What's new? (Home) Search this site Official Twp. Site About Charlestown  Index to Gov't Info  General Info  Organizations  The early days  Photo Albums Surplus & Needs Neighborhood links Notify me of updates About this site  FAQ  People are saying..  Our purpose  About us  Techie stuff  Contacting us Established June 2, 1997 by citizens for citizens Awards March 16, 1998 Website of the Week Daily Local News August 13, 1997

A beautiful part of southeastern Pennsylvania Fans of the World Series Champion Philadelphia Phillies   August 14, 2007   CHARLESTOWN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION GREAT VALLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL, 7:30 P.M. August 14, 2007 Present: Andy Motel, Chairman, Mike Allen, Vice Chairman, June Gorman, Michael Churchill, Rick Reis, Sarah Peck, Wendy Leland (arrived later), Tom Comitta, Linda Csete, and those on the attached list. Call to Order: 7:38 PM Announcements - none Approval of Minutes July 10, 2007 Minutes Ms. Peck made the following corrections to the minutes: p. 7, 2nd paragraph, 4th sentence, eliminate the word "and" from "transitional office and townhouse use" p. 8, 6th paragraph, change to read "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." p. 8, first sentence under topic of Traditional Neighborhood Development, add "Ms. Peck recused herself from the discussion." p. 10, first sentence under "Spring Oaks Density", change "recused herself" to "continued to recuse herself" p. 10, 3rd paragraph under "Spring Oaks Density", 4th sentence, delete "with the commercial uses subsidizing it" and change to "excluding any benefit from the commercial uses". Mr. Motel made the following correction: p. 4, 2nd paragraph, last sentence, delete ""handle a 10 year storm plus a two year storm due to" and change to "handle stormwater management according to" Mr. Motel moved to approve the July 10, 2007 minutes with these corrections and Mr. Allen seconded. Mr. Motel called for discussion, and there being none, called the vote. All were in favor. Presentation - Natural Resources Plan - Steve Brown, London Grove Township Mr. Comitta introduced Steve Brown, London Grove Township Manager, whom he invited to speak this evening on natural resource plans in response to Mr. Allen's expressed interest in the subject at the July 10th meeting. Mr. Comitta circulated copies of a 7/5/07 Daily Local News article, "Lightening the Footprint of Development for Land" which addressed the subject and contained quotes from Mr. Brown. Mr. Comitta also distributed copies of an editorial in the 7/6/07 Daily Local titled "Trust's Ordinance a Model Design for Saving Open Space" which commented on the use of the Natural Lands Trust's model Conservation by Design ordinance. Mr. Brown said London Grove Township works with its subdivision and land development applicants to prepare a Natural Resources Plan in order to minimize environmental impacts on any land to be developed. The Plan is the first step in their 5 step process leading to preliminary plan submission for any subdivision of 5 lots or more. He said they ask their applicants not to show a sketch plan before submitting a natural resources inventory. After the inventory is submitted, a site walk is scheduled, which includes the applicant, a representative from the Natural Lands Trust, the township engineer, members of the planning commission, open space commission, parks & recreation board, and board of supervisors. Details of the design are ironed out at this stage before the developer spends a lot for plan preparation. Mr. Motel asked what the inventory includes, and Mr. Brown said basically all surface features, such as streams, springs, ponds, slopes and woodlands. As the process continues, they ask for a soils study in order to understand the infiltration patterns to better plan for stormwater management. Mr. Motel asked who leads the site tour, and Mr. Brown said usually the Natural Lands Trust. He said the tour is rather informal. The site walk helps determine which areas will be conserved as primary conservation areas as well as secondary areas, which include historic resources and viewsheds. Mr. Churchill asked if there is a minimum site size that triggers the requirement for a natural resources plan, and Mr. Brown said there is no acreage minimum. They require the Plan for all subdivisions of 5 or more lots. Mr. Churchill asked if the plan is mandatory. Mr. Brown said the ordinance reads that the applicant "shall prepare", which he would argue makes it mandatory. He said the developers don't question the requirement and seem to like the process. Mr. Allen asked if there have been any situations that have backfired on them. Mr. Brown said not really, although some designs have come out better than others, usually with regard to the configuration of open space. Mr. Churchill asked who manages the open space, and Mr. Brown said it's the responsibility of the Homeowners' Associations. His Township requires specific language in the HOA documents to cover this responsibility. While they used to depend on their civil engineer to work out the HOA details, they now find it works better to use a consultant more specifically knowledgeable of open space design and requirements. He said he's recently spoken to two HOA's about their open space management. One association has been in place for about one year and is not adequately maintaining their riparian buffer. He also has concerns about a newer HOA that is just now preparing for dedication. Mr. Motel asked how they enforce the maintenance requirements, and whether the township steps in to address problems if the HOA fails to do so. Mr. Brown said the HOA's will usually come through with some combination of support and pressure from the Township. Mr. Churchill asked if residents outside of a particular development use its open space and whether London Grove tries to integrate the open space with the outer communities. Mr. Brown said a lot of their open space consists of sensitive, natural features and stormwater management, so not all is usable. He said London Grove tends to prefer multiple shallow, narrow stormwater basins, which take up considerable space. Mr. Allen asked if they permit a secondary use on the basins, and Mr. Brown said no, due to the negative effects of silting and soil compaction. They're generally planted with a meadow mix. In the Open Space, trails are the main feature, with some developments having arterial trails that link to others outside the subdivision, and others that have local trails within the subdivision. The arterial trails are open to the general public with the intention of creating a chain of trails. They also utilize a fee-in-lieu ordinance that is presently helping to fund construction of a new park. Mr. Reis asked what their formula is for calculating open space. Mr. Brown said the net tract area is first calculated by taking out constrained areas. Fifty percent of this net is then removed for open space, which usually translates to about sixty percent of the gross acreage. Mr. Churchill asked if London Grove has mostly public or private utilities. Mr. Brown said most of the cluster development is done in the area of London Grove that has both public sewer and public water. He explained that his township is bisected by Route 1, and the area north of Route 1 is more rural and is zoned agricultural. The developments employing cluster development and a natural resources plan are primarily located south of Route 1. Clustering in the northern section created the need for cross easements for septic systems, and septic systems in the open space due to the smaller size of the lots. (Mrs. Leland arrived at this time.) Mr. Churchill asked for the minimum lot size, and Mr. Brown said 9,000 square feet, although none are actually developed that small. Mr. Allen said identifying the secondary conservation areas is a subjective process, and asked how the township resolves conflicts over what is to be included. Mr. Brown said they are usually able to come to an agreement with the developer with some persuasion. Mr. Motel asked how the attendance is for the site walks. Mr. Brown said they generally have very good participation, adding that the site visit is the key to the process. Mr. Churchill said the Charlestown Planning Commission has performed site visits, but usually later in the process. Mr. Churchill asked if London Grove has put any energy efficiency standards into their ordinances, and Mr. Brown said no, although they're considering some measures. They need to investigate what is permitted under the statewide building code. They've considered offering an incentive to the builder, possibly an expedited process or bonus density, in exchange for a reduction in their carbon footprint. Mr. Churchill said he'd be interested in learning more if London Grove does develop any ordinances on this subject. Resident Michael Dixon asked what the Natural Lands Trusts' interest is in London Grove's natural resource plan process. Mr. Brown said they co-authored the ordinance and although they hold easements in other townships, they don't hold any in London Grove. He said London Grove will probably create its own land trust. Mr. Motel thanked Mr. Brown for attending tonight's meeting with this information. Review Apostolic Christian Church Preliminary Land Development Mr. Motel tabled this review as no one was present on behalf of the applicant. Great Valley Business Campus - GenTerra Corporation Mr. Panizza, Bob Smiley, Roman W. Dychdala, P.E., Phil Earley and Kevin Richter were present to discuss a revised sketch plan for the 53 acre tract at the corner of Yellow Springs Road and Phoenixville Pike. Mr. Motel acknowledged that he received a letter from Mr. Panizza regarding clearing on the site, and noted that although he had not been up to the house, he would have to accept Mr. Panizza's representations that the area around the historic structure had been trimmed and the house re-secured as requested at the last meeting. Mr. Panizza said they were asked to return with a plan showing some retail use, but he summed up the results of his realtors' research that indicates this site is not suitable for retail based on the remainder of the plan and the general area. Mr. Motel asked for traffic counts along Phoenixville Pike. Mr. Earley said the peak traffic count was 9,600. Weekend traffic is considerably less. He offered to send the full report to the township for distribution to the Planning Commission. Mrs. Gorman said that while there doesn't appear to be a rationale for retail at the site, if some retail were introduced, it would draw customers that would create that rationale. Mr. Earley agreed that retail could work on a very small scale, and Mr. Panizza agreed. Mrs. Gorman added that in addition to the townhouses at Charlestown Oaks, the high school is close by, and juniors and seniors in good standing are permitted to leave the school grounds during the day, where they frequent the Wawa on Planebrook Road. Mr. Panizza indicated he would be willing to exchange some of the use on the higher sloped areas of the tract for retail along the front. Mr. Panizza showed the revised sketch plan, which depicts a building at the corner of Yellow Springs and Phoenixville Pike, with the existing historic house above it. That house would be renovated. Mr. Smiley said it would be a two story, 14,000 sq. ft. office building. Mr. Dychdala said it depicts 92 parking spaces to the east of the building. Mr. Motel said this seems like a lot of parking, and Mr. Churchill indicated they might consider putting some spaces in reserve. Mr. Panizza said they spoke to Liberty Property Trust, and they thought all the parking would be needed. A second, larger building is shown along Phoenixville Pike at the eastern corner of the tract. It is proposed to be 80,000 square feet of flex space. Mr. Panizza said the sketch no longer shows any buildings in the northern section of the tract, stating that he understands the Planning Commissions' concerns voiced at the last meeting. He said he may want to do something in that area under a second phase. Mr. Churchill objected to the suggestion that there would be an unknown Phase II, as it's the hardest part of the tract to plan. Mr. Motel agreed. Mr. Motel noted that the revised sketch eliminates the access off Yellow Springs Road and keeps the Phoenixville Pike access the same as on the previous plan. He asked what the light green line traveling up the middle of the plan represented, and Mr. Smiley said it's an old path that's not wooded. Mr. Motel asked for the percentage of disturbance on the revised sketch plan, and Mr. Dychdala said about 15 acres out of the total 53. Mr. Reis said the access to the proposed flex building eliminates the possibility of access from Phoenixville Pike to the northern area of the tract. Mr. Smiley said building an access there would generate the same objections as the access off Yellow Springs Road did on the prior sketch plan, due to similar slopes. Mr. Motel asked what relief will be needed under the revised sketch plan, and Mr. Smiley said they'll need conditional use approval for construction in steep slopes, and for use as flex space, which is not permitted by-right in the I/O District. Mr. Churchill asked what uses might be in the flex building, and Mr. Earley said two common uses are for manufacturers' reps and for warehouse space. Mr. Dychdala said the sketch plan shows the parking at maximum so that the flex building could be converted to all office space and still be accommodated. Mr. Motel asked if there was available flex space in the area, and Ms. Peck said there is a shortage now. Mrs. Leland asked about loading docks and bays, and Mr. Smiley said they'll be located at the rear of the building. Mr. Churchill asked if there are any ideas for the second phase, and Mr. Panizza said they would serve the market at that time, possibly with one story office, two story office condos, or storage. Mr. Churchill said he's not concerned with the particular use as much as with the access and the amount of space. Ms. Peck asked Mr. Panizza if he would be amenable with an exchange: to forego development of the upper portion of the tract in exchange for retail space along Phoenixville Pike. Mr. Panizza said he would be willing to exchange some of the upper space but not all of it. Mr. Churchill suggested the Planning Commission work numbers out together with the applicant. Mr. Reis said that although the use of the upper area is removed from the revised sketch, the idea of a phase two means it's still potentially there. Mr. Smiley said it wouldn't be the same use as proposed earlier but more an Exton Commons type of use. Mr. Motel asked if the applicant would be willing to have an expedited process in exchange for preserving the northern area. Mr. Panizza said no. Mr. Motel said he still has the impediment of the slopes to reach the northern area. Mr. Panizza said if he could use the middle, lower area along Phoenixville Pike for retail he might consider leaving most of the north open, but would still want some use along Yellow Springs Road. They would be lower traffic uses. He gave one example of a possible use, that of automobile storage, which he said would generate little traffic, mostly on the weekends. Other possibilities would be outside storage or data storage. Mr. Motel asked about the impervious surface coverage percentage on the previous sketch plan, and Mr. Dychdala said it was well under the maximum. Mr. Motel asked for the height of the proposed flex building, and Mr. Earley said it would be 24 feet, but single story. Mr. Allen asked what the slope will look like to the rear of the flex building, and Mr. Dychdala said it would be approximately a 3:1 slope where they would plant grass. Mr. Allen said it would be helpful to see a sketch with the retail shown in front as discussed. He would rather not approve development for the site in two parts. Mr. Panizza said he would still have to follow the ordinances, but said he would agree to a condition not to build in the north if they can come up with a suitable alternative. Ms. Peck said in reality, Yellow Springs Road doesn't provide a practical access to the tract and that the tract suggests access would be better from within the site. Mr. Panizza said it couldn't be done. Mr. Dychdala said it would be impossible with the first sketch plan, but could be possible with a revised plan that includes the retail as discussed. To reach the upper area of the tract, the access would have to traverse 13% slopes, above the maximum of 10%, and this would require switchbacks that would use up the best part of the site. Mr. Allen asked that the applicant look at the retail possibility and reduce development in the upper region, showing what would be built there. Mr. Panizza said he'd prefer not to show a sketch of the upper area because the use might change. He said he'd prefer to provide the data in document form. Ms. Peck said it doesn't seem like a fair trade off to allow the retail plus some development in the north. She said the retail should compensate entirely for leaving the northern area natural. Mr. Panizza doubted he could get enough retail to do so. He said he might agree to very tight restrictions on the location and uses in the upper area, for a low-impact use in the future. He would find a user to meet these criteria. He asked that the Planning Commission consider forming a subcommittee to meet with him to discuss this possibility. Mr. Motel said Mr. Kohli should be a part of the committee, and asked for volunteers to meet with Mr. Panizza. Ms. Peck, Mrs. Leland and Mr. Allen volunteered as the planning commission representatives. Arrangements will be made for a site visit and subsequent meeting next week. Mr. Panizza will return to discuss the matter further at the September 11th Planning Commission meeting. Phoenixville Regional Planning Commission Comprehensive Plan The Township Administrator indicated that the Board of Supervisors is opening a hearing on September 4th to consider adoption of the Phoenixville Regional Comprehensive Plan, and have requested a review and recommendation from the Planning Commission. Mr. Reis said the draft Plan hasn't changed much since last year when the Planning Commission reviewed it. Mr. Comitta said his only concern was with the method of determining existing and future land use for property with approved plans. In Charlestown, the Plan shows the Quigley (Spring Oaks) tract as having existing commercial use, because it has final plan approval for this use. However, the existing use remains agricultural, and future use will be as part of the proposed TND. He said this means the accompanying calculations in various tables in the Plan are thrown off, particularly in calculating the amount of land eligible for different types of housing. Charlestown doesn't get credit for its potential yield of townhouses. Since last year, he has posited to the PRPC that this tract should be shown on their maps as a proposed village use. The density used for this designation is very similar to that proposed by the township's TND ordinance. Mr. Reis said the way Spring Oaks is depicted is consistent with the method employed for the entire regional plan, and he doesn't feel that it's an issue. Mr. Reis indicated that one of the other members of the PRPC, East Vincent Township, has been considering withdrawing. Mr. Willig said that all the member municipalities must schedule hearings now to be on track to adopt the Regional Comprehensive Plan by the end of November. East Vincent Township has not moved forward on this. The issue is that there may be a change in their Board of Supervisors prior to 2008, which may lead to a majority vote to pull out of the group. The Township Administrator noted that as required, the Plan had been distributed to the County and neighboring municipalities for review. Only West Whiteland has responded with comments so far. Mr. Comitta said their comments included a reminder to take Exton Park into consideration, and a question on why an area adjacent to West Whiteland Township west of Route 401 was designated as a potential growth area. Mr. Reis moved to recommend adoption of the Phoenixville Regional Planning Commission Comprehensive Plan to the Board of Supervisors, with no changes. He said any changes will cause at least a six month delay. Mr. Willig said changes can be made after initial adoption of the plan. Mr. Churchill asked if the Quigley designation creates an impact on the Township if not changed, and Mr. Reis said no. Mr. Churchill said it appears to be deminimus, and doesn't govern what Charlestown can do in the future. He seconded the motion. Mr. Motel called for additional discussion, and there being none, called the vote. All were in favor. (Mrs. Leland left the meeting at this time.) Traditional Neighborhood Development Ordinance Ms. Peck recused herself from this discussion. Mr. Motel said the Supervisors met on August 6th and voted to approve the proposed Spring Oaks density of 183 units under the TND. He said Perry Morgan gave a presentation on some connections among the various TND elements at the hearing. Mr. Motel said he was concerned with Area 2 as to the road layouts and the configuration and uses of the buildings. He asked Mr. Morgan for some sketches on this subject to discuss this evening. The task was to depict the pedestrian and road systems and transitioning between uses. Pedestrian access was to be shown off Whitehorse Road to link Spring Oaks residents with the retail area. Mr. Morgan displayed one of the sketches that showed sidewalks and trails leading from the Fillippo tract adjacent to Spring Oaks to connect to proposed multi-use fields across from Devault Lane, and crossing over Route 29 through to the Tyler Griffin tract. Mr. Churchill said he was concerned over the proximity of the proposed signal to the existing intersection at Route 29 and Charlestown Road. Ms. Peck asked about crossing the railroad track. John Mosteller, Dewey Builders, suggested the Planning Commission be prepared to use the existing crossing in case the additional crossing isn't feasible. Mr. Morgan said the plan takes advantage of the frontage along Route 29 near Whitehorse Road to act as a gateway to Whitehorse Road, which will funnel traffic there. Mr. Motel said he asked Mr. Morgan to prepare a sketch plan that shows Area 2 without focusing on the 60,000 square foot cap for each of retail and commercial in Area 2, but rather to show the full potential of what could fit there. He said this was just to be done for discussion purposes. Mr. Morgan showed the rendering, which shows the architecture mirrored on each side of Whitehorse Road, with retail and office space on two levels. Raised pavers will be installed at the intersection points for crosswalks to give the area a main street feel that is not grand in scale but detailed like a small village. Parking is hidden behind the buildings. Along Route 29, wetlands near Phoenixville Pike and Route 29 are left alone, and a single story 15,000 square foot building is shown closer to Whitehorse Road facing Route 29. The sketch shows 80,000 square feet of retail on Whitehorse Road, which could go to 90,000 square feet with second story office use. Ms. Peck asked if he considered housing on the second or third story. Mr. Motel said they've discussed it, and the ordinance now allows some apartments above the retail space but the language for this needs to be addressed. Mr. Morgan said there are 4.1 spaces per 1,000 square feet for parking for the retail and office use. Mr. Rodgers pointed out that the township-owned six acre parcel contains quite a bit of wetlands. Mr. Morgan said he did see this on the USGS maps, and the connector road is positioned north of them. Mr. Churchill asked how many square feet of retail are shown. Mr. Morgan said 60,000 square feet are shown on the north side and 30,000 on the south side. Mr. Churchill asked why the retail is expanded, which would change the type of retail in the TND. Mr. Motel said the plan is simply an exercise to focus on road connections and uses, and it will be scaled down from what is depicted. He acknowledged that Mr. Comitta indicated 80,000 square feet is generally regarded as the tipping point between neighborhood commercial, which is what is desired, and a retail area that attracts larger anchor stores and outside traffic. This isn't the point of this sketch plan, but rather it is just to show how the space can be used. Mr. Churchill asked what is in the triangle area created by the additional road connecting Whitehorse Road and Route 29. Mr. Morgan said there is parking and a building. The municipal complex would be across from this area. Mr. Allen said the complex isn't integrated with the housing areas. Mr. Mosteller said some village commercial use could be placed in the area between the complex and the housing, and as it is, it funnels to the commercial area. Mr. Allen said he doesn't care if the building facing Route 29 is taken off the plan. Mr. Motel said he'd rather keep that building and possibly remove the easternmost building on the north side of Whitehorse. Mr. Allen said that would change the symmetry. Mr. Morgan said this building could be scaled down to integrate with the village commercial suggested by Mr. Mosteller. Both sides could be scaled down from, for example, three stories to two, or two stories to one, which would reduce parking needs also. Mr. Motel said if the buildings were stepped down, the plan could stay with 60,000 square feet of retail while placing some retail along the connector road that comes from Devault Foods to break up the parking. Mr. Morgan said this would open the plan up and allow for some reduction in parking and get more green space. He cautioned they don't want to lose too much retail along Whitehorse Road. These suggestions make the plan go more linear rather than going up. Mr. Motel referenced a picture on Page 25 of Exhibit B of the TND ordinance, showing an example of the two story structure in Columbus, Ohio they envisioned along the western portion of the Whitehorse retail area. Mr. Morgan said the building along Route 29 not only provides the look of an entrance onto Whitehorse, it also serves to block the view of the parking lots behind the Whitehorse Road buildings. Ms. Peck said the Route 29 building will attract retail shoppers onto Whitehorse Road. Mr. Allen disagreed, saying once people know what's on Whitehorse; they won't need to be directed there. Mr. Motel said he asked Jack Loew about this, and he said he would have buildings facing Route 29, as it would not only attract shoppers, it will attract retailers. Mr. Reis suggested eliminating the westernmost cross road connecting to Route 29, and Mr. Allen also questioned why two connectors are needed. Mr. Morgan said if one is eliminated it should be the eastern road, although some connection is still needed for truck access to Devault Foods. Ms. Peck said she would also remove one of the roads, and likes the pedestrian connection shown around the back of Spring Oaks. Mr. Morgan said he could look at changing the connections along with scaling down the buildings approaching that area. Mr. Mosteller suggested Mr. Morgan walk the area around Devault Lane, concerned that bringing the access near Devault Foods would provide an unattractive view. Mr. Motel asked Mr. Morgan to revise the Area 2 sketch for the September 11th meeting, including total retail of about 60,000 square feet. Mr. Reis agreed that the square footage should be kept within the bounds outlined in the draft ordinance. Mr. Churchill suggested starting with the circulation design, then working out the square footage and connection to Spring Oaks. Mr. Allen said he wants to see how the integration among uses works. He said he has mixed feelings about the second boulevard, which he likes. He added that he'd find slightly more retail space acceptable, up to 70,000 square feet. Mr. Motel said he'd be concerned that this might change the dynamics and what the increased parking requirement will do to appearance. Mr. Comitta said that in the space between Spring Oaks and Area 2, instead of buildings, there are ways to create a "false bridge" using columns or piers. He gave examples of Palmetto in South Carolina and Harbortown in Memphis. He said he agrees with eliminating one of the two connecting boulevards, but thought the plan might need a small service road or alley. He also said he likes the building that fronts Route 29, saying it acts as a buffer, and provides a gateway to Whitehorse Road. He said the parking beast must be tamed. Mr. Motel asked for comments from the public. Dr. Stewart, Union Hill Road, said there is too much traffic on Whitehorse Road now in the mornings. He asked how this plan will affect the citizens. It will create more traffic, some cutting through on Union Hill Road. Mr. Motel said the area will be developed at some point, and it's not possible to expect the status quo to continue in the future. Dr. Stewart said the approved office development in Spring Oaks wouldn't be developed for another 15 years, and by changing the zoning for that parcel, the township is bringing more people here. He said four years ago, when a village was discussed for Devault, it was considered to attract residents only. Now the plans are bringing in people from outside. Mr. Motel said they selected 60,000 for retail space, as this cap is typical of retail centers that serve area residents and do not induce others to come to the area, sometimes called "Neighborhood Commercial" in development circles. Dr. Stewart said the Planning Commission has been inconsistent in its thinking. Mr. Motel said the village will serve the needs and convenience of the residents, but retailers will need some outside visitors to make it work for them and the 16,500 cars that travel by Whitehorse Road every day will make those small stores economically viable. The village won't contain larger "destination" stores, such as a grocery store, Wal-Mart or Target. The types of retail planned for Devault are ones that will serve the residents, such as boutique stores, possibly a Starbucks, and uses such as office, drugstore or art gallery. He said he travels Whitehorse Road every day and acknowledges the traffic is bad, but the village won't add appreciably to it. Dr. Stewart said the Planning Commission is naive to think people will walk to the area. He said in Wayne and Bryn Mawr, people drive a block and a half rather than walk to the shops. Mr. Allen disagreed with this assessment, saying he walked when living in Wayne. Mr. Motel said the proposed retail area is all within a five minute walk of Spring Oaks. Ms. Peck asked what would happen if the Township didn't plan growth in the Devault Area, considering that the slip ramp is coming. The 400,000 square feet of office approved for Spring Oaks will not wait long; it's ripe for development now. Mr. Motel asked Mr. Morgan how many parking spaces are planned for the Area 2 retail, and he answered 400. Mr. Motel said there are 1,800 parking spaces shown for the approved business park on the Spring Oaks parcel alone. Mrs. Stewart said that this wouldn't bring in traffic on the weekends, as retail use will do. Dr. Stewart said the Planning Commission is raping the citizens of Charlestown and doing them a tremendous disservice. Mrs. Gorman pointed out that Dr. Stewart isn't the only citizen of Charlestown, and that other people want the change so they can use a part of Charlestown and mingle with people here. She said everyone is inconvenienced by bad traffic, but designing a TND gives the Township some control over what will happen. Mr. Motel said he appreciates the Stewarts' participation at meetings, and Mr. Churchill added that although he disagrees with Dr. Stewart, his remarks are useful in reminding the Planning Commission of its original goals in undertaking this process in Devault. They're trying to work out a suitable scale for the area. Mr. Motel said they will revisit Area 2 on September 11th. Jim Marlowe, Esq., representing the Stewarts, said the Stewart and Bunten properties on Union Hill Road are not included in the TND even though there is a flat area behind their properties that would be suitable. They would like their properties to be included. Mr. Motel said the Stewarts' son said as much at the August 6th hearing, giving him the impression they wanted to bail out of the Township. Mrs. Stewart said it would let them appreciate the value of their property whereas the TND will make their property value go down. Mr. Motel said the Supervisors want a recommendation on Area 2 by September 11th. Mr. Churchill asked about signage, and Mr. Motel then asked Mr. Comitta to draft ordinance language on signs. He said pedestrian/bike paths must also be addressed, as well as the density for the Tyler Griffin tract. Mr. Allen also asked Mr. Comitta to follow up on the single vs. multiple uses for Areas 2 and 4. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 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.