROW offered for dedication and also provide deed
of dedication.
#9 Provide a
wetlands study.
#17 The plans
show that the existing garage on Existing lot #2 will be included in the
proposed lot #2 as an accessory building to a different house. Mr. Cieri will clarify.
#18A Show
disturbance will be less than 20,000 square feet.
Mr. Leonard presented the following comments:
#1 Further
characterize the wooded areas in the rear of the property. The buffer around the wetlands should be 50’
not 25’.
#2 Driveway
sight distances and sight triangles appear to be missing.
Zoning #2
Provide ownership and maintenance agreements for the open space.
Ms. Buskirk asked if Mr. Brulo or someone
from his office goes out to verify wetlands.
Mr. Brulo stated he does not. Ms.
Buskirk asked Mr. Leonard if he does a site visit. Mr. Leonard stated he does on occasion if
something seems out of place or needs to be verified.
Motion
Mr. Wingeard moved, seconded by Mr.
Ostermayer to table plan #07.001 F/SB of Richard and Linda Dengler due to
outstanding staff and engineering review comments. The motion passed unanimously.
3. #07.002 P/SB/LD Evergreen Ridge – Mr. Grove and Mr.
Keller were in attendance from Grove Associates to represent the plan. Mr. Grove stated this development proposes 60
townhouse units on 8.82 acres and creates a 2.98 commercial tract.
Chairman Zeiters noted that when
Mr. Brulo reviewed the following comments:
#7
Provide an autoturn analysis showing adequate access for Township
emergency services vehicles.
#13
Provide a traffic impact study
#18
Submit an easement agreement for the shared driveway
#19
Provide a maintenance agreement for the driveway
#20
Clearly label and dimension the cartway, right of way and land widths
for the proposed public road.
#22
Discuss the need for the boulevard entrance with emergency services
considering the connection to the emergency access drive.
#24L
Provide adequate grading/swales/spot elevations/etc. in the yard areas
to safely direct runoff around units.
#26
Provide a note on the plan stating that access to lot 3 will be provided
via the private access drive, not Rt 39.
#31A
The wetlands report needs to be
updated since it is over 5 years old.
#33
Identify whether there will be any phasing on the plan.
#34
The private streets must conform to standards and specifications.
#35
Meet with the Township to develop a plan to insure compliance with
construction specifications such as corings, bituminous delivery slips etc. for
#37
The Township should consider requesting the applicant to provide a
contribution to the future improvements associated with the SR39 widening
project near exit 77 of I-81 and/or SR39/SR22.
Mr. Leonard reviewed the PSAB comments as
follows:
#1
Street names pending approval by County.
#3
Water shut off for the church needs to be located at the end of the
cul-de-sac on
#4
Move boulevard island back an additional 20’.
Mr. Leonard reviewed his zoning comments as
follows:
#4
School district to be notified
#5
Need HOP revision onto Rt. 39
#11
Show the protective covenant of note #1 on the drawing.
#12
Construction and permanent easement agreements for stormwater pond on
lot 3
Zoning #1
Shop open space on sheet 3
#2
Show buffers between development and houses on Slepian, and between the
development and the church.
#4
Level III screening around detention pond #1 ends of detention pond 2
and completely around detention pond 4 required.
#7
Access to lot 3? Will show sketch
of how this will fit.
Ms. Buskirk reviewed the EAC report as
follows:
#3
Explanation of the infiltration bed details is needed; sheet 13 shows
measurement discrepancy between drawings; in bed details notes #1 explain “The
area of the beds is equal to the 33% the area of the proposed roof section
draining to it.” What type of water
quality vegetation will be planted in the infiltration beds? How will compaction in infiltration beds be
minimized during construction? There was
discussion regarding the construction modification to the emergency access
drive, which will be gated.
Motion
Mr. Bolt moved, seconded by Mr. Wingeard to
table plan #07.002 P/SB/LD of Evergreen Ridge due to outstanding staff and
engineering comments. The motion passed
unanimously.
A. Text Amendment – Kairos
Design/Williams Holding Group – Mr. Bachick presented the concept and explained
the amendments being sought to the NC zoning district. Mr. Bachik noted the development would be
named Olde Towne
Mr. Leonard noted the
following points from his review:
·
The applicant is asking to reduce the minimum lot size for townhouses
and multifamily dwelling units from 3,000 square feet to 2,000 square
feet. For a 20’ wide townhouse this
would create a 100’ deep lot instead of a 150’ deep lot. Staff does not object to this request.
· The applicant has requested the
creation of a new parcel ‘category’ of from 3 acres to 15 acres. Within this category, the applicant is
requesting a minimum of 25% residential
development. Similarly, the parcel
category of greater than 15 acres would have a minimum of 20% non-residential, and providing for 30% of the residential to be at a 10 unit per acre density. Staff believes we should add language which
would ensure a mixture of use by adding to 195-49.C(1)(b)[1] “Minimum 25% of
lot area nonresidential, up to a maximum
of 75%”. Staff does not support
increasing densities to 10 units per acre.
The NC District is the only district that allows density up to 8 units
per acre currently. A sliding scale of
style of development by parcel size is not manageable from a Township
perspective. Again, the concept of
Neighborhood Commercial is smaller scale in a mixed use.
· A proposed rewording of
195-49.C(2) Nonresidential density requirements, also creates a new parcel
“category” of 5 acres to 15 acres. Below
5 acres, the maximum building coverage remains the same (5000 sq ft, max 3 floors). However, between 5 and 15 acres, the
applicant is proposing a maximum building coverage of 10,000 sq ft, with a
maximum gross floor area of 24,000 sq ft.
Above 15 acres, a proposed 15,000 sq ft maximum building coverage, with
a maximum gross floor area of 45,000 sq ft.
In addition, a request for 20,000 sq ft maximum building coverage and
60,000 sq ft maximum gross floor area if the structures are for residential
apartments or hotel use. Staff is
puzzled by a different size parcel (5 acre versus 3 acre) than what was
proposed just previously for residential development. In addition, if a building has 10,000 sq ft
footprint, will it be only 2.4 stories high, or does the applicant mean the max
gross floor area be 30,000 sq ft? Staff
does not have a problem increasing the current limit of 5000 sq ft footprint to
possibly 8000 sq ft (
There was considerable discussion
regarding the requested changes. Members
agreed to have a workshop on February 14th to discuss the issue
further.
A. Zoning Ordinance – Accessory Apartments in the R2
Zoning District - Mr. Leonard reviewed the changes from the
last meeting. Minor changes were
proposed with some members wondering why this ordinance was even needed.
Motion – Mr. Wingeard moved, seconded by Mr. Longenecker to
forward the amendment with the proposed changes onto the Board of Supervisors
for review. The motion passed with three
members voting yes and three members abstaining.
The meeting adjourned at 10:35
p.m.