A beautiful part of southeastern Pennsylvania

July 10, 2007   CHARLESTOWN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION GREAT VALLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL, 7:30 P.M. July 10, 2007 Present: Andy Motel, Chairman, Mike Allen, Vice Chairman, June Gorman, Sarah Peck, Rick Reis, Wendy Leland, Tom Comitta, Linda Csete. Also Present: Brett MacKay, P.E., George Meyer, Tom McClure, David Melich, Mike Walsh, Kim Walsh, John Panizza, Bob Smiley, Roman Dychdala, P.E., Phil Earley, Kevin Richter, Steve Sprowls, Tim Townes, John Mosteller, Kevin Kuhn and Michael Rodgers. Call to Order: 7:48 PM Announcements Mr. Motel announced that a brief executive session took place prior to the start of the meeting. Mrs. Leland expressed condolences to the Thompson family on the loss of their patriarch, Gilbert Thompson. Mr. Allen thanked the Secretary for providing copies of the 9/9/2003 minutes where the Meyer sketch plan was last discussed for the Planning Commission's reference and for the quick turn around in producing draft minutes following each meeting. Mr. Allen said he recently saw the Pet Hotel under construction along Phoenixville Pike and its appearance has softened considerably since he last commented on it. Mr. Motel agreed it looks much better but is not what was originally depicted, presumably due to finance-driven changes, and said the Planning Commission should remain aware of this for the future. Mr. Allen brought an example of good architectural design to the Commission's attention that they may wish to consider when discussing TND architectural and design elements. He referred to the Forcine Concrete building at Church and Yellow Springs Roads in Tredyffrin Township, which was built to resemble the mill buildings in Reading, PA. Review George Meyer Sketch Plan for 6 lots on 23 acres, 2227 Bodine Road Brett MacKay, P.E. of Chester Valley Engineers and George Meyer were present to discuss Mr. Meyer's sketch plan for a subdivision of his 23 acre property on Bodine & Seven Oaks Roads. Mr. MacKay said they incorporated remarks from sketch plan comments from a few years ago. The plan proposes five new homes in addition to an existing home for a total of six lots. The tract is relatively open and has two easements, one for a gas transmission line traversing the site from north to south and one for a 100-foot wide electric line easement along Seven Oaks Road that turns to follow the western portion of the tract. He said they tried to position the houses to accommodate the viewsheds. Mr. Motel asked if they brought the old sketch plan for comparison, and Mr. MacKay said no. Tom McClure asked if there was an access point off Bodine Road, and Mr. MacKay said Lots 2, 5 and 6 will be accessed off Bodine. The existing driveway for Lot 1 will remain and is also accessed from Bodine Road. Lots 3 & 4 are accessed from Seven Oaks Road. Mr. Allen asked why they didn't employ an open space plan for the tract, as they will need conditional use approval to subdivide into conventional lots. Mr. MacKay said an open space plan wouldn't change the overall development much, and the conventional plan takes better advantage of the views and preserves the woods. He said clustering the homes wouldn't be a better option. Mr. Motel questioned how this could be the case, when an open space plan would preserve 40% of the tract and the conventional approach breaks up the entire tract. Tom McClure, Rosewood Drive, asked Mr. MacKay for the size of the lots, and he responded they range from 1.8 to 4.8 acres. Mr. Motel referred to Ed Theurkauf's review memorandum dated 7/10/07, item 3, which explains what is necessary to qualify for conventional development by demonstrating it has less negative impact than an open space plan. Mr. Theurkauf recommends that an open space sketch plan be prepared so the two can be compared. Mr. McClure asked for a definition of an open space plan, and Mr. Motel provided it, giving the Deerfield and Bentley developments as examples. Mr. MacKay agreed they could provide an open space sketch plan. Mr. Allen asked that they also look at the two review letters from the consultants, as there are significant issues with either type of development they should address at the next meeting. Mrs. Leland said flag lots should be avoided, as noted in Mr. Kohli's 7/5/07 review memo, and Mr. Allen said positioning the lots to provide their frontages along the road would make more sense. Mr. MacKay said the flag lot configuration can be altered, and they have flexibility on the lots enabling him to re-orient the homes somewhat. Mr. McClure asked if Mr. Meyer would build the houses himself, and Mr. Meyer said he hasn't decided. Mr. McClure said he's friendly with Mr. Meyer and acknowledges his right to subdivide and build, but he has concerns about the quality and prices of the proposed houses, since his own home was such a large investment. Mr. Motel said he understands this concern but it's not in the Planning Commission's purview to address it under the MPC. Mr. Allen said the homes in the Bentley subdivision are selling for $1.2 million and above, with one selling for $1.7 million. David Melich, Seven Oaks Road, said they aren't selling, but Mr. Allen countered that 11 of the 13 lots have been sold in what is now considered a soft market. Mr. Motel asked if perc testing has been performed. Mr. Meyer said there was some testing done when he bought the property in 1985 but not since then. At that time, the percs were successful. Mr. Motel asked if netting out the area of the gas line right of way affects the net out calculation, and Mr. MacKay said no, because the gas line is already in areas of steep slope that are netted out. Mr. Motel gave Mr. MacKay a copy of Mr. Kohli's review letter and asked the applicant to respond. Mr. MacKay said he had no comments at this time, other than to acknowledge they could change the flag lot. Mr. Meyer added that the homes were positioned to fit in with the appearance of the existing neighborhood and he would employ similar architectural style. Mr. Motel reminded Mr. Meyer that the Township has an open space program and he may wish to speak to the Open Space Director about other options. Mr. Meyer said he's willing to listen but acknowledged he wants to maximize the financial potential of the property. Mr. Motel asked for Mr. Meyer's opinion on accommodating the Horseshoe Trail on the property. Mr. Allen said the Township would want this as a condition of approval, and suggested Mr. Meyer obtain a copy of the Horseshoe Trail map from the Township Office. He said the Trail currently comes in to the area at Foster and Bodine Roads. Mr. Motel said the buffering of the electric line looks good, and Mr. Meyer said this is primarily a naturally grown buffer. Mike Walsh, 2250 Bodine Road, said he also appreciates Mr. Meyer's right to develop his property, but voiced his concern on the proposed access off Bodine that is opposite his driveway. He said Bodine Road is very unsafe presently due to volume and speed of traffic, and he is hopeful the Township will address this issue. Mrs. Leland suggested moving the driveway north to be situated opposite Foster Road. Mr. Allen agreed, saying this would turn Foster and Bodine Roads into a four way intersection and possibly a 4-way stop. Kim Walsh said this has been investigated in the past for a three-way stop and was found not to be warranted by PennDOT as there haven't been many accidents there. Mr. Motel said they could discuss this further at the next meeting. Mrs. Walsh said she brought pictures of the area where her driveway accesses Bodine Road and one of the new access roads for the Meyer plan is proposed. She indicated there is a dip in the road at that location that affects the sight lines. She said there is a flat area off Seven Oaks Road across from the Barnes Foundation property that would make a more suitable access. In addition, it wouldn't need to traverse the gas pipe line. Mr. Motel said only three lots can be accessed from a private drive unless the road is build to township standards. He suggested Mrs. Walsh speak to the applicants about this further. Mr. Melich said he's concerned that the culvert going through his property now, which already has an unmanageable water handling problem, will be worsened by this subdivision. Mr. McClure said he sold the property to Mr. Melich, and indicated that the problem occurred following the construction of the nearby Briarwood subdivision. Mr. Motel said Mr. Kohli will have to address this issue. He explained that Mr. Meyer will have to handle stormwater management according to new state regulations, and this should actually improve Mr. Melich's current situation. Mr. Allen asked Mr. Comitta whether the Township should consider the requirement that developers submit a natural resource plan, as is done in London Grove Township. To develop the plan, members of the Planning Commission, the town planner, and the applicant walk the site and develop the plan collaboratively. Mr. Comitta said London Grove Township received grant money from the Natural Lands Trust to institute this program, which involves a four step process. Mr. Allen asked Mr. Comitta to look into this idea and have some information for the August or September meeting. Approval of Minutes June 12, 2007 Minutes Mr. Allen made the following corrections to the minutes: Page 1, last sentence, change from "The plan also includes a minor subdivision that will add a small amount of land to the Church property from the adjacent Charlestown Paving property to the west" to "The plan also includes a minor subdivision that will take a small amount of land from the Church property and add to the adjacent Charlestown Paving property to the west." Page 4, first sentence, 4th paragraph: change from "Mr. Allen said the Township considered how this process is handled elsewhere and determined they will do the following..." to "Mr. Allen suggested the Township handle this process as it has been done elsewhere by doing the following..." Mrs. Leland moved to approve the June 12, 2007 minutes with these changes and Mr. Reis seconded. Mr. Motel called for discussion, and there being none, called the vote. All were in favor. Great Valley Business Campus - Sketch Plan Mr. Motel said he visited the site today to look at the historic house on the property. He noted that two windows in the front are no longer boarded up, as are two in the back plus a doorway, and one window on the side. He said the roof looked o.k. He voiced his opinion that the sketch plan shouldn't be discussed until the house is brought into compliance with the demolition-by-neglect ordinance. He said the Planning Commission wouldn't have this prerogative if a preliminary plan was submitted, but with a sketch plan they do. He recalled that the Township paid about $10,000 for a Plan for Re-use of the house from their historical architectural consultant, Dale Frens, about two years ago. Mr. Motel said he is aware the house is listed for sale, but Mr. Panizza said it's not the house, but the tract that's listed. Mrs. Leland said she is the HARB representative from the Planning Commission, and acknowledged the HARB has been concerned about the house. Mr. Allen agreed with Mr. Motel that discussions on the sketch plan should wait. Ms. Peck said she would prefer to go forward and hear their presentation. Mr. Motel said the issue of demolition by neglect was raised with Richard Orlow at a Planning Commission meeting in November 2005. Mr. Panizza said after that meeting, he sent a crew out to board up the house and repair the roof, and that Mr. Kohli determined these actions were sufficient. After that was done, the plywood was stolen and had to be replaced. Again, he said Mr. Kohli found it acceptable, and GenTerra withdrew its application for demolition for the structure with the Township refunding the permit application fee. He said he was unaware there was a new problem until Mr. Motel mentioned it this evening. Mrs. Leland said the HARB can discuss the house at their next meeting and whether anything additional should be done to secure it. Mr. Motel asked if a 20-foot area around the house can be trimmed of weeds to help protect it, along with re-securing the windows and doors. He asked the Planning Commission members if they wished to proceed with discussing the sketch plan, and the majority indicated they did. Mr. Panizza said he will arrange to have the doors and windows boarded and resealed. Cutting back growth around the house will be done at a time closer to when they come out to survey the property. Mr. Motel asked about the springhouse, and Mr. Panizza said there's not much left of it other than two stone walls. Mr. Panizza introduced Bob Smiley of Genterra Corporation, Roman W. Dychdala, P.E., of Highpoint Services Inc., and realtors Phil Earley and Kevin Richter of Lieberman Earley & Company. The sketch plan depicts six office/warehouse buildings on the 53 acre tract at the corner of Yellow Springs Road and Phoenixville Pike. Mr. Panizza said their goal is to go through the approval process for conditional use and land development as smoothly as possible, with no need for any zoning changes. He pointed out a proposed 81,900 square foot office building in the southeastern portion of the tract at Phoenixville Pike that is their primary focus this evening. This building would have one driveway off Phoenixville Pike and would look similar in style to the Liberty Property Trust building across the road. Mr. Smiley said a small building proposed for the northwestern corner of the site would be by-right. Two other buildings would require conditional use approval for use as flex space, since only office use is allowed by-right. They would also need conditional use approval for steep slope disturbance. He asked about the timing of these applications. Mr. Motel said they would probably want to go through the conditional use process for the use first, then proceed with the land development and conditional use for the steep slopes simultaneously. He said the applicant could proceed in whatever way made the most sense for them. Mr. Smiley said the parking is depicted as though the buildings are all office space, which maximizes parking needs and therefore shows the amount of space for parking as a worst case scenario. He said the areas shown in dark green will remain woodlands, and areas in light green will be disturbed. Mr. Motel asked for the number of spaces for the 81,900 square foot office building, and Mr. Dychdala responded 156. Mr. Motel asked if it makes sense to have an offset for the proposed access to the building from the driveway across the street, and Mr. Dychdala said the offset is acceptable at the 200 feet distance, which is PennDOT's minimum. Mr. Motel was concerned about rush hour traffic. Mr. Panizza said the building is proposed to have 70% flex space, so there shouldn't be a lot of employees. Mrs. Leland asked if there will be room for an accel/decel lane. Mr. Dychdala said they haven't planned one at this time but they have sufficient right of way for it and PennDOT might require it. Mr. Motel asked if they had a tenant for this building yet, and Mr. Panizza responded no. Mr. Earley pointed out that there would be a water feature in front of the corner building at the intersection, which Mr. Dychdala said will handle stormwater and include a fountain. Mr. Allen said there is a 60 foot change in grade from one end of the 81,900 square foot office building to the other, along with significant grade changes among the other buildings. He asked to see cross-sections through this building to understand the grading change, and Mr. Panizza agreed to provide this. Mr. Dychdala said the plan will include seven retaining walls, the highest of which will be 17 feet. Three ten-foot high walls are proposed between buildings 1 & 2. Ms. Peck asked if that's the reason there's no access to the rear building from Phoenixville Pike and Mr. Dychdala said yes. Ms. Peck asked about the practicality of large trucks accessing the site from Yellow Springs Road to reach the flex building at the northern portion of the site. Mrs. Gorman said a truck wouldn't be able to swing wide to make the right turn into the development, particularly considering the amount of activity on this road. Mr. Dychdala said trucks could manage to travel up the Yellow Springs Road hill but not down. Steve Sprowls, Blackberry Lane, added he's seen a lot of accidents in this area. Mrs. Leland asked that they eliminate the Yellow Springs Road access for trucks. Mr. Panizza said the grades may make it too expensive to place all accesses off Phoenixville Pike, but they may ask the township to allow for moving the buildings down on the site and leaving the northern area alone, although this would create more steep slope disturbance for grading. Mr. Motel said the Planning Commission has talked about allowing the greater Charlestown area residents access to the proposed TND in Devault. He asked the applicants how else they might want to use the site if zoning weren't constraining their answer. Particularly, what else could be done that would tie in to the TND? Ms. Peck suggested transitional office townhouse use, and Mr. Panizza said they've looked at this and it may be a possibility. He added they might also consider office condos, similar to those at Exton Commons. Mr. Motel asked if there would be any value to have some retail component, asking if the applicant had data on the daily trips along Phoenixville Pike. Mr. Smiley indicated he had an older study that includes this data. Mr. Panizza asked what the Planning Commission's biggest problem would be with high density residential use. Mr. Motel indicated high density residential would be of no interest to him. Planning Commission members said their top concerns with residential would be impact on schools, demands for services, additional traffic, and the fact that they have provided for sufficient high density residential elsewhere. Mr. Motel asked if the sewer capacity is available for this site, and Mr. Panizza said yes, probably more than the proposed sketch plan would need, and likely enough even for high density residential. Mr. Allen also indicated he would not be in favor of high density residential. Mr. Panizza asked for the commissioners' opinion on a mixed use development with residential for age 55+, some retail with perhaps a restaurant, office condos in garden setting and a YMCA or similar use. With this type of plan they might be able to provide intersection improvements. Mr. Comitta said the last time the applicant was at the Planning Commission, Mr. Smiley referred the possibility of "Korman Suites", which are used for lodging and create a smaller footprint, along with office condos. Mr. Allen asked if they could provide a sketch plan of what they're suggesting for the next meeting. Mr. Panizza said whatever they do, they would incorporate a design element. Mr. Motel said multi-use is more attractive to him elsewhere in the Township, and asked for the supervisors in attendance for their opinion. Mr. Rodgers said he would need to see something before he could comment. Ms. Peck said she doesn't sense a cohesive concept and is concerned that they should avoid having too little of any one use and not reaching a critical mass. She said the site seems to call for commercial use fed from Phoenixville Pike. Mrs. Leland said she sees the property as a transitional use because of the homes nearby and the Great Valley Middle & High School complex. She envisions small pockets of Elan Downs type uses. Mr. Sprowls said that he lives across the Turnpike from this site, on Blackberry Lane, and is concerned about light and noise disturbance, particularly if trucks are pulling in at the northern portion of the site. Mr. Panizza said for the next meeting they will provide cross sections for the large office building, and a sketch plan using the Phoenixville Pike frontage, just for discussion purposes. Also, they will investigate further making the Phoenixville Pike driveway more accessible to the remainder of the site, perhaps creating a boulevard. Mr. Motel provided Mr. Panizza with a copy of the TND design guidelines for reference. Mr. Panizza said at some point he would be asking the Planning Commission to go to the Supervisors and weigh in on the mixed use concept before they spend too much effort on it. Ms. Peck said she'd like to see some market basis for feasibility of the proposed uses. Mrs. Sprowls asked for a definition of a TND, which Mr. Motel provided. He added that the Planning Commission is not authorizing one for this site; they are only referring to the TND design standards. Mr. Panizza said he sees architectural elements they might incorporate. Mr. Motel asked if the average daily trip data for Phoenixville Pike can be provided the next time they meet, and Mr. Smiley agreed. In answer to Mr. Motel's question, Mr. Panizza indicated the house will be secured before the next meeting. Mrs. Gorman asked what they envision as a use for the house, and Mr. Panizza said if they start building within five years, he would most likely turn it into an office for his company as well as a management office for the entire business park. He'd like to keep as many of the historic features as possible and have the outside appear much as it has historically. Mrs. Gorman said she would be very happy to see this, both as a neighbor to the site and as a Planning Commission member. Mrs. Peck asked the other commissioners if they would be open to seeing the uses for the site located closer to Phoenixville Pike in exchange for eliminating development up the hill, and all indicated yes. Traditional Neighborhood Development Ordinance Ms. Peck recused herself from the discussion. Mr. Motel said he received some comments back from the other commissioners and also circulated the supervisors' comments at the July 2nd hearing to them. He listed various issues including: Demonstrate greater connectivity between parcels and ensure the desire for connectivity is explicit in the ordinance text; Provide a separate section on traffic calming; Address the County Planning Commission's comments on lighting and signage. Mr. Motel indicated the County's review was generally very positive other than the comments on lighting and signage, and noted that Mr. Comitta's revision to Exhibit B now addresses these two items. Mr. Allen said they need to clarify the language referring to multiple uses, since in Area 4 they only want one use on each side of Route 29 of the three permitted uses. Mr. Motel said there should be one theme for signage throughout the TND, and Mr. Mosteller indicated that while PennDOT regulates the signs themselves, there is some leeway on the design of posts. Mr. Kuhn asked about breakaway posts, and Mr. Townes indicated they do have various styles available with the breakaway feature. Mr. Allen referred to the County's comment #5 in their June 25, 2007 review letter, which recommends interconnectivity of parking lots so vehicles don't have to re-enter the street as often. He acknowledges this can't be accomplished everywhere, but where it can be done it is a good feature for the retail areas. Mr. Allen said the County's Item #6 and 7 call for the Township's emergency providers to review the plans to verify that the roadway and alleys will allow access to emergency vehicles. Mr. Motel said the Fire Marshal stated at the hearing that the fire fighting equipment only services buildings at heights of 35 feet or less. These matters will be addressed at a later time. Mr. Allen asked Mr. Comitta if a separate language section is needed on signs, and he said yes. There was some discussion on ground signs and their dimensions. Mr. Allen asked Mr. Comitta to confirm with the County that they agree the draft ordinance allows for minor deviations from the design criteria, as their comment #10 suggests they may have overlooked this. Mr. Comitta said the ordinance indicates the Supervisors can make modifications without going to the Zoning Hearing Board. He suggested arranging a conference call with the County, Mr. Motel and himself to discuss this comment along with comments #3 and 4. Mr. Motel asked if portions of other Zoning Ordinance sections and criteria are incorporated into the TND section, for example, definitions and parking ratios. Mr. Motel listed other comments that were brought out at the July 2nd hearing and at prior Planning Commission meetings as follows: The need to define common open space. For example, in Area 2, the open space should be accessible to the general public. Consider whether the corner store size in Area 2 is too small at 2,500 sq. ft., perhaps increasing it to 4,000 sq. ft. Define mixed uses Include "no drive-through" for restaurants More on connections and connectivity Add a section on traffic calming Add sections on shade trees and street signs Consider situations where there should be two principal uses rather than one Clarification needed on Section 2206A.4. to make the square footage and number of units subject to the limitations of 2207.A. Determine who will maintain the various open space areas Section 2209.C. - Area 3 conditional uses doesn't define vehicle service station. Mr. Comitta will check to see if this is defined elsewhere. Spring Oaks Density Ms. Peck continued to recuse herself on this matter. Mr. Townes said he sent two sets of information, the first on materials to be used in the TND and the second a comparison of impacts of the RC use vs. TND use. Mr. Allen said it's too early to discuss the materials now but it will be addressed during the development of the design manual. Mr. Comitta was impressed that they would prohibit the use of jumbo-sized bricks, and aluminum or vinyl siding. Mr. Motel said Mr. Reis indicated to him earlier the importance of commonality of elements among uses, since there will be more than one developer building in the TND. Mr. Townes said J. Loew & Associates will most likely be the first one, and what they do should set the stage for those who follow, with the Township carrying their design forward. With regard to the financial data, Mr. Townes said he had calculated the number of school children based on population, but at Mr. Allen's suggestion he recalculated it by the number of units. A summary sheet on the first page of the data report explains the numbers behind it. The summary indicates that the residential uses come out as a negative impact on the Township, excluding any benefit from the commercial uses. With a balance of uses, a break even can be reached, or the Township could even come out ahead. These impacts are similar at the County level. For the School District, Mr. Townes said he contacted the Great Valley and Downingtown School Districts and came up with different numbers of school children for higher density developments compared to lower density. Higher density units yield fewer students, which was particularly evident studying the Charlestown Hunt and Charlestown Oaks developments. Ms. Peck referred to a Rutgers University model for calculating fiscal impacts that deducts commercial percentages before dividing out the residential costs, saying that by not employing this model, Mr. Townes' study overstates the impacts of residential use. Mr. Townes said he focused just on Spring Oaks and not the entire TND in order to keep things simple. Mr. Allen said before the report is finalized, he'd like to see some formatting changes. Mr. Townes said he'd speak with Mr. Allen about this later. Mr. Allen asked for the Planning Commission's conclusions on the density of 183 units proposed by Jack Loew for Spring Oaks. Mr. Reis said the traffic gains appear to be twice as much for the 183 units compared to the 126 RC units but is still less than half what the office park would be. He said the sewer capacity issue is still an unknown, and they need to confirm capacity. The number of school children in either the RC plan or TND plan is basically a breakeven. With regard to sewer capacity, Mr. Motel said the Township will have to make adjustments to its Act 537 plan. Mr. Townes said he has the calculations for Spring Oaks and Tyler Griffin, but asked Mr. Comitta if he has numbers for the remainder of Area 2. Mr. Townes said the capacity can be met, but the TND will trigger the need for an expanded pump station in Tredyffrin Township. Mr. Rodgers estimated that cost at $5 million. Mr. Townes said a proposed retirement village in East Whiteland will be covering a portion of this cost, and he needs to find out what other developers may be contributing. He said they need to propose their number to the Sewer Authority to see what must be done to accommodate it. Mr. Comitta suggested checking with Mr. Kohli, as he may have done some preliminary analysis of this. Mr. Allen said he's reviewed the data and finds no real absolute. He said they have to rely on the numbers provided by Jack Loew, and noted that he participated in a conference call arranged by Mr. Comitta with an individual from Charter Homes who provided basically the same number. Mr. Allen said if the density is between 170 and 180 units he'd be satisfied. He recognizes the need for a critical mass to make the TND work. Mr. Motel said he hasn't come up with anything different than what Mr. Loew proposed and is prepared to accept his number. He asked Mr. Mosteller if he's spoken to Tom Fillippo about the density for his acreage adjacent to Spring Oaks. Mr. Mosteller said he has 23 acres, and although he can't speak for Mr. Fillippo, he estimates it could yield 60-70 units. Mrs. Gorman said she doesn't have a problem with 183 units and that she wants the project to succeed. Mr. Reis and Mrs. Leland declined to provide a number. Mr. Motel said architect Perry Morgan was integral to the TND process and hopes he'll continue his involvement as they move forward. Mr. Allen said Charlestown currently has no center and the TND will provide one. Mr. Townes said they could ask Mr. Morgan to make a sketch demonstrating how circulation links could work, to be used as a hearing exhibit, and Mr. Motel agreed this would be helpful. Mr. Allen moved to recommend to the Board of Supervisors that a density equivalent to 183 units be set for the Spring Oaks parcel within Area 1 of the Devault Traditional Neighborhood Development ordinance; however, subject to the following: that this was the number of units the Applicants represented were needed to compensate for the increased cost of the more desirable TND design vs. the by-right 126 units; that the financial information provided by the Applicant in justifying the added cost of the TND design was accurate; and, that the Applicants will work collaboratively and in good faith with the Township to develop a Manual of Written and Graphic Design Guidelines as required under the MPC that are acceptable to the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission, guided by the text of the ordinance and Exhibit B of the Ordinance (the pictures) prepared by the Planning Commission. Mrs. Leland seconded the motion. Mr. Motel called for discussion, and their being none, called the vote. Mr. Motel, Mr. Allen, Mrs. Leland and Mrs. Gorman were in favor. Mr. Reis abstained. Having recused herself on this matter, Ms. Peck did not vote. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 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.