A beautiful part of southeastern Pennsylvania

July 11, 2006     July 25, 2006   CHARLESTOWN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION GREAT VALLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL, 7:30 P.M. July 11, 2006 Present: Andy Motel, Chairman, Michael Allen, Vice Chairman, June Gorman, Michael Churchill, Sarah Peck, Rick Reis, Surender S. Kohli, P.E., Tom Comitta (arrived later), Linda Csete, Township Administrator, and those on the attached attendee list. Call to Order: 7:30 PM Announcements - None Approval of Minutes June 27, 2006 Mrs. Gorman moved to approve the June 27, 2006 minutes and Mr. Allen seconded. Mr. Motel called for discussion, and there being none, called the vote. Five were in favor, and Mr. Reis abstained as he didn't attend that meeting. Applications Frank A. Piliero - Preliminary/Final Subdivision Plan Frank A. Piliero and Bob Plucienik, P.E. were present to discuss Mr. Piliero's plan last revised 6/23/06 for a five lot subdivision for his 39 +/- acre property at Green Lane and Valley Hill Roads. Mr. Plucienik said that all issues on Mr. Comitta's review memorandum have been resolved, and they will comply with all items in Mr. Kohli's review letter dated July 5, 2006, which are minor in nature. He noted that several waivers are required from the stormwater management ordinance as listed in item #9 of Mr. Kohli's letter. Mr. Allen asked if the small earthen berms located behind the houses will be sufficient for stormwater management in conjunction with the one larger basin, and Mr. Kohli said he finds this acceptable. Mr. Allen said the system takes up a lot of the backyard on Lot #3, and Mr. Kohli said this is noted on the plans that this particular lot is very constrained and no structures may be located in that area. Mr. Allen asked about the four septic systems lined up back to back for four of the lots. Mr. Plucienik said they have been approved as four standard in-ground systems, with back-up locations identified. Mr. Kohli referenced his note #7, stating that the Horseshoe Trail location should be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Kohli said the 20 foot right of way provided for the Trail will not be deducted from open space calculations. Mr. Motel said he was pleased with the layout of the Trail and said they would have been happy with a ten foot wide easement. The location follows the current trail and is acceptable. Mr. Allen moved to recommend approval of the Piliero Preliminary/Final Subdivision plan last revised 6/23/06 subject to Mr. Kohli's review letter dated July 5, 2006 with exception of note #8, and Mr. Reis seconded. Mr. Motel called for discussion, and there being nothing further, called the vote. All were in favor. Mr. Motel commended Mr. Piliero for providing the trail easement. A meeting of the applicant and township representatives has been scheduled to work out the language of the conservation document. Ashford Subdivision (Bala Investments) - Preliminary Plan John Snyder, Esq. and Jason Shaner, P.E. were present to discuss the Preliminary Subdivision plan last revised 6/20/06 for the Ashford subdivision located at Charlestown and Pikeland Roads. Mr. Snyder said they have the review comments from Mr. Kohli and Mr. Comitta, and those items can be easily taken care of. They are basically left with obtaining the various outside agency approvals relating to the plan. Mr. Allen asked if anyone has received the draft covenants and restrictions document, and the members replied no. Mr. Shaner said it would be provided at the final plan stage. Mr. Allen said he still sees a problem with protecting trees during construction, and Plan Note 11 describes marking trees with tree paint, an antiquated practice. He also referenced plan note 12, which said heavy equipment should be minimized when it should be disallowed entirely. Mr. Snyder said the notes will be revised to be in compliance with the consultants' and planning commission's comments, indicating that they are notes 11, 12 and 13 on sheet one, though they are numbered otherwise on some subsequent sheets. Mr. Allen asked how the homeowners will be made aware of their Operation and Maintenance (O & M) requirements for their septic systems. Mr. Kohli said this is included with the homeowners' documents. Mr. Allen also wished to confirm that the applicant understands no building permit will be issued if well water is unavailable. Mr. Snyder said Note 23 indicates the well must be drilled prior to issuance of a building permit. Ms. Peck said the tree protection notes are listed on sheet 6 of the plans but she wants to ensure these are made clear to the buyers. Mr. Kohli said the conditional use decision regarding the tree protection requirements will be included in the homeowner documents. Mr. Snyder indicated that two waivers are needed, one a waiver from installing raised vertical curbs (Section 504.B) and one from landscape screening requirements (Section 512.A.) Mr. Motel moved to recommend approval of the Ashford Preliminary Subdivision plan last revised 6/20/06 subject to the consultants' review comments, revising the notes on Sheet 1 numbered 11, 12, and 13 (following through on the other sheets) and recommending waivers from Sections 504.B and 512.A of the SLDO. Ms. Peck seconded. Mr. Motel called for discussion, and there being nothing further, called the vote. All were in favor. Cloetingh Lot Development Plan Dave Fiorello, P.E. of Momenee and Associates was present to discuss the grading plans for Lot 2 of the Stonorov Subdivision located on Pickering Road. At the time of subdivision approval, the Planning Commission had recommended that plans for the individual lot development be presented to them for review. Mr. Fiorello displayed the site plan indicating the lot as part of the Stonorov subdivision and consisting of 39 +/- acres located on both sides of Pickering Road. A grading plan has been submitted to the township for E & S approval and to the Chester County Conservation District for NPDES approval. He indicated the small building envelope on the plans, and a very small area of steep slopes that is narrow enough that its disturbance does not trigger the need for conditional use approval. There are areas of open space on the plans, a structure-free area, trees, pastures, and lawn areas. Mr. Fiorello introduced the builder, Wayne Rowlands, and architect, Ed Wheeler, who were present to answer questions. Mr. Kohli asked for the square footage of the house, and Mr. Wheeler responded it has a footprint of 4,500 square feet. He added that there is a guest suite above the garage. Ms. Peck asked for details on the guest suite, and Mr. Kohli said this is permitted under the zoning ordinance provided there are no kitchen facilities. Mr. Fiorello described the layout of the house, which includes a courtyard and detached garage with a breezeway. Mr. Allen asked what can be done with the small portion of the tract across Pickering Road. Mr. Fiorello said nothing will be built there, as it is protected from any development. Mr. Allen said the building envelope is only 10-15 feet away from a pipeline, and asked for confirmation that no grading will take place in the pipeline area. He also noted the pool is near the edge of the pipeline, about 10 feet away. Mr. Motel noted that approval is needed from the Trust on the location of the structures. Mr. Kohli said the applicant is awaiting various agency permits, including an NPDES permit and a CCCD permit. Mr. Allen asked about the stormwater management facilities, and Mr. Fiorello said there are two subsurface facilities, one larger facility and a smaller one toward the bottom of the driveway to collect additional run off. Mr. Allen asked if any further development is permitted on this lot. Mr. Kohli said only if space permits; there is a limited area for development available. Mr. Kohli asked about impervious surface coverage. Mr. Fiorello said they are within the zoning ordinance limits at 2.5% of the lot. Mr. Motel asked for the driveway grade, and Mr. Fiorello said the steepest part is 12%. Mr. Motel thanked the applicant for providing them with the information as required by the subdivision approval for the Stonorov subdivision. John and Marie Giuliani Conditional Use Application John and Marie Giuliani and Thomas Smith, P.E. of Conver and Smith were present to discuss the Giuliani's conditional use application to allow disturbance of steep slopes for construction of a single family home, driveway, and the associated grading on their 2.4 acre lot located on Blackberry Lane. Mr. Smith said the lot is wooded and contains steep and very steep slopes. The Turnpike is located to the east of the lot. He said the Giulianis wished to locate the house further up the grade on the lot so they wouldn't be so close to the Turnpike, which is planning to expand to six lanes over the next few years in this area. He acknowledged that building the house lower on the lot would cause less disturbance to woods and slopes, but they will try to minimize disturbance of the larger caliper trees. Mr. Motel asked how far the Turnpike right of way is from the Blackberry Lane right of way, and Mr. Smith said they abut. Mr. Motel asked how wide these rights of way are, and Mr. Smith answered 33 feet for Blackberry Lane. He was unsure of the Turnpike right of way but said the paving is 40-50 feet from the Turnpike shoulder to their property. Mr. Motel said the Planning Commission needs to see where the existing travel lanes of the Turnpike are on the Plan. Mr. Allen asked that they confirm the Turnpike's plan to expand, and Mr. Motel added they should find out where they propose the expansion for the third lane. Mr. Giuliani said there is a 20-30 foot drop from his property to the Turnpike. Mr. Motel asked about screening, and Mr. Giuliani said the property is screened well in the summer, but they are concerned they will lose that buffer when the Turnpike expands. Mr. Motel said the Planning Commission needs more information on the Turnpike plans in order to consider the application. Mr. Smith said he received the consultants' review letters. Mr. Allen said both Mr. Comitta and Mr. Kohli have major issues in their review comments. He asked if it's possible to access the lot from Oak Lane. Mr. Giuliani said they tried to obtain an easement but were unsuccessful. Mr. Motel said the structures on the neighboring properties and the topography of those properties should be shown on the plans. Mr. Smith confirmed that a USGS topo would be sufficient. Mr. Motel asked for the footprint location, and Mr. Giuliani said it's approximately 150 feet from the Turnpike right of way. Mr. Churchill asked for the setback from Blackberry Lane, and Mr. Giuliani said 75 feet. Mr. Motel asked about the stormwater management system. Mr. Smith said it consists of an underground trench for the driveway and another small area for the roof drain and turnaround area. Mr. Smith said he was unsure whether the house is actually in steep slopes but included it in his application. Mr. Kohli said some grading areas for the house are in steep slopes. Mr. Motel said pictures are needed that show the view of the Turnpike from the desired house location and the original location. Mr. Giuliani produced several photos, which were examined by the commissioners. Mr. Churchill asked for permission to visit the site, and Mr. Giuliani agreed. Mr. Smith said it has been staked. Mr. Comitta said there are Edgemont soils throughout the site, which pose an erosion control challenge. Mr. Motel said there are numerous weighty comments to address in Mr. Kohli's review letter as well. Mr. Motel asked for input from neighbors to the Giuliani's lot. Stacy Overton, Dobs Lane, said her property abuts the Giuliani lot, and she had concerns about the proposed location of the house higher on the hill than her own house, due to the potential for flooding. She said she is familiar with the 50 foot side setback and 75 foot rear setback requirements, but said her house was built before the current zoning setback requirements and is actually closer to the property line, perhaps 45 feet away. She asked if the Turnpike right of way was located on the Giuliani property, and Mr. Kohli answered no. Joy Kent, 11 Oak Lane, produced a copy of the Alfonso Alleva subdivision plan approved 3/8/76 from which this lot was created. She said her house is very close to the Giuliani property and the driveway they propose is also very close to her property. Harry and Analiese Nagel, Oak Lane, said they were neutral toward the application, as were the Dorwards, Blackberry Lane. Mr. Motel suggested that the applicant return to the Planning Commission with revisions. He said he is not persuaded that there is a justification for the conditional uses requested because of the Turnpike's proximity. After looking at the photos shown this evening, Mr. Motel said there is still a substantial distance between this lot and the Turnpike. Mr. Churchill said he doesn't believe there is any way this application would get approval in its current state. He suggested the applicant either withdraw the application or allow the clock to stop instead of facing statutory timeline requirements while the plans are being revised. Tyler Griffin Land Development Application Eli Kahn of J. Loew and Associates was present to discuss the land development plan last revised 4/18/06 for the Tyler Griffin tract located at the northeast corner of Charlestown Road and Phoenixville Pike. Tim Townes arrived during the discussion. Mr. Kahn presented an overview of the plan showing the proposed office building as a 3-story, 150,000 square foot structure. The parking plan adheres to the zoning code, providing parking for five cars per 1,000 square feet of office space. There would be access points from both Charlestown Road and Phoenixville Pike. The lobby area proposes an atrium with two elevators. Loading docks are located on the north side of the building, but wouldn't be used extensively, just for bulk deliveries. The building is a little larger than the largest one proposed for Spring Oaks Lot 1. Mr. Kahn said they received Thomas Comitta's review letter dated July 5th and acknowledged they have to perform a tree study. He said they just received Mr. Kohli's letter dated July 7th today. Mr. Motel asked if they have a client for the building, and Mr. Kahn said no, although they are talking to several potential clients. He said this parcel is the only lot in J. Loew Associates' portfolio of this size, and will be visible from the Turnpike. They would time the completion of the building with the completion of the slip ramps. The accessibility to the Turnpike will attract clients, as has happened at one of their Lionville properties. Mr. Motel asked if they are open to having one client lease the entire building, and Mr. Kahn said yes, but they would be willing to begin construction after they had a full-floor tenant. Mr. Motel asked if there were vacancies at their Commons @ Great Valley office park. Mr. Kahn said there is one 15,000 square foot space available, and they have a vacant lot on which they plan to construct a 25,000 square foot building for a specific client. Mr. Churchill asked about grading on the site. Mr. Kahn said they will have to make a substantial cut, as office buildings built into a hillside are no longer acceptable from a marketing standpoint. The stormwater management system will be on the Phoenixville Pike side, with a berm alongside the asphalt plant to the east. Mr. Motel asked about a small parcel shown to the north of the larger one. Mr. Kahn said this site actually consists of both parcels. Mr. Churchill asked for the height of the parking lot, and Mr. Kahn estimated it is 18-20 feet from the road. He said it is about 52 feet from the building entrance to the road. Mr. Motel asked if they considered any building configurations other than rectangular. Mr. Kahn said, only briefly, because of the loss of square footage that results. He said they can make the rectangular structure look good architecturally, and tenants will expect maximum square footage. Ms. Peck asked what materials the building would be constructed of, and Mr. Kahn said they haven't decided, but he notes that both precast and brick are common. He gave the example of their building at Quarry Ridge, which is a precast building with an aggregate mix, and blue tinted windows. He gave another example at Atwater, where the front is made of precast, and the back is tilt up construction. Mr. Allen asked about the access from Charlestown Road, where he feels there's not enough stacking room to enter unless the access is moved further up the hill. He also asked if the building could be repositioned to make the view of cars less prominent. Mr. Kahn said the cars won't be visible from Phoenixville Pike, and the parking has to be positioned so that people don't have to walk uphill too far to or from the building. Mr. Allen said if it is a multi-tenant building, the parking lot won't necessarily be full, but Mr. Kahn said they have to assume 100% occupancy and provide for suitable parking or no one will occupy the last space available. Mr. Kohli asked about buffering. Mr. Kahn referred him to the last sheet of the plans, which he said depicts significant buffering. Mr. Allen asked if there could be parking underneath the building. Mr. Motel said they proposed it for this site when they presented a sketch plan for age-restricted apartments. Mr. Kahn said this is prohibitively expensive for commercial construction, which is much more costly than residential. Mr. Motel asked if Mr. Kahn sees the property as a one-building property. Mr. Kahn answered yes, due to the setback requirements and other items in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Motel asked if he's spoken to the Allan Myers Company about the future of the abutting asphalt plant, and Mr. Kahn said his impression was that they will keep operating until they can work out an alternative with the Township. Ms. Peck asked what J. Loew and Associates is seeing in the commercial real estate market at present. Mr. Kahn said there has been little new construction and that construction costs are rising. Rents will be rising because of no new demand, and costs for retrofitting will rise as supply is absorbed. Mr. Motel asked for the cost per square foot for a class A office building such as that proposed. Mr. Kahn said the cost is approximately $75.00 per square foot for shell construction. Another $40-50 per square foot can be added for the interior finishes. Ms. Peck asked what he anticipates the rent to be, and Mr. Kahn said in the mid $20's range. There was concern over stacking to enter the property. Mr. Townes said that there are turning lanes proposed up the entire hill of Charlestown Road. Mr. Kahn said they don't anticipate a stacking problem, as people turning into the property, mainly employees, know where they're headed and move through expeditiously. Mr. Townes gave the example of the Route 30 entrance to Wegmans at Brandywine Square. There are stop signs at the interior intersection, but the road entering the complex has the right of way. Ms. Peck asked for more information on Mr. Kahn's remark that the zoning ordinance drives the desirability of constructing one large building as opposed to two smaller buildings. Mr. Kahn said the construction costs for two buildings rises considerably for the same square footage. Ms. Peck asked about constructing two buildings not in the same plane, but Mr. Kahn said this wouldn't work because of the parking layout it would need. Mr. Motel asked if the township provided relief on the height restriction, would he consider a four story building with a reduced footprint. Mr. Kahn responded it wouldn't be out of the question. Ms. Peck said this proposal for an office building causes them to fight the grades, and Mr. Kahn agreed that the site is better suited to residential construction. Mr. Reis asked if the proposal needs all 750 parking spaces. Mr. Kahn said he wouldn't do it with fewer spaces, as tenants want to maximize their square footage by bringing in as many people as they can. Also, the ordinance wouldn't permit less parking. Ms. Peck asked what the main competition is for this proposed office building. Mr. Kahn responded Atwater, which still has lots of space available. Mr. Motel suggested moving the building forward, but Mr. Kahn said the elevations wouldn't work. Parking would have to be placed in both the back and front of the building, which would require steps and ramps. Mr. Allen said the proposal was not an outstanding design, and they will be looking at a lot of cars. He asked if the parking lot could be terraced, with steps, with the building helping to block the view of the parking area. Mr. Kahn said the tenants want convenience in parking so steps are typically avoided in the design. He added there will be a nice landscaped entrance to the property. In response to Ms. Peck's question, Mr. Townes said if the Charlestown Road entrance is moved further up the hill there is a sight distance problem. Mr. Motel suggested moving the Phoenixville Pike access closer to the asphalt plant, but Mr. Townes said PennDOT would have a problem with it. Mr. Kohli said this application is incomplete, as a conditional use application must accompany it. Therefore, this will be considered as a sketch plan. He reminded the applicant that the neighbors must be notified when it is submitted as a preliminary plan. He also reminded them to contact the Valley Forge Sewer Authority regarding capacity, and Mr. Townes said they have been speaking to the VFSA. Mr. Kahn said they will respond to the consultant's review comments and return to the Planning Commission with a preliminary plan. Mr. Allen asked for a profile plan when they return. Ordinance Review Traditional Neighborhood Development Ordinance Items reviewed included: Thomas Comitta Associates Draft of Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment consisting of Article 2 - Definitions, and Article 22, Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) Overlay District, last revised July 11, 2006 Thomas Comitta Associates - Key Design Elements: Traditional Towns and Traditional Neighborhoods Mr. Motel said he received an email from absent Planning Commission member Wendy Leland with her comments. He said he and Mr. Allen met with Tom Comitta on Saturday, July 8th to discuss his 7/7/06 revisions to the TND Ordinance, resulting in the 7/11/06 revision. Some of the changes include: Moving the design principles section up front Clarification that the applicant is expected to produce a TND manual as part of their submission Numerous adjustments to the sections with reordering, renumbering, consolidation, and removal of repetitive text Pages 6 & 7 show a summary of the use regulations including minimum and maximum square footage "slice and dice" open space options were added on page 8 Only Sections 2203 and 2204 will be discussed this evening, and the full ordinance will be discussed at the July 25th meeting. Also on July 25th, they will examine Exhibit B, which is the Township's example of a TND manual with examples of civic greens, live-work units, porches, gazebos, mail facilities, etc. Mr. Comitta will circulate a draft Exhibit B by July 19th as well as revisions triggered by this evening's comments on sections 2203 and 2204. Comments from the Planning Commission members and consultants on the draft ordinance were as follows: Ordinance in General - Article 22 - Traditional Neighborhood Development-1 (TND-1) District Mr. Reis asked for confirmation that this section will replace the RC District, and Mr. Comitta said that Article 702-A.1.i of the PA Municipalities Planning Code states that if a TND is an extension of an existing development, it can stand alone, otherwise it must be an overlay. Mr. Motel said he'd rather have it as the outright zoning, as he feels it would set the Township up for piecemeal development otherwise. He doesn't want an RC development next to a TND. Ms. Peck said she understands Mr. Motel's objectives but felt the strategy may backfire, as rezoning would be of greater concern to affected property owners than adding TND as an option is. Mr. Motel said the township has been communicating with the only other affected property owner, who has encouraged the development of a TND ordinance. Mr. Motel said all components permitted in a TND may not be covered in TND-1, and Mr. Comitta confirmed that this is permitted under the MPC. Definitions Mr. Churchill asked what commercial uses are permitted and said that live-work is not defined thoroughly enough, as it states "and any other commercial use". He said in order to tighten these definitions, the Planning Commission must be clear on what it wants. Ms. Peck said a third party is needed to review the definitions, and Mr. Allen said the solicitors will do this further into the process. Section 2204.C - Use Composition Mr. Churchill said they need to define the types of commercial use and what percentages should be included in the TND. Presently the draft ordinance states no less than 2% can be devoted to retail and commercial uses, but a maximum percentage hasn't been determined. As far as types of use, can a corner store be a Wawa? Size limitations would help define these uses. Mr. Kahn suggested they look at the entire acreage and the lot yield in order to determine if any retail is viable. Mr. Motel said he sees both corners of Route 29 and Whitehorse Road as most suitable for retail, with the Post Office building as the outer limit of the retail node. He sees the 2% minimum commercial/retail as a tactic to incentivize community-building, though he wouldn't mind seeing no commercial on the Spring Oaks tract. Ms. Peck asked if live-work units count toward the 2% and Mr. Comitta responded yes. Mr. Motel polled the commissioners and they were in agreement. Ms. Peck said in that case, the live-work units can provide destinations to walk to on that tract. Mr. Reis said sections 2204.C.1 and 2204.C.2 may be confusing, as the former defines commercial as a percentage of total tract area, and the latter defines live-work units as a percentage of total dwelling units. Mr. Kahn said a TND must include a variety of elements, not primarily residential. The TND buyer purchases a house knowing they're getting the whole deal. By not allowing commercial or retail in the TND-1 district, his company would be put in the position of having to convince buyers the other elements will be developed later, by others. By nature a TND is mixed use and the TND buyer is different than the buyer of an RC home. There was considerable debate on whether the Spring Oaks tract can support the retail component of a TND and this matter will be discussed further on July 25th. Section 2204.D. - Open Space Requirements There was discussion on whether tot lots belong with passive recreation, and trails with active recreation. Mr. Reis said trails are never included in an active recreation designation, even if they are paved. Mr. Churchill said trails are easier to construct than playfields and tennis courts, giving the developer a big break. Ms. Peck said the percentages are confusing, for example, is the 5% minimum requirement for greens, civic use and tot lots representing 5% of the total tract area, or 5% of the common open space area, which itself has a minimum of 40% of the total tract area. She said it should represent 5% of the total tract area but this is unclear. For the July 25th meeting, Mr. Comitta will prepare: Definitions of commercial uses and where it is economically viable; Whether Spring Oaks should include commercial elements and be a "total" TND by itself, or if it should be designed as one part of a whole; A sketch of a TND on the Spring Oaks tract Ordinance Updates Mr. Motel referenced his email to the consultants in which he requested a timetable for various ordinance revisions to be drafted, and responded to Mr. Rodgers that his request for a review of increasing open space requirements from 40% to 50% is on the list to be discussed. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:37 P.M. The next meeting is scheduled for July 25, 2006, 7:30 P.M. at the Great Valley Middle School. Respectfully Submitted, Linda M. Csete Planning Commission Secretary     CHARLESTOWN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION GREAT VALLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL, 7:30 P.M. July 25, 2006 Present: Andy Motel, Chairman, June Gorman, Michael Churchill (arrived later), Sarah Peck, Rick Reis, Wendy Leland, Surender S. Kohli, P.E., Tom Comitta, Linda Csete, Township Administrator. Supervisors Kevin Kuhn and Charlie Philips also attended. Call to Order: 7:37 PM Announcements - None Approval of Minutes July 11, 2006 The approval of minutes was tabled until the next meeting. Work Session - Ordinance Review Traditional Neighborhood Development Ordinance Items reviewed included the following items prepared by Thomas Comitta Associates: Draft Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment consisting of Article 2 - Definitions, and Article 22, Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) District, last revised 7/25/06 Development Strategy Plan #1, a map depicting various uses including detached residential, detached residential and duplexes, attached residential, live-work units, civic use, neighborhood center retail, greens, meadows, and existing woodlands to remain. Development Strategy Plan #2, a variation of Plan #1 Six Page handout depicting examples of TND features including civic uses & civic art, greens, live-work units, single-family detached dwellings, single family attached dwellings, and a neighborhood retail center. Mr. Motel said he and Mr. Allen had an executive session with the Supervisors to update them on the discussions thus far and to seek feedback on the issue of how to provide "destinations" in the district to encourage walking and interaction among members of the community. Mr. Allen suggested this work session focus on the (currently zoned) B-1 zoning district area between the Post Office/Township Office and Morehall Road on the south side of Whitehorse Road. This consists of three parcels totaling approximately 7 acres, starting at the Post Office parcel and heading west to Morehall Road and was referenced in discussions this evening as the "Triangle". Mr. Comitta said there are three approaches to the manual of design guidelines for TNDs. The Township can provide very specific details on what must be included in the manual, such as that done for a recent TND in West Bradford Township. Other options include a medium level of detail or a minimum level. For these approaches, the developer would be required to develop the specifics in a manual that would be reviewed and approved by the township. Three examples of the minimal approach were provided at a previous meeting, including the following: Design Guidebook for Kemblesville, Franklin Township, Chester County Draft Manual of Written and Graphic Design Guidelines, West Bradford Township, Chester County Design Guidelines for Brookview, Claymont, Delaware Mr. Comitta said the ordinance was revised to reference two "TND Districts" TND-1 and TND-2 to allow for different design standards for each. He noted that the Tyler-Griffin property is not included in the TND-2 district. He referenced the two development strategy plans. Plan 1 shows more neighborhood center retail on TND-2, and Plan 2 shows more attached residential. Both plans show the Spring Oaks (Quigley) tract as mostly residential with some live-work units. Mr. Motel noted the need for some residential use in any TND, as it attracts more traffic to the retail areas. If there is to be no retail use on the Quigley tract (TND-1) and all the retail is placed on TND-2, Mr. Comitta suggests making the area smaller. Mr. Motel said he prefers an incremental approach to TND planning, focusing on the Triangle area first. Mr. Comitta pointed out three older residences along Devault Lane that could be adaptively reused for commercial activities and should be included in TND-2. Mr. Kuhn agreed that these three properties should be provided with options via its zoning. (Mr. Churchill arrived at this time.) Ms. Peck said the whole concept for the area is a mix of uses, including the need to walk to given destinations. She cautioned against attempting to out-think the market by creating too much separation of uses when the township needs to incentivize the market by integrating them. Mrs. Leland agreed. Ms. Peck later amended her comments to say her concept applies more to the tracts excluding the Quigley tract, which she feels can be worked out in a manner to make it palatable to both that specific developer and the Township. Mr. Motel said big-box stores can be avoided as the township can define the permitted square footage for commercial/retail use by utilizing the TND zoning allowed by the MPC. Mr. Comitta said that, generally speaking, under 20,000 square feet of retail can be designed with a boutique/country theme and that a developer can be found who is willing to create it. Going above this square footage will lead developers to want an anchor store, perhaps a "junior" anchor. Ms. Peck said that this can be avoided by regulating the size of the retail shops. Whether the TND has less residential and more retail, or vice versa, should be decided by the market. Mr. Motel said he agrees in concept but developing good definitions of the design parameters is essential. Mr. Motel said the Planning Commission has heard the developer's opinion that the Quigley tract doesn't really lend itself to commercial use. If this is to be the case, the Planning Commission should now focus on the Triangle for this use since it is directly adjacent to the Quigley tract. Mr. Motel said he envisions village retail for the Triangle and on the parcel across the street at the northeast corner of Morehall & Whitehorse Roads, but wished to focus only on the Triangle side this evening. Mr. Churchill said that at the last meeting, the Planning Commission realized they can't deal with the area on a tract-by-tract basis, whether that tract is self-supporting or integrates with others. He felt they need to consider what will be on the other parcels and then return to re-examine the Quigley tract. Ms. Peck asked who owned the land on both sides of Whitehorse Road leading from Morehall Road, and Mr. Motel said other than one 6-acre tract owned by the Township, the remainder is owned by Tom Fillippo. Regarding the Triangle, Ms. Peck said the tapered end where the Post Office Building is located should have lower intensity uses, with higher intensity at the wider area along Morehall Road, where there is more visibility and traffic to support it. Mr. Motel noted this area near Morehall will also be close to the proposed slip ramp, and it's essential for the township to get the TND planning underway before it's built. Mr. Churchill was concerned that the draw from the future Turnpike ramps and a fully occupied Atwater Corporate Center will invite development of unattractive uses that take a great detail of traffic in a short period of time. This area is the entrance to the Township with residences and an elementary school nearby. He suggested they address this area now, and give it an entryway feel. Make sure the township residents are benefiting from the uses, not just commuters. Ms. Peck said the design and size of the uses can be regulated by the Township, and Mr. Motel agreed the ordinance can be written to make developers give the Township what it wants. Mr. Comitta said they can include a footprint cap for the various uses, and if the footprint is smaller, no anchor stores will be needed. Also, with a limit of 3,000 square feet, convenience store chains wouldn't be interested in developing here. Mrs. Leland said part of the goal of a TND design is for nearby residents to have places to go where they meet with their neighbors. They need places to sit and converse, some sort of attraction such as a caf . These uses should be sprinkled in with the other types of shops and designed to encourage walking. Mr. Motel said that changes can be made to Whitehorse Road, such as creating a boulevard with a grass divider that allows some parallel parking. They need to determine how to make Whitehorse Road safe and where to put the parking so that the need for large, unattractive parking lots could be minimized. Mr. Comitta said with an overall master plan, a boulevard could be designed. Buildings could front Whitehorse Road with parking in the back. Mr. Motel said if all parking is in the back it will still create the appearance of a strip of businesses facing and more concerned with the cars going by. Mrs. Gorman said it can be mitigated with walls and screening. Mr. Motel reiterated that he prefers more parallel parking and angle parking along the street rather than large parking lots. Ms. Peck suggested that there may be templates for parking designs rather than to start from scratch. Mr. Motel said they should consider a signal and crosswalk with sidewalks along each side of Whitehorse Road. There was some discussion about designing a traffic "roundabout", and the planning commission members will do some research on them. They noted examples that seem to move traffic very well even at high peak times. Mr. Comitta gave examples of two roundabouts in the Gettysburg area that he said are excellent. Ms. Peck said that by specifying uses, the Planning Commission may be missing other potential uses. She suggested listing what is excluded rather than what is included in the design guidelines. Mr. Philips asked the Planning Commission to consider re-routing Whitehorse Road next to the Quarry, adding that he likes the boulevard suggestion. Ms. Peck asked about Devault Lane, and Mr. Kohli said part of it is owned by the township but the west end past the Post Office is privately owned. Mr. Reis said if there is ever an opportunity for a commuter rail line, perhaps for a connector between the Great Valley Corporate Center and Phoenixville, a train station might be located in Devault. Mr. Motel said a better location would be in the area of Phoenixville Pike and Warner Lane. For the August 8, 2006 meeting, Mr. Comitta will focus on uses in the Triangle area, parking design, and keeping the maximum footprint for a commercial establishment to 3,000 sq. ft. The next steps would be meeting with Tom Fillippo and later with J. Loew & Associates. Other Business Confirm August Meeting Schedule The work session will continue on August 8, 2006 at 7:30 P.M. at the Great Valley Middle School. Applications will be reviewed at the August 22, 2006 meeting. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 P.M. The next meeting is scheduled for August 8, 2006, 7:30 P.M. at the Great Valley Middle School. 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.