A beautiful part of southeastern Pennsylvania

February 1, 2007     February 10, 2007     February 27, 2007   CHARLESTOWN TOWNSHIP JOINT WORKSESSION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS GREAT VALLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL, 7:30 P.M. Thursday, February 1, 2007 Present: Planning Commission: Andy Motel, Chairman, Mike Allen, Vice Chairman, June Gorman, Sarah Peck, Wendy Leland, Michael Churchill, Rick Reis Board of Supervisors: Kevin Kuhn, Chairman, Michael Rodgers, Vice Chairman, Paul Hogan Also Present: Perry Morgan, Surender S. Kohli P.E., Tom Comitta, Linda Csete, and those on the attached list. Call to Order: 7:45 PM Announcements Mr. Motel introduced state representative Duane Milne and thanked him for taking an interest in the meeting. Mr. Motel distributed cards with the website address for completing the Landscapes2 Survey sponsored by the Chester County Planning Commission, and asked attendees to take the survey. Presentation - Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) Mr. Motel introduced Architect Perry Morgan, who gave a PowerPoint presentation depicting elements of TND design for the Devault Area. Mr. Morgan said he looked at the site from the standpoint of a variety of uses that would combine to create a neighborhood. Some of the slides shown depicted the following: Mr. Morgan said he considered the retail/office areas in Devault first, creating a sketch plan for a building on Tom Fillippo's parcel fronting Whitehorse Road. Designed to take advantage of the existing slope, the building was positioned so as to eliminate the need for retaining walls, with offices on the second floor and retail below. The building is shown close to the road with parking hidden in the back. The types of retail businesses would be local-based businesses, not larger chains. Offices above wouldn't have a typical office appearance but would be more in character with the village theme. Main Street at Exton - an example of the use of sidewalks and promotion of walkability. A community hub for Devault showing a municipal complex at the center, including a post office, library, town hall and police substation that creates an identity of place. Village greens and walkways encourage pedestrian movement. Chapel Hill, North Carolina - an example of a town hall Public Park and Open Space at the periphery of the Village Residential streetscape Residential housing Traditional Residential Neighborhood showing a mix of housing types. Standards for a TND typically include three unit types with maximum and minimum percentages of each. Open Space Design Guidelines - Including alleyways, a diversity of housing types and buildings, diversity of rooflines and roof elements, and a minimum of 20% of the gross residential tract as neighborhood civic greens and green space that include elements such as a gazebo or other focal point. He noted that the word "alley" sometimes gives a less desirable connotation, but these are more in the nature of lanes, where residents enjoy private access to their homes, and service companies provide for trash hauling, deliveries and other services. Single Family Home Guidelines - Including front porches, wrap around porches, and stoops close to the street. 50% of the single homes to be accessed by alleyways, and recessed garages for the remainder. Sidewalks on both sides to promote pedestrian circulation. Single homes to take on the character of existing Chester County homes with subtle, elegant architecture. Multi-Family Home Guidelines - Townhouses and stacked flats within the same building, design elements included in the sides and backs of the buildings, all access by alleyways, maximum width of 150 feet for buildings, encourage architectural diversity. Side access to end units encouraged. Elevated porches give a sense of distance from the street. Townhouse minimum width of 20 feet, but a variety of widths encouraged. Flats would be a minimum of 26 feet wide. Single Family Detached with a Shared Drive - drive leads to garages in back that can feature an apartment above. Mr. Morgan then displayed a matrix that calculated densities (units per acres), depending on the type of unit, and a sliding scale of open space percentage as follows:   Percentage of Open Space Unit Type: 0 20 30 40 50 50+ All Single Family 5 4 3.5 3 2.5   All Twins 6 5 4.4 3.8 3.2   All Townhouses 10 8 7 6 5   All Stacked Flats 14 11.5 10 8.5 7     He said the math and the reality of the physical space must reach a synthesis taking constraints, location of open space and other factors into consideration when developing a site plan. Mr. Morgan then showed three plans for the 66.23 acre Quigley tract employing this method. All three plans create a sense of identity and feature an entryway that pulls the homes back from Whitehorse Road and features pockets of green space. Plan A - Depicts a development with 40% 60 foot wide single family lots for 49 units, 45% townhouses for 55 units, and 15% flats for 22 units, totaling 126 units. Plan B - Depicts a development with 55% sixty foot wide single family lots for 70 units and 45% 50 foot wide lots for 56 units, totaling 126 units. Plan C - Depicts a development with 43% single family lots for 54 units and 57% townhouse lots for 72 units totaling 126 units. Discussion on the Presentation Ms. Peck said the presentation was great, but asked why the open space is isolated on the Quigley tract and doesn't interact with Whitehorse Road. It makes the development more cocoon-like and unrelated to the greater community. She said it's not as village-like, as opposed to the Fillippo office/retail building sketch. Mr. Morgan said there will eventually be another development on the opposite side of Whitehorse, which should be kept in mind. Mr. Churchill asked how much of the wetland area can be used for pedestrian access, noting this is a difficult piece from an integration standpoint. Mr. Motel said the desire is not to isolate it, but the constraints are partially driving the design. Mr. Townes pointed out there is more high ground water area than actual wetlands, and Mr. Motel said the solution may be best left with the engineers. Mr. Rodgers asked if the percentage of open space discussed is gross or net, and Mr. Morgan said gross. Mr. Motel said one of the Planning Commission's greatest concerns is the impact of the TND on township services, which they would like to maintain at the current level. He asked, for example, what the impact of flats would be on school services. Mr. Morgan said they reduce the impact, perhaps with two flats equating to the impact of one townhouse and the flats being less likely to house a family and children. Two flats can fit in the space of one townhouse with no increase in footprint or decrease in open space, so the type of unit is more meaningful than simply the number of units. Ms. Peck said that the amount of open space is critical to the sense of community. Too much open space can actually detract from it and the development must be dense enough to create the proper scale. Mr. Morgan said this is one reason why the sketches don't show a lot of units near Whitehorse Road. Instead, they are closer together in the center of the tract with pocket parks to create amenities. He said this makes the community dense enough internally. Ms. Peck asked how much open space is usually provided for in a TND. Mr. Morgan said it varies greatly, and gave a range of 30-70%. Mr. Kuhn added that the sketches don't consider the adjacent Fillippo tract into consideration, and in addressing total units, residents and the impacts on services, one must remember that the Fillippo tract of about 33 acres will receive the same density as is ultimately afforded the Spring Oak Tract abutting it. Mr. Churchill said the matrix was well developed and depicts the trade-offs between unit types, but he questioned the set width of the various lots and asked how much play there is with the widths. Mr. Morgan said they would have minimum and maximum widths, as some flexibility is needed. Mr. Churchill said his reaction to the plans is that they are too uniform, and he'd like to see more diversity in lot sizes. He questioned whether the ordinance should do this, or if it should be left to the design process. Mr. Morgan said the latter, to allow flexibility. Mr. Churchill noted that many developers will come in with as much uniformity as the ordinance allows. Mr. Motel asked if there is another way of promoting diversity, and Mr. Morgan said it could be done with varying the width of units and architectural styles while maintaining roughly the same lot size. Ms. Peck said more density is needed as a bonus to the developer, and questioned what the proper development scale should be. Mr. Morgan said there's not one answer. He postulates this tract could go up to 150 units without changing any of the parameters. Ms. Peck said the three sketches, all depicting 126 units as does J. Loew's current by-right zoning plan, is unrealistic. No developer could afford to build it. Mr. Motel suggested letting the developers come back to them with what they need. Jack Loew commented that he's impressed with the TND concept and would like the opportunity to create a flagship development in Charlestown. But he pointed out that he can build 126 large townhouses now, according to current zoning. Their value isn't equivalent with 126 mixed unit types in a TND. He contends that a 32 foot wide townhouse is more valuable than a 60 foot single home, and that exchanging two flats for one townhouse would also result in a loss of value. Further, the additional architectural and infrastructure costs of a TND come into play. He said J. Loew & Associates would love to do a TND but they need a significant bump up in density. Mrs. Leland asked if he could give them a ballpark number, and Mr. Loew said it depends on the mix, but guessed, possibly the number might be double the current density. Mr. Churchill said the Planning Commission acknowledges the increased costs and decreased value per units in a TND, but must balance this against the number of people, not just school children that would be counted due to a bonus in density. Mr. Loew said a TND community at this location is a phenomenal idea and urged the Township not to stop short in the home stretch due to the density issue. Mr. Motel said the Supervisors and Planning Commission do understand the dilemma. Mr. Morgan said with regard to the matrix he developed, there's a vibrancy created by the density of the community that is symbiotic in relation to the rest of the TND, and his task was to come up with those numbers. Mr. Kuhn said that the real estate market has shifted somewhat in the area. This location in upscale Charlestown, along with the pending Turnpike slip ramp, puts it in demand. Mr. Loew said his firm doesn't need to make more money from a TND than a conventional development, but they are seeking parity. They need to compare a traditional plan with the TND plan by trial and error before writing the ordinance. He said his firm would be willing to create a sketch plan. Mr. Motel asked what they would need from the Township. Mr. Townes said they have the draft ordinance to work from, and Mr. Loew said they could hire Mr. Morgan to assist them so they can come back with budgetary guidelines. Mr. Loew asked for some indication from the Township that it is willing to consider more density. Mr. Motel said he believed the members of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors are an open minded group and pragmatic on this issue if they are shown the actual economics. He said he'd be willing to consider more density and asked if anyone present dissented. Mr. Rodgers expressed some reluctance on the density question but no one dissented. Mr. Allen said the Township has enjoyed a good faith relationship with J. Loew & Associates and that a sketch plan would be a welcome next step, with both sides working together to solve the puzzle. Mr. Churchill agreed that they've worked with Jack Loew for years and he's built up a trust with the township. He said he has no hesitation about going through with a sketch plan but noted he wants to see the minimum equivalent density number. Ms. Peck asked if J. Loew & Associates would be willing to do a fiscal impact analysis to accompany the sketch plan. Mr. Townes said they have in-house staff that can handle this. Ms. Peck acknowledged the Supervisors' concern for services, but said that they may discover a net positive with some scenarios. Mr. Loew suggested they proceed with the sketch and see if they can come together on the look and density of the development. It was agreed that J. Loew & Associates will hire Mr. Morgan to work on the sketch. Ms. Peck said the sketches shown this evening were well made but felt the units were a little isolated from Whitehorse Road and would like to see a better tie-in. She added that they need to keep the adjacent Fillippo piece in mind. Mr. Churchill said Whitehorse Road is well-traveled and the need for more infrastructure, i.e., a traffic control device, along the road has never been resolved so this needs to be included in the sketch considerations. Mr. Motel added the area at the Post Office had been considered first for a traffic circle and later for a signal to stop and slow traffic heading into a Whitehorse Road re-designed as a boulevard from the Post Office location to the end of Whitehorse at Rt. 29. A connecting road from roughly the Post Office north over to 29 across from the southeast corner of the Tyler Griffin tract had also been considered wise in prior discussions. Mr. Motel called for a brief recess. Traditional Neighborhood Development Ordinance Mr. Motel asked for feedback from the members on any major issues they see remaining with the draft TND ordinance. He asked for everyone to e-mail him with their list by Sunday evening, February 4th. A work session would then be scheduled to incorporate a review of these issues along with a line-by-line review of the ordinance. Some issues that came up were: additional work needed on the Definitions section, a review by Perry Morgan of how the ordinance melds with the unit type mixes and lot sizes he employed in his sketches as well as the setback requirements, a look at inconsistency in uses for the various TND zones, and whether the parcel across from Tyler Griffin should be moved to Zone 2. A work session was scheduled to address these issues for Saturday, February 10, 2007 at the Township Office beginning at 9:00 A.M. Mr. Comitta will arrive by noon. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Linda M. Csete Planning Commission Secretary     CHARLESTOWN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION GREAT VALLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL, 7:30 P.M. February 10, 2007 Present: Planning Commission: Andy Motel, Chairman, Mike Allen, Vice Chairman, June Gorman, Sarah Peck, Michael Churchill, Rick Reis Also Present: Tom Comitta Call to Order: 9:00 AM Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) The Planning Commission continued its review of the proposed ordinance, addressing items from a list prepared by Mr. Allen to address, in order, various issues in the entire ordinance. This was followed by a critique of the photos in the design guidelines. While performing this review, the Planning Commission developed a list of issues that require outside consulting assistance from legal, engineering, etc. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 3:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Andy Motel, Chairman     CHARLESTOWN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION GREAT VALLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL, 7:30 P.M. February 27, 2007 Present: Andy Motel, Chairman, Mike Allen, Vice Chairman, June Gorman, Sarah Peck (arrived later) Wendy Leland, Michael Churchill, Rick Reis, Surender S. Kohli P.E., Tom Comitta, (arrived later) Linda Csete, Township Administrator and those on the attached list. Call to Order: 7:33 PM Announcements - None Approval of Minutes January 9, February 1, and February 10, 2007 Minutes Mrs. Leland moved to approve the January 9, February 1, and February 10, 2007 minutes and Mrs. Gorman seconded. Mr. Motel called for discussion, and there being none, called the vote. Six were in favor. Ms. Peck arrived following the vote. Plan Review Joos Subdivision Neal Camens P.E., of Chester Valley Engineers and Robert Joos were present to discuss the subdivision application for the Jooses' 3 lot subdivision plan for 39+ acres off Church Road. Mr. Camens said the plans have been revised and they are waiting for NPDES approval and the processing of a waiver for the Planning Module from the County Health Department. Mr. Kohli asked if the latest revision was the 1/23/07 plan, and Mr. Camens said yes. He said they've been in discussions with the County with regard to the non-building waiver note they require, which indicates there will be no house construction on the lots at any time. The revised plans and waiver request were delivered to the County today along with a cover letter from the Township. If the County approves it, the waiver will then be executed by Mr. Joos and the Township. Mr. Churchill asked for clarification on the waiver. Mr. Kohli explained that the Joos are proposing a waiver from the requirements to perform perc testing prior to subdivision approval and instead prefer to have the testing done in the future, just prior to when each house is constructed. The County would determine what type of septic system is feasible at that time. Mr. Kohli said typically the County will not give a waiver if the applicant intends to generate sewerage on the parcels at any time in the future. However, since these lots are approximately 10 acres each, it was thought that the County may be willing to consider it. Mr. Churchill voiced his concerns over the question of what will happen if the lots don't perc in the future. What responsibility will the Township have? Mr. Kohli said if the Township approves a subdivision that can't perc, the applicant would get approval from the County for an alternate design. Mr. Allen said a note should be placed on the plan that if the lot doesn't perc, it is unbuildable. Mr. Kohli suggested waiting for the County's response to the waiver request, and use their input to draft the appropriate note. Mr. Allen moved to recommend approval of the subdivision plan for Robert and Mary Ellen Joos, last revised 1/23/07, subject to the comments on Mr. Kohli's review letter dated 2/2/07, and further subject to meeting the County's requirements for the Planning Module, with a note to reflect the county's determination on the waiver request. Mrs. Leland seconded. Mr. Motel called for discussion. Mr. Churchill said the note must protect the Township in the event the lots don't perc in the future. Ms. Peck asked if a sand mound system with a backup site is considered to be an acceptable system, and Mr. Churchill said yes. Mr. Motel called the vote, and all were in favor. Ordinance Review - Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) Mr. Kohli said he arranged for Steve Fellin from PennDOT to attend an upcoming meeting of the Planning Commission to discuss pedestrian issues at Route 29 and Whitehorse Road. Mr. Motel asked that Mrs. Leland work with Mr. Kohli on a list of questions for Mr. Fellin to be circulated prior to the meeting and Mr. Churchill and Mr. Reis be prepared to discuss the desires with respect to a bikeway. It was determined that this would take place at the March 13, 2007 meeting. Mrs. Leland will obtain a copy of the Whitehorse Road/Route 29 widening plan from the Township Office. Mr. Comitta arrived at this time. Mr. Reis said the meeting he attended with Mr. Churchill and Ed Theurkauf regarding the development of a bikeway plan led them to determine a good location would be the railroad bed, should it become available for acquisition by the Township. Ms. Peck indicated that her firm has entered into an agreement with J. Loew and Associates for a project in Downingtown, and she therefore believes that she has a conflict of interest with regard to the TND discussions affecting J. Loew. She recused herself from the discussions this evening and in the future that may in any manner affect Mr. Loew, and from any vote relating to the TND ordinance generally. Mr. Motel said he prepared comments and received additional comments from Mr. Allen, Mr. Churchill, and Mr. Reis on the latest draft of the TND ordinance dated 2/20/07, and proposed to walk through each set of comments this evening. Rick Reis' Comments Definitions - Remove the word "apartment" from the definition of "Dwelling, Independent Living Facility" Section 2202.B.8, p. 22.2 - Mr. Reis asked if curb bulbouts should be required, considering the difficulty in clearing them during winter snow storms. The other members determined that this wording should be left in. Section 2205.C.1, p. 22-8 - For side yard measurements, the minimum is defined as a range from 5 to 8 feet, and Mr. Reis pointed out a minimum must be only one number, not a range. Section 2206.F & G - Mr. Reis said the term "drive-thru in back" should be reworded to indicate the drive-thru should be located only on non-street sides of a parcel. After some discussion, the wording was left in place, expecting that if clarification is needed the applicant can get it from the supervisors. Section 2208.4.F, p. 22-12 - Mr. Reis thought a minimum square footage of 850 is large for an apartment unit. Mr. Comitta said he recently toured seven TNDs and the average square footage used was 600. The Planning Commission agreed to reduce their minimum to 600 square feet. Section 2212.A.2, 2213.A.1, and 2214 - Mr. Motel suggested these comments be deferred until discussions on the CCRC-related sections of the ordinance take place. Section 2215.A.4, 2216.B.1 and 2217.A.1, p. 22-22 & 23 - The 2% gross tract area in 2216.B.1 doesn't work with the 5,000 square feet maximum retail footprint figure given in 2215.A.4. and other numbers listed in 2217.A.1. Mr. Churchill suggested changing the percentage to 3% gross tract area and the other members agreed. Mr. Comitta indicated that if the Commission finds the 5,000 square feet maximum footprint acceptable, the minimum lot size listed in Section 2217.A.1 could be reduced from 40,000 square feet to 20,000. Michael Churchill's Comments Definitions - Asked for clarification of "personal services". Definitions - "Nursery School" - change "prior to kindergarten" to "prior to first grade". Section 2204.B.4 , p. 22-7 - remove live-work units from the list of housing types that require a minimum percentage. Section 2206.A.5, p. 22-10 - Mr. Churchill asked if there aren't limits needed on the amount of office space, particularly stand-alone office space. Mr. Comitta said he'll check Perry Morgan's drawings to come up with a suitable number, which he expects would be between 30,000-40,000 square feet. Section 2209, p. 22-13 - Mr. Churchill said other uses from the NC-1 district should be included in Area 3. Mr. Allen said no residential use should be located in Area 3. Mr. Churchill said offices should be included. Mr. Motel said pharmacies should be deleted. Mr. Loew asked if the intention is to attract a major pharmacy, which he points out will need a corner with a traffic light. Mr. Motel said this is available on the south side of Whitehorse & 29, and suggested pharmacies be located in Area 2. Section 2211.A.4, p. 22-15 - Deferred until discussions on CCRCs. Michael Allen's Comments Section 2202.H.2, p. 22-5 - Suggested Mr. Comitta adjust the language to permit the Board discretion on the placement of off-street parking. Section 2202.L.1, p. 22-6 - Mr. Allen asked how placement of street lights "at regular intervals" should be controlled. Mr. Motel suggested adding a phrase that it shall be subject to township approval. Section 2205.M.5, p. 22-6 - Height of evergreen hedges is given at time of planting, but it should be ensured they won't be permitted to grow beyond a certain height, but must be maintained at the heights specified. Mr. Comitta will address this further. Section 2205.E.3, p. 22-9 - Mr. Allen questioned the maximum height for accessory buildings at 10 feet less than the principal building, but the other members found this to be suitable. Section 2208, p. 22-12 - Remove references to "townhouse" Section 2209, p. 22-13 - Have the uses agree with the NC uses, with the exception of residential. Section 2215, p. 22-22 - questioned whether a clubhouse is a principal or accessory use. Mr. Churchill said they are usually accessory to multi-family residential use. Section 2216.B.2.a, p. 22-22 - Mr. Churchill said requiring a minimum of 10% of the gross tract area for greens is too much. Mr. Comitta will review. Andy Motel's Comments Section 2202.C.6, p. 22-3 - Change the end of the sentence from "do not face any adjacent streets" to "do not face the front of the house". Section 2203.C, p. 22-7 - defer Section 2206.A.4, p. 22-10 - Mr. Motel doesn't want to permit fast food restaurants in this area. Mr. Comitta will draft language to limit this use by amending the Definitions section. Section 2209.A.1, p. 22-13 - same issue as above Section 2206.C.1. p. 22-11 - change typo referring to A.6 to A.4. Section 2216.B.1., p. 22-22 - Mr. Motel asked what the phrase "devoted to retail" means and suggested changing it to "used for". Mr. Townes suggested adding the use "Personal Service". Section 2218.C., p. 22-26 - Remove the term "de minimus" from line 5. Mr. Allen asked if this would take flexibility away from the Board, and Mr. Comitta responded that there is language in the MPC that will still allow the Board leeway to approve modifications. Area 4 Mr. Motel said he needs a better understanding of the buildable square footage in Area 4 before issues can be worked out with Section 2211. Mr. Comitta said he will obtain the information needed to make that determination. Mr. Motel said he needs a sketch of the buildable area to really understand what they're working with. He also asked whether the asphalt plant and the quarry should both be in Area 4 or if they should be separated. Mr. Churchill agreed with him that after the February 10th work session, it was generally agreed that the asphalt plant was most suitable for office use. Review of Area 4 will be undertaken at the March 13th meeting. J. Loew & Associates Presentation Mr. Motel said Mr. Townes and Mr. Loew requested an opportunity to present sketches for the Spring Oaks and Tyler Griffin properties before densities are finalized and the ordinance is referred to the Supervisors. He'd like to make the meeting a joint meeting with the Supervisors and stressed that full attendance is critical. A meeting date of March 27th was set for this presentation. Mr. Motel requested that the sketches and any related information be submitted to the Township by March 20th. Exhibit B - Photographs The Planning Commission was in general agreement that the pictures were a great improvement over previous ones. Mr. Allen felt that there were too many pictures, comprising 28 pages, but the other members felt that the quantity would be valuable in communicating the township's preferences to the applicants. They discussed the pictures and determined that the following would be replaced with better examples by Mr. Comitta: Page 8, bottom right, Page 13, bottom left and right, page 24, bottom right. Next Steps Mr. Motel said that following J. Loew & Associates' presentation on March 27th, the Planning Commission would work out densities and finalize the draft ordinance for recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Linda M. Csete Planning Commission Secretary

Home      Site Overview      Contact Us Please report any problems with this site by clicking here. Site development, maintenance and funding by Township resident Jacob D. Merriwether. Hosting by PLH Worldgroup Communications, Inc.