A beautiful part of southeastern Pennsylvania

May 8, 2007     May 22, 2007   CHARLESTOWN TOWNSHIP JOINT WORKSESSION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION GREAT VALLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL, 7:30 P.M. May 8, 2007 Present: Andy Motel, Chairman, June Gorman, Michael Churchill (arrived later), Wendy Leland, Sarah Peck, Rick Reis, Tom Comitta, Surender Kohli, Linda Csete, Township Administrator Also Present: Jack Loew, Tim Townes of J. Loew & Associates, Eric Schrock and John Mosteller, Dewey Homes, and architect Perry Morgan. Call to Order: 7:42 PM Announcements - None Approval of Minutes April 24, 2007 Minutes Mrs. Gorman moved to approve the April 24, 2007 minutes and Mr. Reis seconded. Mr. Motel called for discussion, and there being none, called the vote. All were in favor. Presentation - J. Loew & Associates Ms. Peck recused herself from the proceedings. Jack Loew and Tim Townes reprised the April 24, 2007 presentation of concept plans for Spring Oaks that fit in with the proposed Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) zoning for Devault. Refer to the minutes of April 24, 2007 for more detail on the presentation. Mr. Morgan began the first of three parts of the presentation by showing the following plans and drawings. A copy of the handout is on file at the Township office. Context plan showing the surrounding uses, which demonstrates the need to create a pedestrian oriented, walkable community. Site plan depicting the layout of homes and the various product types, including single homes, carriage homes (twins) and townhouses. Mr. Mosteller said the lot widths for the large singles are approximately 82 feet, for the smaller singles 56 feet, and a combined 80 feet for the carriage homes. Small parklets are scattered throughout the community. A set of six photos depicting existing conditions. Topography showing the undulations of the land. Some units are shown with walk-out basements or garages. Topography showing the undulations of the land. Some units are shown with walk-out basements or garages where it works with the land. Sketch of the Whitehorse Road entrance showing two large bodies of water on either side, stone monuments, stone walls and a fountain. Following comments at the April 24th meeting, the entrance will be scaled down to make a more subdued, elegant statement. Enlargement showing the driveways and alleys. Additional guest parking is accommodated throughout the plan yet subtly placed. Architectural and landscaping elements are designed to create private space between units. Open Space Plan showing existing woodlands, a peripheral trail system that links to the sidewalks, pocket parks, and a large oval recreation area. The pocket parks may vary, with some more formal looking, and others for either passive or active recreation. Five or six types of parks are proposed. Entry Plan showing more detail on the Whitehorse Road entrance. A Town Green at the end of the entrance boulevard is a park that will connect to the future Fillippo community. Enlargement of the large oval open space. Perspective Entry Sketch showing the bowing of the road and the pavers. Streetscape Perspective shows the character of the homes and streets. The sides of the units are designed to look like the fronts. Wrap around porches on some units adds to this effect. Details such as picket fences, raised porches, and sidewalks are shown. Proximity of the houses to the street enhances the walkability of the community. Ms. Peck asked why the boulevard is so wide, suggesting it be more intimate and narrow. Unit Mix Plan shows the mix of different product types. Some units were positioned as shown to work with the topography or to allow them some buffer from the meat packing plant. Sketch of the single family homes showing the position of the decks, garages, buffering from less desirable views, and their relation to the other homes. Sketch of a single home lot for a home with a detached garage, trellis, and courtyard with extra parking in the alley for guests. Sketch of carriage home. Sketch of townhouse with an attached garage. Two detailed sketches of the entries to the sub-villages showing pocket parks and the three unit types with descriptions. Discussion followed. Mr. Rodgers asked for the difference between a carriage home and townhouse. Mr. Morgan said a carriage home is another term for duplex or twin. Mr. Hogan asked if the yards had room for a swimming pool. Mr. Morgan said that would be a homeowner's association issue. Mr. Motel expressed concern that there be a potential connection to TND Area 2, where there may be a future municipal complex. Mr. Philips asked if there was any hard data to support the Planning Commission's determination that a traffic circle wouldn't be practical in the TND area. Mrs. Leland said while it calms traffic, it doesn't work for pedestrians. (Mr. Churchill arrived at this time.) Ms. Peck asked if the north side of the green area near the existing farm buildings will be mowed, and Mr. Schrock said yes, it will be used for active recreation. Mr. Mosteller began the second portion of the presentation, which focused on the design elements of the homes and other features. He provided some background on himself, then distributed a handout entitled "Spring Oaks Home Styles". He went through the following sketches and pictures: Units: p.2 Townhouses - 40% have porches and all have some brick p.3 Carriage Homes - range from 2,700 - 3,000 square feet p.4 Village Singles - 38-42 feet wide, details of 2-car garage shown p.5 Manor Home - 60 feet wide, with attached recessed garage Mr. Willig asked how old the homes are in the pictures, and Mr. Mosteller said about two years. Mr. Willig asked how long it would take for the landscape to mature, and Mr. Mosteller said that depends on the township's ordinance, which can specify which species and what sizes are required. Mr. Motel added that this is a benefit of a TND, that the Township has more control over aesthetic issues. Community Features: p.7 Upgraded street lighting p.8 Playgrounds with example of tot lot - now showing a tot lot from Charlestown Oaks following Mrs. Gorman's comments at the April 24th meeting. p. 9 Upgraded street trees and landscaping p. 10 Belgian block curb throughout p. 11 Brick pavers at crossings and rumble strips p. 12 Upgraded street signs p. 13 Stone walls in front of selected homes/streets Linking Elements throughout: p. 15 Dual entry features at the Whitehorse Road entrance p. 16 Wooden horse fence along Whitehorse Road frontage p. 17 Brick application on end of townhomes p. 18 Fenced front yards p. 19 Front porches p. 20 Brick or stone fronts p. 21 Detached Garages p. 22 Roofline Articulation p. 23 Miscellaneous upgrades. Mr. Hogan asked what the party walls between units would consist of, and Mr. Mosteller said whatever the township code dictates. Mr. Comitta gave some background and commented on the density issue, one of the three main issues in a TND along with overall Planning & Zoning and the layout of the plan. He said in 2001 the Planning Commission went through an exercise consisting of a visual preference survey, which led them to develop the concept of Devault having an identity of place and presenting an opportunity for this type of planning. Layout issues include a need for connections, such as the one identified as needed to TND Area 2. He noted that this still needs to be worked out as the plan matures. Density remained a difficult question even after years of consideration and consultation with experts. He noted that he's using gross density figures because most data is only available this way, even though Charlestown's density levels are based on a net-out calculation. The national average density for a TND in the country is 5.5 units per acre according to www.newurbannews.com. Eagleview has a density of 5.69, Belvedere 6.18 and Lantern Hill 8.36. Another set of TNDs has lower density at 4.84 for Bryn Ayres, 4.25 for Washington Square Center and 4.48 for Sadsbury Park. TND's more similar to Charlestown's character include Mill Creek in West Lampeter Twp., Lancaster County at 2.79 units per acre, Stargazer in West Bradford at 2.71 and Woodmont in Montgomery County at 2.45. Mr. Comitta recalled discussions in the 1970's on setting the density for Charlestown's three PRDs, which they eventually set at 2.5, 2.75 and 3.25 units/acre. This was under the average in the Delaware Valley, but it was considered appropriate for Charlestown's unique character. Mr. Comitta applied this background to the question of density at Spring Oaks. Total density for the 65 acres at 126 units is 1.94, at 143, 2.2, and at 183, 2.8 units per acre. He said the Supervisors have to feel the density number is right for Charlestown, and his instinct is that the gross density will end up informed by the mid 70's decisions on PRD density. At a density of 2.75 units per acre, the tract would yield 178 units. He feels that they are close to arriving at a reasonable density number. Mr. Comitta said it might be helpful for the Supervisors to focus on the top ten reasons a TND would be preferable to conventional townhouse development in order make their decision. Mr. Loew gave the third part of the presentation relating to density, providing a handout with his calculations. He said there are three elements contributing to the higher cost of building a TND: the amount of roadway, the community features, and the design features of the homes. Mr. Loew then showed a comparison of land value with and without TND zoning, with the land value of the TND estimated at $29 million, and for an RC, $15.5 million. After taking the upgrade costs into consideration, the net land value for either an RC or TND is approximately $15.5 million when the number of units is increased to 183 for the TND. He said the added density isn't a windfall to the developer, but would go back into the job. At 126 units for conventional development, or 183 for TND development, it would be a wash cost-wise. As the plan changes, the costs will change also, and the process is a fluid one. Questions raised at the April 24th meeting on the absorption rate are only one of about 20 variables that can influence the cost differential. Mr. Loew noted that the conventional 126-unit plan they have submitted is extremely marketable and would be similar to Charlestown Meadows, which is where they drew their costs for comparison. A conventional development would have nice landscaping and design features, but not like a TND. He said the Spring Oaks parcel represents an awesome place to live due to the school district and proximity to corporate parks, and they would be able to sell almost any type of housing design, priced near the top end of its category in the market. Mr. Churchill asked for the strengths of a TND from a marketing standpoint. Mr. Loew said, a sense of place, where you get to know your neighbors. Houses are close to the street and the neighborhood is pedestrian friendly. Even if the remainder of the TND doesn't develop, it would work alone as a contained neighborhood. Mr. Churchill asked, if other portions of the TND came first, what would he do differently? Mr. Loew said not much; they made sure their proposed plan would be compatible to a future TND. Mr. Motel asked where Mr. Loew would place retail in the TND 2 Area were it his decision and Mr. Loew said that he would place it as close to Route 29 on Whitehorse Road as possible because he felt it unlikely that consumers would venture far off 29 to access the retail. Mrs. Leland asks if Dewey Homes is sold on the red federal brick that is shown for much of the design. Mr. Mosteller said they think that look works, adding that there are also some stone facades and pillars. Mr. Motel said the Planning Commission needs to meet with the Board prior to the next meeting to consider this further and will have a written response to J. Loew & Associates by May 22nd, when the matter is next on the agenda. Mr. Motel thanked J. Loew and Associates for this second presentation, and again communicated that he appreciated the open exchange with J. Loew & Associates with regard to TND planning. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Linda M. Csete Planning Commission Secretary     CHARLESTOWN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION GREAT VALLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL, 7:30 P.M. May 22, 2007 Present: Andy Motel, Chairman, Mike Allen, Vice Chairman, June Gorman, Sarah Peck, Rick Reis, Tom Comitta (arrived later), Surender Kohli, Linda Csete, Township Administrator and those on the attached list. Call to Order: 7:45 PM Announcements Mr. Allen said he made note of two items when driving in the township, the first being the Berg subdivision swale off Charlestown Road. It's become unsightly with weeds growing through. Mr. Kohli said this swale was approved by PennDOT and wasn't part of the plans under consideration and review by the Township. Next, Mr. Allen said he visited Yorktown Road at Charlestown Oaks and questioned the tree plan that created such a densely treed area that will cause half of trees to need removal. Mr. Kohli suggested asking Tom Comitta or Ed Theurkauf about this. Approval of Minutes May 8, 2007 Minutes Mr. Reis pointed out a typo in the start time shown in the May 8, 2007 minutes, and that the word "identify" on page 4, 3rd paragraph from the bottom should be "identity". With these corrections, Mrs. Gorman moved to approve the May 8, 2007 minutes and Ms. Peck seconded. Mr. Motel called for discussion, and there being none, called the vote. All were in favor. TND Discussion Ms. Peck recused herself from the proceedings. Tim Townes, John Mosteller and Eric Schrock of Dewey Homes provided their comments on the proposed TND Ordinance, last revised 3/22/07 as follows. Comments are Mr. Mosteller's unless otherwise indicated. Definitions - Corner Store: Add "grocery" to the permitted sale or retail items. Mr. Motel pointed out that a grocery store is not permitted in the TND-2 area. Page 22-1 Section 2200: They need a copy of the referenced Charlestown Township Comprehensive Plan. Page 22-2 Section 2202.C.1: The language "a minimum of" should be added to "shall be sixteen (16) feet", and that one way alleys be permitted a minimum of twelve (12) feet. Page 22-2 Section 2202.C.2: Garages should be 32 to 60 feet apart from one another instead of 32 to 52 feet apart. This question was deferred until Mr. Comitta's arrival. Page 22-3 Section 2202.C.2.b.: Change eighteen foot deep driveway to 18 to 22 foot deep, and indicate the driveways should be 60 feet apart, not 52 feet apart. This question was deferred for Mr. Comitta. Page 22-3 Section 2202.C.8: Indicates that alleys should be landscaped in accordance with the Exhibit B Manual, but no guidance is given there. Mr. Motel said that the intention was to keep the guidelines general so there's leeway during the design stage. Mr. Allen pointed out that page 3 of Exhibit B does show 3 alley treatments. Page 22-3 Section 2202.D.5: "Minimum of two stories or 20 feet" should be "minimum of two stories and/or 20 feet." He also asked how height is measured and Mr. Kohli explained how this is measured. Page 22-4 Section 2202.E.1: Maximum street width for any interior street without bike lanes should be 30 feet, not 34 feet. Mr. Allen said this wouldn't be wide enough. Mr. Comitta arrived at this time and said 27 feet is sufficient if there is parking only on one side. Page 22-4 Section 2202.E.2.: Requested clarification on variations in lot widths of adjacent lots. Page 22-4 Section 2202.F.1: Change "be the same as the adjoining buildings on the block" to "stone or brick facing". Mr. Allen said this section is referencing the street wall offsets, not building materials. Page 22-4 Section 2202.G.8: Mr. Comitta agreed with the suggested change to read "The first floor elevation of a single-family detached and attached dwellings shall be at least 24" to 42" above grade in order to promote privacy with at least 50% of single family homes at 42" above grade." Page 22-5 Section 2202.H.3: Add "parking spaces 18 feet or greater behind garages will be considered guest parking." Return to items: Page 22-2 Section 2202.C.2: Garages should be 32 to 60 feet apart from one another instead of 32 to 52 feet apart, and Page 22-3 Section 2202.C.2.b.: Change eighteen foot deep driveway to 18 to 22 foot deep, and indicate the driveways should be 60 feet apart, not 52 feet apart. Mr. Comitta agreed to the 60 feet. With respect to the narrower one-way alleys, Mrs. Gorman said she wants to see enough space to back out of the driveways and drive forward with minimal danger of hitting another car, building, or landscaping. Page 22-3 Section 2202.D.5: "Minimum of two stories or 20 feet" should be "minimum of two stories and/or 20 feet." Mr. Allen asked if they want any one-story structures. Mr. Comitta referred to the design guidelines which specify on page 21 to "provide 2 story minimum height", so that the appearance is that of a two story building. They continued with: Page 22-5 Section 2202.I.2. Asked for clarification that this is referring to commercial parking lots. Page 22-5 Section 2202.K.2.: Change minimum sidewalk width to four feet. Mr. Comitta said this had been discussed and the Planning Commission determined they wanted the width to be a minimum of 5 feet. Mr. Mosteller asked about areas with little pedestrian traffic, and Mr. Motel said the minimum could be waived if considered appropriate. Mr. Mosteller pointed out that Exhibit B still says 4.5 feet, and Mr. Comitta said he'll correct that to 5 feet. Page 22-6 Section 2202.M. Change "approved by the Township" to "selected using the Township list" of approved trees, which Mr. Allen said would be acceptable. Page 22-7 Section 2203.C.1: Asked if all granny flats must be approved by conditional use or if some small percentage could be permitted before the need for conditional use comes in. Mr. Allen said it was written this way because granny flats would increase the density. He suggested they work out their density issue before considering any change. Page 22-8 Section 2205.A: Regarding lot sizes, Mr. Motel suggested having Mr. Comitta review the ranges proposed by Mr. Mosteller. Ms. Peck said the townhouses shouldn't show lot sizes, only setbacks. Mr. Motel said that at this point, the Planning Commission might consider moving the ordinance forward to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Allen made a motion to recommend that the draft TND ordinance be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for consideration, and Mrs. Gorman seconded. Mr. Motel called for discussion, and there being none, called the vote. All were in favor. Mr. Allen had questions on the numbers provided by Mr. Loew during his presentation on density at the April 24, 2007 meeting. He questioned the cost of the community upgrade features, when he believes that even for a conventional townhouse development, some of these features would be included anyway. As an example, he gave the dual entry, which the developer opted to design and is not a requirement. It represents 20% of the upgrade costs. Mr. Townes said a lot of these features are needed in a TND to give the community its sense of place. Mr. Allen said the cost of the alleys seems disproportionate to the cost of the roads, being that they have no water or sewer utility construction in them. Mr. Townes said that the specs for the alleys include curbing and stormwater management. Curbing is necessary due to the grading in order to get the water into the gutters. Mr. Mosteller added that not all alley areas need to be curbed. Mr. Allen said the home upgrade feature costs shouldn't count toward the density computations as the cost can be passed along to the home buyer. Mr. Mosteller argued that the upgrades didn't translate into value that home buyers are willing to pay more for, rather, they expect those features in a small-lot TND style community. Mr. Townes said that the conventional plan's 126 lots have a set value, and to reach that equivalent value for a TND plan, they need 183 units. They used the 126 lot plan as their baseline. Mr. Allen said he'd like to see a program developed that shows the cross over point. Mr. Townes said that point is 183 units, and that doesn't include the interest-carry figure. Mr. Mosteller said that both the builder's profit and the developer's profit must be taken into consideration. Mr. Schrock said that the figures they prepared were their best effort at accuracy, and said that the reality is hard to predict. At the 183 unit figure, it's possible that the builder, or the developer, neither, or both, might profit. Mr. Townes asked the Planning Commission members if they liked the plans designed by Perry Morgan that had been presented. Both Mr. Motel and Mr. Allen indicated yes. Mr. Townes invited Mr. Allen to meet with him to discuss the density computations further with him if he'd like. Mr. Motel asked what would happen if the Planning Commission wanted to see a density of about 150 units. Mr. Townes said they'd have to re-think their product mix. Ms. Peck said it's important to the township that the product sell, and for the mix to work. Mr. Mosteller said the biggest cost components are the streets and alleys. To reduce density, they would need more front-loaded single homes, which the Planning Commission indicated it didn't want. Mr. Motel said the input from J. Loew and Associates and Dewey Homes was very valuable, and thanked them again for the previous two presentations. He said the Planning Commission will meet with the Board prior to the June 12th meeting to discuss the 5/8/07 presentation on density and will prepare a written response to J. Loew & Associates by June 12th. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 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.