Charlestown Township, Chester County, PA

 
What's new? (Home)
Search this site
Site Overview
About Charlestown
  Index to Gov't Info
 General Info
 Organizations
 The early days
 Photo Albums
Surplus & Needs
Neighborhood links
Notify me of updates
About this site
  FAQ
 People are saying..
 Our purpose
 About us
 Techie stuff
 Contacting us
Established June 2, 1997
by citizens for citizens
Awards

March 16, 1998

Website of the Week
Daily Local News
August 13, 1997
   

A beautiful part of southeastern Pennsylvania

Kids Stuff Official Minutes Meeting Calendar Spcl Events Calendar Bulletin Board Neighbors of Note Neighborhood Issues Neighborhood News
 
February 26, 2008
 
CHARLESTOWN TOWNSHIP
PLANNING COMMISSION
GREAT VALLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL, 7:30 P.M.
February 26, 2008
Present: Andy Motel, Chairman, Mike Allen, Vice Chairman, Sarah Peck, Michael Churchill, June Gorman, Rick Reis, Wendy Leland (arrived later), Ed Theurkauf, and Linda Csete.
Call to Order: 7:32 P.M.
Presentation of Road Improvements in the TND Area
Mr. Motel introduced Perry Morgan, Steve Fellin from PennDOT, and Rob Prophet of Traffic Planning & Design. He said that PennDOT had asked for the Township's wish list to be considered in PennDOT's plans for road improvements in the Devault Area, and Mr. Morgan has prepared sketches in response. Mr. Motel turned the floor over to Perry Morgan for his presentation.
Mr. Morgan began with some background on the planning for a Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) in Devault. He displayed the following sketches and commented as follows:

Sketch

Description

 

Remarks

1

Overall aerial photo of Devault

The Planning Commission considered what to do with Whitehorse Road to relate it to the Spring Oaks, Fillippo, Tyler Griffin tracts as well as the proposed recreation area and stormwater basin adjacent to the Turnpike.  The various TND areas were shown as color-coded and were briefly described.

 

2

Office over Retail Building

An example of how an office over retail building could be built on the south side of Whitehorse Road into the slope to show one story in back and two in front.  The first floor retail facing Whitehorse Road would create a main street effect, with offices on the 2nd floor.  A municipal complex, possibility with a library and police station, would add to the village/main street feel.

 

3

Architectural Concept for office/retail

 

Shows a walkway connecting to the back of the building.

 

4

Office –Restaurant

Shows design for office and restaurant use on an out parcel in the TND area.

 

5

Whitehorse Boulevard view

Shows how the offices can be designed to evoke a village atmosphere.  Mr. Morgan pointed out that this sketch was later improved so that the angle parking for the shops is separated from the main road by a grass median.

 

6

Concepts for Spring Oaks

Shows the housing mix, density, traffic layout, and accel/decel lanes for Spring Oaks.  Shows how residential traffic will be brought into the retail area.  Mr. Morgan said he examined each path of traffic and analyzed the volume to come up with this design to minimize traffic on Whitehorse Road as much as possible.

 

7

Residential Architecture sketch

 

 

 

8

Fillippo tract abutting Spring Oaks

 

Shows a cohesive design complementing Spring Oaks with interconnectivity.

 

9

Architecture for the Townhomes

 

 

10

Tyler Griffin tract

Shows a new lighted intersection that bisects Route 29 and connects to Whitehorse Road from this tract.

 

11

Stormwater Management parcel

Shows the importance of an attractive design here for the overall success of the village.  This area will be highly visible.  Mr. Morgan said he was formerly a professor at Penn State, and referenced a publication entitled "Using Natural Landscaping for Water Quality and Aesthetics".

 

12

Photos of students working on Bioswale project

Mr. Morgan said that students at Penn State and/or Temple, along with the greater community, can be brought in to help design and install a bioswale that will address the stormwater management needs of the road improvements.  Grant funding is frequently available for projects of this type.

 

13 & 14

Detail of Plants & Flowers  in Bioswale

 

Shows a naturalized setting for stormwater management.  Rob Prophet said PennDOT is meeting with the Chester County Conservation District and the DEP on March 5th to go over their stormwater management plans for this site.  Infiltration testing shows that substantial excavation and soil replacement would be needed, but he said they are definitely willing to work with the Township on this aspect of the project.  Mr. Motel encouraged PennDOT to consider taking advantage of the free labor and support available.  Mr. Morgan said that in addition to the universities, the Natural Land Trust and corporations such as Liberty Property Trust could be involved.  With regard to the Turnpike wall and the need for aesthetic improvement, Mr. Motel said this information was sent to Kevin Scheurick at the Turnpike Commission and its engineer consultant, so they're aware of the Township's interest.  Mr. Allen said the wall is 20-30 feet high and can be screened with trees to break up its appearance.  Mr. Motel confirmed with Mr. Prophet that the Turnpike's right-of-way ends at the base of the wall, and he said yes. 

 

15

CAD drawing

Dimensions of roadways

 

16

Color Rendering of Intersections to be signalized

Three intersections will be signalized as part of the TND.  This means two additional signalized intersections, as the third at Whitehorse and Morehall Roads is already signalized.

 

17

Traffic Patterns

Shows the patterning of traffic, calming devices, and secondary islands.

 

18

PennDOT's Improvement Plan for Morehall Road

Shows PennDOT's sketch with the Township's standards added, including the dimensional criteria for the TND and stacking distances.

 

19

Altered CAD Drawing

Creates critical dimensions to PennDOT standards, including stacking, turning lanes, and showing the traffic patterns of various routes.

 

20

Turnpike Underpass

Explores the opportunity of including a bike/pedestrian walkway.  At the narrowest point, the lanes would be 11 feet wide.  A concrete barrier and fence is shown for the walkway.  Mr. Motel pointed out that the photo in the lower left of the slide is of the pedestrian walkway along Bell Tavern Road below the Route 30 bypass in East Caln Township.  Mr. Fellin said he has concerns over the narrow lanes and concrete barrier.

 

21

Bike Paths

Shows the bike path scheme throughout the TND promoting non-motorized transportation means.  Green areas are also shown.

 

22

Traffic patterns

Shows how trough traffic is segregated from retail traffic, and how the through road from Devault Foods sends trucks straight out to Route 29 to keep them away from the residential and retail areas.

 

23

Whitehorse Road Profile

Mr. Morgan said he did three-dimensional analysis as well as this profile.

 

24

Trip Variations

Showed how to get from various points to others.

 

25

Angled Parking

Showed the angled parking with medians separating the parking area from general traffic.  There is one lane in each direction for through traffic adjacent to these parking areas.  (Mrs. Leland arrived at this time.)  Mr. Theurkauf asked for the width of the landscaped islands, and Mr. Morgan said 8 or 10 feet, depending on the location.

 

26-28

3-D Sketches

Series of 3-D sketches showing through traffic. Ms. Peck asked if this design works from a retail standpoint.  Mr. Townes said for this type of retail, it's fine. 

 

29

3-D Sketch

 

Shows through traffics' access to the office space.

30-36

Various Views of Intersections

 

 
 
Discussion followed Mr. Morgan's presentation.
Mr. Reis asked if there are marked bike paths on the roadways. Mr. Morgan said no. He showed a bike-parking area near the recreation facility, and near the traffic light on Whitehorse Blvd., indicating the potential to link it to the railway if a Rails-to-Trails pathway is developed. Mr. Motel said a reason there are no designated bike paths is that they wanted to keep the street width narrower from fa ade to fa ade, which makes it 120 feet at the broadest point. He also noted that the proposed through road to Tyler Griffin will have to cross the Norfolk Southern rail line, and at this point in time, the Township doesn't know the ultimate disposition of it. He noted it's currently under study for a commuter rail line use. Mr. Fellin said PennDOT likewise has no information and will have to design and construct the widening of the existing crossings in the meantime.
Bob Jones asked if there is a way for trucks to get to Howells Road to access the slip ramp. Mr. Morgan said the trucks are encouraged to get to the lighted intersection crossing Whitehorse to access Route 29. Getting to Rees Road and then Howells Road would bring trucks through the residential areas, for which the roads are laid out in a circuitous fashion to discourage cut-through traffic.
Mr. Churchill said the traffic for the TND will have a mixed peak, and Mr. Motel agreed traffic would be more dispersed with a TND.
Mr. Morgan showed how the buildings are situated to provide a buffer from the parking areas, and Mr. Motel pointed out a generous amount of green in the design.
Mr. Motel emphasized the importance of a bike/pedestrian access under the Turnpike on Morehall Road. Absent a pedestrian walk, would be inaccessible from Area 2 and segregated from the rest of the TND. Mr. Reis said for cycling there needs to be an access on both sides, but Mr. Motel said there isn't room for a path on both sides and that we would have to narrow the walk on one side considerably from the 12' total our plans suggested.
Mr. Jones asked how far PennDOT is going with the road expansions. Mr. Fellin pointed out on the map they are expanding Charlestown Road up to the Elementary School, adding an additional through lane in each direction both on Charlestown Road and Morehall Road past the turnpike underpass. Heading north on Morehall Road, the existing right-turn only lane to Yellow Springs Road will be made a through lane. From the west on Phoenixville Pike approaching Charlestown Road, there will be a through lane and left and right turning lanes. Heading south on Route 29 approaching the Charlestown Road intersection, there will be two left turn lanes and one through lane. On Yellow Springs Road, one turning lane will be added. Mr. Jones asked if any improvements are planned for Warner Lane, and Mr. Fellin said no. Mr. Fellin said that PennDOT will require traffic analyses from the Township prior to obtaining a highway occupancy permit from PennDOT for the proposed cut through roads to Route 29, as well as for the Whitehorse Road improvements.
Mr. Motel asked for Mr. Fellin's reaction to the Township's request for a bike/pedestrian access under the turnpike bridge on Morehall Road. Mr. Fellin said it is quite a challenge. The County Planning Commission wanted a five foot shoulder on both sides in the underpass and in fact that is also the minimum width mandated by PennDOT for the safety of disabled motorists. This leaves only 3 feet to work with. He added that PennDOT's traffic unit wants a painted gore area in the middle to separate the lanes. He outlined several options and noted their cost and design factors. He said they anticipate 25,000-27,000 vehicles traveling through there in 20 years. Mr. Motel said the traffic count at present is 17,500 according to the Turnpike's 2002 projection for 2005. Mr. Fellin said with the left turn lane from Morehall Road to Yellow Springs Road, there is a tapering to the abutment wall that creates a substantial shift since they are limited by Pogey's on the opposite side of the road.
Mr. Motel asked if this "substantial shift" is necessary because the Township is asking for a 10 foot sidewalk plus a 2' Jersey Barrier, as Charlestown could work with something narrower. Bell Tavern Road's walkway is 4 feet wide with an additional 2 feet to accommodate a Jersey barrier. Mr. Jones asked if the old tunnel through the bridge still exists; Mr. Kuhn said it's no longer there.
Mr. Kuhn asked if there was a safety consideration in not providing a walkway. Mr. Fellin said that the County requested 5 foot shoulders as part of another safety consideration. He suggested sending bike/pedestrian traffic down Warner Lane, but Mr. Churchill said that's a long detour for walkers. Mr. Townes said if the lanes are curbed, they don't require a shoulder but the lanes then need to be 12 feet wide. Ms. Peck asked if there is a narrower version of a Jersey barrier, and Mr. Fellin said he's not aware of one that is structurally suitable. Mr. Allen said an elevated walkway would be more stable, and Mr. Morgan said it would save a foot in width.
Mr. Motel asked what is the minimum width the Township needs that PennDOT can accommodate. Mr. Fellin indicated the lane shift approaching the tunnel is a problem. Traffic speed is based on the 85th percentile of actual traffic speed, which translates to 40 MPH. For the lane shift, one foot of road length is required for each MPH, so to accommodate traffic traveling at 40 MPH, they need 40 feet of road length to shift one foot and the distance they have to work with is 200 feet. Ms. Peck asked if narrower lanes would slow the speed to change this equation, and Mr. Fellin said yes, but it's difficult to quantify in the design stage, and a substantial drop in speed would be needed to make a difference.
Mr. Fellin said he'd do what he can to make this work, but they can't subject the motoring public to safety concerns as a result. Mr. Motel said the Township appreciates PennDOT's open-mindedness on this issue, which is a paramount concern for the TND.
With regard to the stormwater management area adjacent to the Turnpike, Mr. Motel asked if the retention basin will go right up to the Turnpike right of way, and Mr. Fellin said yes. Mr. Theurkauf said one way of buffering the view of the Turnpike wall would be to plant some rapidly growing poplar trees, interspersed with slower growing trees. The poplars only live about 40 years, but that would allow time for the others to grow. He said that although infiltration is a problem, there will be a free board area above the groundwater that will be suitable for trees.
Ms. Peck said a critique of Mr. Morgan's sketches by PennDOT would be very helpful to the Planning Commission, and Mr. Motel agreed, asking if they could provide something at the next meeting on March 11th.
Announcements
Mr. Motel reminded the Planning Commission of the township bus tour scheduled for this Saturday, March 1st where the group visits various sites to review and critique their planning efforts. The bus will leave from the Township office parking lot at 9 AM, and the tour is expected to take about 3 hours.
Approval
January 8, 2008 Minutes
Mr. Allen moved to approve the Jan. 8, 2008 minutes and Mr. Reis seconded. Mr. Motel called for discussion, and there being none, called the vote. All were in favor.
Pedestrian Crossings along Turnpike Bridges
Mr. Motel asked whether Charlestown should request that the PA Turnpike Commission construct pedestrian crossings along the bridges at Yellow Springs, Valley Hill and Bodine Roads as part of their bridge expansion project, and the Planning Commission members were all in agreement. Mr. Jones asked if the Yellow Springs Road bridge could also accommodate equestrians, since it's near the Horseshoe Trail and can link to the proposed county park at Church Farm School.
Reminder - March 3, 2008 Board of Supervisors Meeting
Mr. Motel reminded the Planning Commission that the Board of Supervisors is continuing its hearing on the TND ordinance on March 3, 2008 at 7:30 P.M. at the Great Valley Middle School and encouraged all members to attend and be available for questions.
Traffic Counts
Mr. Motel said Mr. Allen prepared a draft spreadsheet listing the traffic counts comparing by-right and TND development in Devault, which will be presented at the March 3rd TND hearing. Mr. Allen said he obtained the numbers from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, and took the Turnpike slip ramp data from the PTC website. The Turnpike data was completed in 2002 but is the most recent available. There was some question on whether the Turnpike numbers included traffic counts for Spring Oaks and Atwater. After some discussion it was concluded that Spring Oaks was not included; Atwater remained uncertain.
Mr. Allen said he'll present his information at the hearing using a PowerPoint presentation showing each TND area and the maximum traffic count for each. He said he tried to include the most likely traffic generators to max out traffic count calculations, both for the proposed TND and for the current zoning. For Area 4, he included counts for a conference center/hotel and a CCRC even though it would be almost impossible to have both. For the current zoning counts, he used real numbers where known, such as for Spring Oaks.
Ms. Peck noted the counts are for total trips only and asked if peak traffic information would be more useful. Mr. Allen said he can provide that also. Mr. Jones asked if traffic flow could be determined, and Mr. Allen said that couldn't easily be done. Mr. Townes said that requires computer modeling. Mr. Theurkauf said they have some peak data available for A.M. and P.M. traffic plus weekends. Mr. Townes reminded the Planning Commission that any road improvements relating to Spring Oaks have already been put in place. The approved final plan for Spring Oaks for a business center could be built at any time. He cautioned the Planning Commission, however, that for the remainder of the TND, PennDOT could demand further improvements, as additional highway occupancy permits will be required.
Proposed Ordinance Amendment - Net Lot Area Definition
Mr. Theurkauf referenced his memo dated 2/14/08 recommending changes to the definition of Net Lot Area as follows:
  1. Clarify the reference to 100 Year Floodplains by removing superfluous references to FEMA and to Map C-12 of the 2001 Comprehensive Plan.
  2. Remove the reference to wetlands and to Map C-011 of the 2001 Comprehensive Plan
The third recommended change is more substantial, proposing the omission of conservation easements as areas that are excluded from net lot area calculations. Mr. Theurkauf said the reason for this is that a developer could include eased ground with developable ground, thereby increasing allowable density. Mr. Motel agreed that the tax incentive received for placing property under a conservation easement is sufficient without allowing its inclusion for net lot area calculations. Mr. Churchill said this wasn't the intention of the definition that eased land be included. Mr. Motel said including it could arguably prove the land has residual value and be deemed tax fraud.
Ms. Peck disagreed with these assessments, stating that net out calculations serve to reduce property values and act as a penalty to the landowner. This is merely a mathematical calculation and doesn't infer additional value on the eased land. Mr. Motel said Charlestown's zoning is what makes the land so valuable here.
Mr. Churchill used an example of 100 acres, of which 50 acres are under easement. Under FR zoning, you would yield approximately 25 lots, but under cluster zoning, you would yield 50. Ms. Peck disagreed, stating that 50 wouldn't fit on the remaining land; instead, it would create only a slight bonus in density. Mr. Churchill said other netted out land is listed as such because nothing can fit on it. Mr. Theurkauf said communities without a net-out provision see environmental degradation as a result.
Mr. Churchill moved to recommend the proposed changes to the net lot area definition to the Board of Supervisors, and Mr. Reis/Mrs. Leland seconded. Mr. Motel called for further discussion, and there being none, called the vote. Six were in favor; Ms. Peck was opposed.
Proposed Ordinance Amendments - Zoning Ordinance Articles 4 & 15 Relating to Open Space
Mr. Theurkauf reviewed proposed changes to Article 4 as follows:

Section

 

Proposed Change

Reason

403.A.1

Remove examples that follow "Minimize disturbance of critical environmental areas.

Mr. Theurkauf said this is more concise, per Mr. Churchill's suggestion.

 

403.B

Remove the Conditions of Eligibility section.

These conditions are established elsewhere in the ordinance.

 

403.F.1

Add description of what is permitted on properties containing a historic structure.

 

After some discussion, the last sentence of the proposed additional language was stricken, which would have allowed less than 40% of the tract containing a historic resource to be open space by permitting it elsewhere in the gross tract area.

 

403.F.2

Remove provision allowing open space without public access benefits

Undermines the purpose of open space.

 

404.B

Delete "have less cumulative impact" and replace with "be less detrimental".

Mr. Theurkauf said this change was acceptable to the Solicitor.
 
Ms. Peck brought up the issue of whether a homeowners association is necessary in smaller developments rather than permitting deed restricted open space without an HOA, as this is cumbersome for small developments. She offered to bring in Steve Sugarman to speak on HOAs at the next meeting, and Mr. Motel agreed, saying they would wait until after the presentation and subsequent discussion on March 11th to consider their position.
Mr. Theurkauf reviewed proposed changes to Article 15 as follows:

Section

 

Proposed Change

Reason

1502.A.2

Remove "pasture" and "grazing" from allowed principal uses in open space due to the need for fencing.

The Planning Commission members decided to keep these uses as permitted, so the proposed change will not be made.

 

1502.B.15

Include Agricultural uses that include structures by conditional use.

Consistent with requirement for other structures permitted in open space.

 

1505.A.3

Change wording on the type of organization permitted to maintain open space

Ensures the qualifications of the land trust to own open space.

 

1505.B.

Remove reference to "open space trust"

The requirements outlined do not apply to land trusts, only to HOAs.

 
 
Proposed Ordinance Amendment - SLDO Article 5
Mr. Theurkauf referred to the one proposed change to Section 512.A.1, to add the phrase "required along all public and private streets" to "Street trees shall be required along all public and private streets, planted within the right-of-way, two (2) feet from the edge of the right-of-way." Ms. Peck asked if the Supervisors have flexibility on the positioning of the trees, and Mr. Theurkauf said yes, the Supervisors can allow for natural groupings.
Mr. Churchill moved to recommend all the changes discussed this evening for Zoning Ordinance Articles 4 (excepting the HOA matter) and 15, and SLDO Article 5. Mr. Reis said he'd prefer to wait until final changes are made and the Article 2 definitions are ready to include in the recommendation. The motion died for lack of a second.
Proposed Ordinance Amendments - Zoning Ordinance Article 2, Definitions
Review was tabled to the March 11, 2008 meeting.
Adjournment:
The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 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.