A beautiful part of southeastern Pennsylvania

September 12, 2006     September 26, 2006   CHARLESTOWN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION GREAT VALLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL, 7:30 P.M. September 12, 2006 Present: Andy Motel, Chairman, Michael Allen, Vice Chairman, June Gorman, Sarah Peck, Wendy Leland (arrived later), 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: 7:45 PM Announcements - None Approval of Minutes August 22, 2006 Mr. Reis had the following corrections to the August 22nd minutes: Page 6 - 1st Paragraph - CCPC should be CCRC Page 10 - 3rd paragraph - $1,000 should be $1,000 square feet With these corrections, Mr. Reis moved to approve the August 22, 2006 minutes and Mr. Allen seconded. Mr. Motel called for discussion, and there being none, called the vote. All were in favor. General Business Grant Applications to the DCNR Open Space Director Aliena Gerhard gave a brief description of three properties under consideration by the Township for the purchase of development rights. Grant applications to the DCNR for matching funds will be submitted for these properties. She said the McDevitt property has the Pickering Creek on it and great horse trails. The Reed and Stevens properties have either the Pigeon Run or Pickering Creek on them. She said these properties are critical for preservation because the creeks run into the Pickering Reserve, which is the source of public water for much of the township. The Stevens property is adjacent to the open space portion of the Brooklands subdivision. Grant applications to the DCNR for matching funds will be submitted for these properties, and additional funding may be available from Chester County. Mr. Reis asked if any development will be permitted on the lands, and Ms. Gerhard said there will be none on the Reed or Stevens property, but they are discussing the issue with McDevitt. Mr. Allen asked what restrictions the DCNR requires on the properties, and Ms. Gerhard said they generally focus on Best Management Practices requirements. The easement would be held through the French & Pickering Creeks Trust, which requires an easement, buffer zones and public access. Mr. Motel said there is always a way to provide public access that is agreeable to the property owner. Mr. Motel made a motion to support the Township's application for DCNR grants for the Stevens, McDevitt and Reed properties, and Allen seconded. Mr. Motel called for discussion, and there being none, called the vote. All were in favor. Ms. Gerhard will prepare a letter of support for the Chairman's signature that will be included in the grant application. Density for Horses Ms. Gerhard mentioned there was a delay scheduling Karyn Malinowski to come before the Planning Commission to brief them on horse pasture management in preparation of drafting an ordinance to specify the density for horses on tracts over 25 acres in size. Mr. Motel suggested giving her until the first of the year, and if she is still unavailable, the Planning Commission will proceed with drafting the ordinance regardless. Applications Valley Forge Christian College - Hartwick House Bill Werkheiser, VFCC and Peter Cokonis of Commonwealth Engineers were present to discuss the land development plan to convert the former Heritage Acres Rest Home facility into dormitories for the College. Mr. Werkheiser said the VFCC held a meeting last night with the neighbors of the property, and about 12-14 residents attended. Of those residents, Mr. and Mrs. Chris Burk were present this evening. Mr. Werkheiser said the meeting lasted about an hour during which they walked the property, explained the plans and toured the inside of the house. The residents were given a copy of the student handbook so they could see the rules and regulations the student residents must follow. Mr. Werkheiser showed a sketch he drew of the proposed addition for a student lounge and observation deck, which was different from the previous contemporary design. The sketch showed a design more consistent with the historic house with windows to match. (Mr. Comitta arrived at this time.) Mr. Motel asked if it will have a peak roof, and Mr. Werkheiser said yes. Mr. Motel asked about the materials to be used, and Mr. Werkheiser said it will be finished with stucco and possibly stone that matches the house if it's available and affordable for the College. Ms. Peck said there may be a problem with having two different roof pitches side by side. Mr. Werkheiser said his drawing is not to scale, but agreed they won't match. He said the other option is a roof such as that on the shed, with an overhang, but they prefer the sketch design. The footprint is the same as the one shown previously for the contemporary design, and the handicapped ramp shown will act as the main entrance to the building. Mr. Motel asked for comments. Ms. Peck said the College's intentions are commendable but it's hard to provide feedback on the rough sketch. Mr. Motel said they'd like to see an artist's rendering at the next meeting. Mr. Werkheiser reminded the planning commission members that the approvals they seek are for land development, not for the building permit itself, which has already been approved. The occupancy permit is tied in to the land development plan, however. He agreed to e-mail the rendering to the township office for distribution. (Mrs. Leland arrived at this time.) Mr. Cokonis went on to address the land development issues outlined in Mr. Kohli's review letter dated August 14, 2006, beginning with parking. Not all students will have a car. Mr. Werkheiser said all the students will be male, upperclassmen, and honor students. The students typically spend the entire day at the college, and have their meals there. During nice weather, most prefer to walk to the campus. They are required to sign up for the meal plan. Most students go home on the weekends. With regard to a crosswalk for Coldstream Road, Mr. Cokonis mentioned the possibility of a three-way stop at Maryhill and Coldstream Roads. Mr. Kohli suggested the school do the speed and volume study, and submit it to PennDOT for their review and response, which would be much quicker than requesting PennDOT to do the study. Mr. Kohli said in the past, PennDOT turned down a request for a crosswalk due to the sight distances at the intersection. Mr. Werkheiser agreed to arrange for the traffic study. Mr. Kohli said the applicant wants to reduce the amount of paved parking required for the 25 students by paving a portion and keeping the remainder in reserve. Mr. Cokonis said the existing two gravel lots are not up to code. Mr. Kohli suggested trying to fit all the parking in those areas, although Mr. Werkheiser said they proposed moving it to give better visibility to the entrance. Mr. Motel asked how many spaces are needed, and Mr. Werkheiser said 20, possibly 10 paved and 10 gravel. He said he'd prefer to keep them all gravel. Mr. Motel asked if parking was for students only, and Mr. Werkheiser said yes, including the Resident Director. Mr. Motel asked if all 20 spaces are needed. Mr. Kohli said the requirement is for one space per room, i.e., 10 spaces. Ms. Peck said they're fighting the reality of the demand for cars, but Mr. Werkheiser said the college can control and restrict that. He added the students will not be permitted to park along the street and the college can issue a fine for that. Ms. Peck said putting in the additional spaces will give the property a more institutional look. Mr. Werkheiser said that's why they want to keep them as gravel. He added the lots can't be seen from the road. Mrs. Leland asked if overflow parking is available, and Mr. Werkheiser said yes, on campus. Mr. Reis said he agreed with paving 10 spaces, and keeping about 5 in gravel, reasoning that overflow parking is available about 1,200 feet away. Mr. Motel said he'd prefer more in gravel, and Mrs. Leland said she would keep them all gravel. Mr. Reis noted a few paved spaces are required for handicapped parking. Mr. Werkheiser said one space is all that is required. Mr. Motel determined the consensus of the Planning Commission was that they'd prefer to keep most of the parking lot as gravel. Mr. and Mrs. Burk also said they preferred gravel. Mr. Kohli said he needs to check with solicitor on how to deal with this from a zoning standpoint, since the ordinance requires that all 10 spaces be paved. Mr. Werkheiser said he knows they'll need 20 spaces total, and would rather avoid using a shuttle service unless there was no alternative. Mr. Motel asked if the names of the surrounding property owners had been added to the plans. Mr. Werkheiser said they added them to the plan brought for the meeting, but the actual plans still need to be revised to include this. Mr. Cokonis referenced item #5 on Mr. Kohli's review letter dated 8/14/06, which states that off street loading areas are required. He said that there will be no large deliveries to the house and that loading areas wouldn't be needed. When students move in and out of their rooms they can do so from their parking spaces. Mr. Motel said this was acceptable to him. Ms. Peck asked about cooking at the house. Mr. Werkheiser said they would only have facilities for reheating food, such as one stove and microwave ovens. All the students will be on the college's meal plan. Mrs. Gorman asked about trash pick up, and Mr. Werkheiser said campus personnel will pick up trash twice a day using pick up trucks. Students will set trash bags on the porch for pick up. Mr. Cokonis referenced item #10 on Mr. Kohli's letter, which requires that the proposed detention basin be moved out of the 50 foot wetland buffer. Mr. Cokonis asked if the basin qualifies as a structure, and Mr. Kohli said yes, and that no structures or grading are permitted within this buffer. Mr. Allen said they can use or modify existing features to control stormwater, but Mr. Werkheiser said he is reluctant to alter that area because it's very attractive as it is. Mr. Kohli suggested putting the basin underground, perhaps under the parking lot. The roof gutters can be extended to send water to the underground system as well. Ms. Peck said this would be impractical and expensive, though Mr. Motel said the alternative is an unattractive above ground basin. Ms. Peck said their alternatives are to either move the basin 50 feet from the wetland or construct an underground system. Mr. Cokonis referred to item #29, which said meadow cover type shall be utilized for all pre-developed impervious coverage. He said this means the demolished house addition footprint will count as meadow rather than impervious surface and changes the stormwater requirements by adding volume to the infiltration system. Mr. Kohli said the difference is less than 200 square feet and shouldn't have much effect. Mr. Cokonis said item #35 requires a minimum of 30 feet between the detention basin and the proposed building addition, and they won't be able to meet this distance if the basin is moved 50 feet from the wetland. Mr. Kohli said they will need to either request a waiver or construct an underground stormwater system as previously suggested. Mr. Motel said these stormwater issues should be worked out with Mr. Kohli before the next meeting. Mr. Cokonis indicated they will provide the land planning modules for sanitary sewer as noted in item #16. He then asked about item #25, requiring monuments to be shown at all changes in direction along roadways, and Mr. Motel suggested he work this out with Mr. Kohli. Mr. Motel asked about Mr. Comitta's review memorandum dated 8/29/06. Mr. Comitta said item #8 for the pedestrian crosswalk has been covered. Mr. Cokonis said they will comply with the landscaping and screening requirements. He said they will be unable to provide an 8 foot circumference island as TCA recommends and want to keep the 5 foot island. The Planning Commission and Mr. Comitta agreed that this would be sufficient. Mr. Allen asked about the lighting plan, and Mr. Cokonis said they are agreeable to Mr. Comitta's recommendations. Mr. Motel added that he likes the lighting on campus, which is unobtrusive but meets the needs of the college. Mr. Comitta said with regard to lighting, the consultant Al Jenkins noted some items to add to the plan, which Mr. Werkheiser agreed to do. Mr. Motel said the applicants should revise the plans and return to the Planning Commission for continued review. Mr. Kohli will check with the solicitor on how to wave the paving requirements for the parking lot. Ms. Peck asked the two neighbors present what they thought of the paving plan, and Mr. Burk said he'd rather they park on the site than on the street, and Mrs. Burk agreed, as long as there is adequate screening. Tyler Griffin Conditional Use Application Tim Townes of J. Loew & Associates briefly reviewed an issue with their conditional use application in steep slopes for the Tyler-Griffin tract, where there is an area of very steep slopes that were artificially created by PennDOT as a result of road widening on Charlestown Road and Route 29. These slopes are expected to change in the future during additional widening, which causes a problem during the planning approval stages for the project. Mr. Kohli said in the worst case, they will have to apply for a variance. While PennDOT requires developers to restore slopes to a 4:1 ratio, they themselves only put slopes back to a 2:1 ratio as they don't want to acquire more right of way than necessary. Ms. Peck suggested they provide PennDOT with a temporary right of way to give them more room to re-grade. Mr. Townes said he will be speaking with PennDOT officials on this issue. The application will be reviewed at the October 10th meeting. Ordinance Review Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Article XVI - Expansion of Non-Conforming Use The Planning Commission reviewed a proposed ordinance revising Article 16 with regard to the expansion of a non-conforming use. The ordinance states that the area devoted to a nonconforming use within a building can't be increased by more than 25% of the original nonconforming area, and that the enlargement must go through the Zoning Hearing Board as a special exception. Mr. Allen said the language on the expansion is confusing and recommended it be clarified in accordance with the County's review letter dated 9/1/06. Ms. Peck moved to recommend adoption of the revised ordinance, incorporating the County's comments, and Mrs. Gorman seconded. Five were in favor. Mr. Reis abstained. Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Article XI - Flood Hazard District The Planning Commission reviewed a proposed ordinance revising Article 11, Flood Hazard District. The ordinance amends the Flood Hazard District Map, last revised 9/29/06 by FEMA, as an overlay to the Township Zoning Map. The proposed ordinance changes all references in the Zoning Ordinance to the Federal Insurance Administration to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, as well as various other changes to other agency references. New sections are added to the ordinance with regard to floors, walls and ceilings, paints and adhesives, Uniform Construction Code coordination, and other new subsections. Mr. Kohli said the ordinance must be adopted so the Township remains in compliance with FEMA. Mr. Allen moved to recommend adoption of the revised ordinance and Ms. Peck seconded. Five were in favor, and Mr. Reis abstained. Traditional Neighborhood Development Ordinance The following items were circulated for tonight's discussion. Draft of Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments - Article 2 - Definitions and Article 22 - Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) District, last revised 9/7/06 Exhibit "A" - Key Design Elements: Traditional Towns and Traditional Neighborhoods Exhibit "B" - Graphic Design Standards for TND District Exhibit "C" - Development Strategy Plan: TND District Mr. Motel circulated an outline drafted by Mr. Allen for tonight's review of the TND Ordinance. He asked the Planning Commission members to review the items listed and circulate written comments by 9/17/06, after which time a subcommittee will compile them so Mr. Comitta can revise the draft accordingly for review at the September 26th meeting. Densities will be addressed at this meeting as well. The goal is to make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors at the October 10th meeting. Mr. Comitta asked the members to look for any missing definitions and also to let him know if they need to see examples of certain uses. Mr. Motel began with item #1 on the outline, a review of Exhibit A, which depicts the TND District Boundaries. He said that areas of the NC-1 district have been included in the TND even though they are separated from the majority of the TND area by the turnpike, because it acts as a gateway area for the Township. He said that by including it in the TND they would have more control over design in this area that has highly visible properties along Route 29. He said he would consider a gas station for this area. Ms. Peck said that since they can't predict all potential desirable land uses, it may be better not to specify something like a gas station, but to provide some leeway in the ordinance language by adding something to the effect of "and such other land uses as determined by the Board of Supervisors". She said with that type of discretion, it would make sense to add those properties to the TND, provided the affected landowners are apprised and comfortable with the change. She asked if the law allows the Board this discretion, and Mr. Comitta said he hasn't seen too many municipalities do it, but the actual definition of TND shows this flexibility. He suggested taking the MPC definition of TND and using it in the Article 2 Definitions accompanying the Charlestown ordinance. Mr. Kuhn said one aspect of including this area in the TND is to control signage. Mr. Allen said he thought they might include all of NC-1 except for the Grange and Apostolic Church properties, which will remain in the I/O District. Mr. Comitta asked the Township Administrator to see if the Turnpike Commission has updated the slip ramp plan or if the plan he's been using is still current. Mr. Motel said District 3 will include hotel/motel and CCRC uses. This includes the Quarry and Asphalt Plant properties. Mr. Reis was concerned with how these uses would work with the restrictions on these properties. Mr. Motel said the Solicitor will review the restrictions, and noted that this change is not being proposed in reaction to the curative amendment application on the Quarry property, but had been discussed previously. Mr. Kuhn pointed out that the Smurthwaite property should be included in District 1, and Mr. Comitta said he will amend the map. Mr. Motel said Districts 1 (Quigley tract) and 3 (Quarry/Asphalt plant) are outlined together in the ordinance and should be separated. Mrs. Gorman said District 3 should be redefined so it doesn't read as primarily residential, and Mr. Motel agreed. Mr. Allen said it mentions single family homes, which is an error in the text. The hotel/motel use was discussed further. Mr. Allen asked the members to think about it in more depth and include remarks in their written comments. Ms. Peck asked why Districts 2 and 2A aren't simply both District 2. Mr. Comitta said the 2A area is more constrained, has smaller lots and includes some existing buildings that call for more adaptive re-use. Ms. Peck said they could still be combined using the discretionary language she suggested previously, with adaptive reuse included for both areas. Mr. Comitta noted that most TNDs focus on building types, not just uses, in order to allow for adaptive reuse. Mr. Reis said the three parcels with homes on Devault Lane shown in District 2A should be in District 2. Mr. Motel and the other members agreed. Mr. Motel said for the next meeting, Mr. Comitta will give acreage requirements for each district. Ms. Peck asked if the intention was to exclude detached homes for granny flats in District 1. Mr. Comitta said this is not specified yet but a granny flat is usually part of a detached house. Mr. Motel asked about uses in District 1-A, which includes the Tyler-Griffin property. Mr. Comitta said it allows all that District 1 allows, plus CCRC. Mr. Motel said he prefers to have CCRCs in District 3. Mr. Comitta suggested adding other age qualified housing to Districts 1 and 1A other than CCRCs, and leaving CCRCs in District 3. He also suggested putting both the Quigley and adjacent Fillippo tract in District 1. Mr. Motel questioned age-qualified housing on the Tyler Griffin tract, and Mr. Comitta said he'll double check the percentage of residents in age-qualified housing that can be under age 55. Mr. Allen said the Tyler-Griffin tract has to be a separate district, and Mr. Motel said it would include some commercial use and should be connected to the rest of the TND. Ms. Peck said that connection should be visual but not necessarily physical, as she feels it won't be practical to cross Route 29 to reach the majority of the TND area. Mrs. Leland suggested the Asphalt plant property be changed to District 2, which would provide uses the residents of Tyler-Griffin could walk to. Mr. Townes added that this would be a good location for a pedestrian crossing, too. Mr. Reis agreed, since Route 29 will be narrower there than nearer the intersection. Ms. Peck said they don't have the foresight to designate square footage in the various districts and suggests they pick one number, such as 10,000 sq. feet, and let the market dictate how to use it. This will provide for greater options, and the buildings can be visually broken up by their design. She cautioned against getting too specific when the market has yet to be created for the area. Mr. Comitta said some municipalities allow for larger footprints if they include liner shops, which masks the big box look of the structure. Mr. Allen was unsure that Districts 2 and 2A should be combined. He suggested the members come back with the uses they want in each one, and if they're the same, they can be combined. Ms. Peck suggested obtaining some feedback from the market after the draft is revised. Mr. Motel asked Mr. Townes if he would be willing to provide comments, and Mr. Townes said he and others in his company would be glad to do so. Mr. Hogan suggested designing a small park and memorial at the former site of the Revolutionary War Paymaster General's house, which is in the Turnpike's staging area opposite Whitehorse Road across Route 29. Mr. Motel referred to item #3 on the discussion outline, which was to determine the structure and format of the Ordinance. It was decided to keep the ordinance rather general and require the developer to produce the design specs subject to the Board's approval. Mr. Allen agreed, stating that he thought some of the language in the draft ordnance was too specific. Item #4 on the outline called for a review of the photos in Exhibit B "Civic Uses and Civic Art" for completeness and acceptability. The members reviewed each of the 24 photos and selected ones they liked and ones they wished to replace with different examples. Mrs. Leland said she'd like to see a village green that included meandering paths and benches. Ms. Peck said she has a source for various pictures and will circulate them to the other commission members. Mr. Motel said Mr. Philips provided feedback on garages in the residential areas. He said no garages should face the street. Mr. Motel countered that some can be designed with recessed garages that work well, for example, at Weatherstone. Ms. Peck agreed that the recessed design reduces the visual impact of the garage, and that in some cases porticos can add to this effect. Mr. Comitta said he'll create a separate page of photos of garages. Mr. Reis asked if Mr. Comitta can provide them with a master list of uses to use in preparing comments for the redraft of the ordinance. The matter will be reviewed further at the September 26th meeting. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 P.M. The next meeting is scheduled for September 26, 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. September 26, 2006 Present: Andy Motel, Chairman (arrived later) Michael Allen, Vice Chairman, June Gorman, Sarah Peck (arrived later), Wendy Leland, Michael Churchill, Rick Reis, Surender S. Kohli, P.E., Tom Comitta (arrived later), Linda Csete, Township Administrator. Members of the Holy Ascension Orthodox Church, Supervisor Hugh Willig, and Tim Townes of J. Loew and Associates were also present. Call to Order: 7:30 PM Announcements Mr. Allen announced that Mr. Motel would be late so he would chair the meeting until Mr. Motel's arrival. Approval of Minutes September 12, 2006 Mrs. Leland moved to approve the September 12 2006 minutes and Mrs. Gorman seconded. Mr. Allen called for discussion, and there being none, called the vote. Three were in favor; Mr. Reis and Mr. Churchill abstained. (Mr. Motel arrived at this time.) Plan Review Holy Ascension Orthodox Church Mr. Motel recused himself from the discussion. Wendy McLean, Esq., Dave Beideman, P.E., Chris Miller, Architect, Father Joseph Butts and many members of the parish council were present to discuss a sketch plan for the Holy Ascension Orthodox Church, which proposes to build a church on the 10 acre Smith property at 3131 Phoenixville Pike. Ms. McLean displayed a sketch plan and rendering of the proposed church. She said the site is part of the Volpi subdivision located on the north side of Phoenixville Pike across from Spring Mill Boulevard. The site contains steep slopes and backs up to the Turnpike. Only the front half is buildable due to the slopes in the back. Other constraints include some high water table soils on the western side of the site adjacent to warehouses on the abutting property. They would need conditional use approval for construction in steep slopes, a variance for some disturbance of very steep slopes, and a variance for parking in the front yard. Ms. McLean noted that this use is not a permitted use in the Industrial/Office (I/O) District, and requested guidance as to whether they should go to the zoning hearing board for a use variance, or if the township would have any interest in amending the zoning ordinance to permit the use district-wide. She said the Church would produce relatively little traffic and is a good use for this constrained property. Any development of the property would require some relief, not just this proposed use. Mr. Churchill asked if the Church would be used other than for religious services. Rev. Butts said they would only meet for religious purposes on Saturday night, Sunday morning, and possibly for some classes on weeknights. Mr. Allen asked for the number of members in the congregation, and Rev. Butts said about 30 families, or 75 people. Mr. Allen asked where they meet now, and Rev. Butts said they rent space from the Boy Scouts' Cradle of Liberty Council building in Valley Forge. The congregation comes from areas from Wynnewood to Downingtown. Mr. Reis asked why they propose 160 parking spaces, and Mr. Beideman said the Church is looking to expand its membership. Mr. Churchill asked if they plan to operate a parochial school in the future, and Mr. Motel responded that he understood the Church had no plans to do that. Rev. Butts agreed. Mr. Churchill had concerns about the scale of the project, as the site is constrained and will have challenging water handling and grading problems. He said it will be hard to determine the appropriate number of parking spaces without seeing a topo. Without more information, he can't determine if this proposal is out of scale. He said he doesn't have a concern with the use itself. Ms. McLean said Rettew Associates did a 2-foot contour study, and they think they can make the site work. Mr. Allen asked what percentage of impervious coverage they propose, and Mr. Beideman said 25-30%. Mr. Kohli suggested that they put the impervious coverage data and other minimum/maximum requirements in a table. Mr. Beideman said he can provide this, and indicated on the sketch where they would be proposing retaining walls. Ms. McLean said the construction wouldn't all be done at once, but in phases. The rendering shows the first phase only. Mr. Churchill said the building in the rendering is very attractive. Ms. McLean added that the orientation of the building is designed for theological reasons. Mr. Allen asked why they propose any parking at all in the front, and Ms. McLean said they have to meet the parking ratio, and that some of the parking area could double as recreational space for the youth. The front of the lot is one of the only flat places to situate the parking. Mr. Churchill asked how much parking they actually want, not withstanding the ordinance requirements. Mr. Beideman said they ultimately want the 160 spaces, though some could be reserved and remain as grass in the beginning. Mr. Miller said the sanctuary is designed for 300-350 people, and they said the 2:1 parking ratio is a good ratio. Mr. Churchill asked for the grade differential between the sanctuary and the lower parking area, and Mr. Beideman said it's about 20 feet, or a 10% slope. Mr. Miller said the slope allows accessibility to both floors of the building. Mr. Churchill said there are curves in the road near the property, and Ms. McLean said yes, there are two mild curves. She said the layout of the structures was dictated by where the entrance drive can go according to PennDOT specifications. Mr. Reis asked if the Turnpike widening will affect this property. Ms. McLean said hopefully not, and that it may help alleviate the stormwater management problem the Turnpike already causes. Ms. McLean said they would ask for a waiver from counting all the trees on the upper slopes that won't be disturbed. Mr. Kohli said this should be acceptable if they delineate the undisturbed area. Mr. Churchill asked if the applicant has spoken with the Devlins, whose house is abutting. Mr. Beideman said no, although his surveyor had, and they seem to be agreeable to the proposed use. Mr. Allen said when they return with a sketch they should show the neighboring properties and provide a north-south cross section. Mr. Kohli said they should provide the Planning Commission with more detail, and then go to the Board of Supervisors to determine which option they should pursue for approval. Mr. Churchill said he felt applying for a use variance was the more sensible course of action. He said the use is a nice transition for nearby residences, and the use will have a low traffic impact. Ms. McLean added it will be an attractive building, as will the proposed Pet Hotel across the street. Mr. Motel suggested that Ms. McLean speak to the Planning Commission solicitor about the variance-ordinance change question, and return to the Planning Commission with a more detailed sketch. Ordinance Review Traditional Neighborhood Development Ordinance Mr. Motel briefly mentioned the sketch plan submitted by Tom Fillippo for a commercial building on his parcel at the southeast corner of Whitehorse Road and Morehall Road. He said he's met with Mr. Fillippo, who is interested in using part of the space for Devault Foods and leasing the rest. He said Mr. Fillippo is interested in the TND concept the Township is considering for the Devault Area. Mr. Motel said that this evening the Planning Commission would go through the proposed ordinance that had been marked up in advance by each of the Planning Commission members and Mr. Townes on a point by point basis. The Definitions section will be reviewed afterward. A summary of the ordinance review by section is as follows: SECTION 2200.A. Agreed to add Mrs. Leland's text further describing TND purposes and objectives. SECTION 2200.C. Additional examples needed. SECTION 2201.C. There was some discussion on how the availability of public utilities, particularly sewer capacity, fits into TND planning, and Mr. Motel stated any legal issue on sewer issues will be submitted to Jim McErlane's office. SECTION 2201.D. Mr. Churchill's language to be added stating that "Any tract to be developed as a TND shall be accompanied by, and comply with a Manual of written Graphic Design Guidelines (as per Section 708.A of the MPC), subject to approval by the Township, pertaining to architecture, building materials, fences, walls, landscaping, signs, road improvements, pedestrian circulation, lighting, parking, and all aesthetic standards." SECTION 2202A Change to "Design Principles", striking the word "Overarching" SECTION 2202A.1 Delete "(which is an updated version of the Key Design Elements of "Traditional Towns & Traditional Neighborhoods: Key Elements" from page E-7 of the Charlestown Township Comprehensive Plan)" SECTION 2202.A.2 Delete SECTION 2202.B.1 change ..."accommodate both vehicular and pedestrian" to "accommodate vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle" SECTION 2202.B.2. Change to "cul-de-sac streets shall be discouraged and be by Conditional Use only. SECTION 2202.B.3. add "where feasible" to end of sentence. SECTION 2202.B.4. add "where feasible" to end of sentence. SECTION 2202.B.5. Will request input from Mr. Comitta. SECTION 2202.B.7 Add words in (): Streets should have minor deflections in their alignment "where feasible" to provide short curving vistas. Request additional input from Mr. Comitta. SECTION 2202.B.8 Add section "Parking, outside garages, shall be in all but the most exceptional case, accommodated by on-street, parallel and angle parking with exceptions only by conditional use. SECTION 2002.B.9 Add section "Sidewalks shall also allow for non-pedestrian use and, where ever desirable, areas such as for commercial display and outdoor seating." SECTION 2002.C.1 and 2 Will request input from Tom Comitta. SECTION 2002.C.3 Change to "Alleys typically should not have sidewalks or curbs." SECTION 2002.C.5 Omit the percentages. Alleys should predominate throughout the residential areas. (Ms. Peck arrived.) SECTION 2002.C.7 Change to "Rear Parking shall be provided on a private lot in a garage or parking pad." Parking pads should be 18 feet long. SECTION 2002.C.8 Mr. Churchill disagreed that all garages shall be built to a rear build-to line to define the alley, saying they shouldn't all be designed the same way. SECTION 2002.D.1. Mr. Comitta will make this section more general, and civic and commercial uses should be separated. SECTION 2002.D.2. The appearance of the fa ade should be that no more than five attached dwellings or building bays are built in a row. SECTION 2002.D.3. Change "No more than two (2) adjoining units..." to "No more than three (3) adjoining units..." Add: "Commercial buildings may have a parapet wall of up to four (4) feet to provide visual interest and must screen air handling and mechanical units on commercial buildings." Mr. Comitta is to look at Ms. Peck's suggestion to add "On corner lots provide two story residential units to help define the streetscape and neck down the view of the alley wherever possible." SECTION 2002.E.1 Mr. Comitta will explain how he arrived at his numbers for street width and travel lanes. SECTION 2002.F. Delete street wall definition; it is already defined elsewhere. SECTION 2002.F.1. Separate commercial and residential structures. SECTION 2002.F.2. Have the developer explain if he wants variations of more than four feet in the street wall. SECTION 2002.F.3. Separate civic from commercial. SECTION 2002.G Move the definition of built-to line to the definitions section. Integrate language on street wall and built-to line as they are similar concepts. SECTION 2002.G.1 & 2. Leave to Mr. Comitta's discretion. SECTION 2002.G.3. Mrs. Leland agreed with Ms. Peck's comments that porches should be strongly encouraged "where appropriate" and not every dwelling should have a porch. Porches should be encouraged but not required. Ms. Peck said the desirable architectural features should be encouraged in the front of the buildings, where they show, so therefore front porches should be encouraged. SECTION 2002.G.4 Combine with other built-to language in previous sections. SECTION 2002.H. Separate commercial and residential. SECTION 2002.H.3. Change to "Off-street parking other than private garages attached to or associated with dwelling units, parking shall never be located at a street corner, except for deck parking, as buildings should anchor the corners of streets. SECTION 2002.H.4 A higher number than .25 is needed for ratio of guest parking spaces per unit. SECTION 2002.I.1. Encourage multiple small parking lots for commercial space. SECTION 2002.I.2. Just give general values and work out parking lot landscaping during design. Landscaping and screening should be encouraged. Mr. Comitta will review comments in Mr. Churchill's email dated 8/23/06. The Planning Commission then briefly discussed Section 2208.F, where Mr. Allen had inserted a chart for the members to use to input the uses they found desirable for TND Areas 3, 4, 5a and 5. Approximately 1/3 of the text was reviewed. Mr. Motel said they will address the balance of the text at the October 10th meeting along with the Definitions. A second meeting will be held on October 24th to continue TND review. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 P.M. The next meeting is scheduled for October 10, 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.