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   September 9, 2008   CHARLESTOWN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION GREAT VALLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL, 7:30 P.M. September 9, 2008 Present: Andy Motel, Chairman, Mike Allen, Vice Chairman, Michael Churchill, June Gorman, Wendy Leland, Sarah Peck, Rick Reis, Tom Comitta, Linda Csete and those on the attached list. Call to Order: 7:30 P.M. Announcements Mr. Motel announced that Mr. Kohli would not be present this evening as he recently became a grandfather and was away visiting his daughter and her family. He and others present offered their congratulations. Approval July 8, 2008 Minutes Mr. Motel asked if there are any corrections or changes to be made to the July 8, 2008 minutes. There being none, Mr. Reis moved to approve the July 8, 2008 minutes, and Ms. Peck seconded. Mr. Motel called for discussion, and there being none, called the vote. All were in favor. Update Spring Oaks Traditional Neighborhood Development Plan Mr. Allen said the DRC met yesterday, but Perry Morgan was unavailable, so the revised site plan will not be ready to review until the next meeting scheduled for September 22nd. The plan will show the revisions discussed at the previous meetings and will include some upgrades to design standards. Mr. Allen said the plan is close to being ready to present to the Planning Commission as a sketch plan. Alleva Preliminary/Final Subdivision Plan Neal Camens, P.E., of Chester Valley Engineers and Mrs. and Mrs. Thomas Alleva, owners, were present to discuss a preliminary/final plan dated 7/22/08 proposing to add a portion of Thomas Fillippo's parcel #35-4-122 to Thomas & Connie Alleva's parcels #35-4-137, 35-4-136.1 and 35-4-122.3 to create two parcels from the three existing non-conforming Alleva parcels. Mr. Camens said that since the last sketch plan was prepared, the survey showed that one of the structures, a commercial garage, straddled three of the four lots. The lot lines proposed in the new plan have been adjusted to place the garage properly on one lot with the required setbacks. Each proposed lot will be above the 80,000 sq. ft. minimum size, achieved by swapping land from the larger Fillippo parcel. The existing non-conformity of impervious surface coverage will remain, but the total impervious surface square footage will not be increased. Proportions of impervious coverage per lot will change, however, increasing it on one Alleva parcel while reducing it on the other. Mr. Camens referred to Mr. Kohli's review letter dated 8/28/08 and indicated that he will comply with item #5 which states that parcels 35-4-122.3 and 35-4-137 must be revised to provide the minimum 200 foot lot width at the existing buildings. With regard to item #10, Mr. Camens clarified that the existing shed that is shown straddling parcels #35-4-122.3 and #35-4-136 serves the house on #35-4-136 and not the commercial garage as indicated in the review letter. Mr. Reis suggested moving the lot line to correct this condition along with providing the 200 foot widths required in item #5. Mr. Camens was concerned this will make parcel #35-4-122.3 too small and increase its nonconformity. He said he'll attempt to move the line and if he can't work it out he'll talk to Mr. Kohli about it. Mr. Allen asked the Allevas what prompted them to propose the lot line changes. Mrs. Alleva said they wanted to create two stand-alone parcels, with one stand-alone use on each lot. Mr. Churchill noted it would provide them with more of a buffer from the Fillippo property and any future development there. Mr. Motel asked if parcel #35-4-122.3 containing the commercial garage is a buildable lot. Mr. Camens said yes, it's relatively flat and could eventually be used for a single family home if the garage was removed. Mr. Motel asked if the applicant was willing to comply with items #8 and #9 on Mr. Kohli's letter, which states that access easements should be provided for the driveways serving parcels #35-4-136 and #35-4-122.3, and Mr. Camens said yes. Mr. Motel asked for responses to Mr. Theurkauf's review comment #1 dated August 28, 2008. Mr. Camens said they prefer to separate the house and commercial garage on two separate lots rather than maintain both uses on one large lot. Mr. Churchill said he believes the Planning Commission and Supervisors have the discretion to approve this without going to the Zoning Hearing Board, but this needs to be confirmed by the Township Solicitor. Mr. Motel moved to recommend approval of the preliminary/final subdivision plan for Thomas and Connie Alleva, subject to the review comments in Mr. Kohli's letter of 8/28/08 and Mr. Theurkauf's memorandum of 8/28/08, or, in the alternative, if the Planning Commission does not have the authority to make this recommendation, he further moves that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of Supervisors that they take a position in favor of the Applicant in granting a zoning variance to permit the non-conformity created by separating the existing house and commercial garage onto two separate lots. Mr. Churchill seconded the motion. Ms. Peck asked if there are in fact two residences in the house. Mrs. Alleva responded yes, the garage was converted to an apartment some years ago. Mr. Camens said the present uses of the property will not be changed by the proposed subdivision. Mr. Motel called the vote, and all were in favor. Gluchanicz Sketch Plan Neal Camens, P.E. and Paul Gluchanicz were present to discuss a revised sketch plan for a subdivision of Mr. Gluchanicz's two-parcel property at 2156 Charlestown Road into three lots. Lot #1 is to be a 2.7 acre lot containing an existing house, a spring house that is most likely of historical significance, the Ott Fur Shop barn, a garage to be demolished and a garage to be proposed. Lot #2 is a flag lot and Lot #3 is an open lot that is deed restricted from development. The applicant also proposes to demolish the existing large garage on Lot #1 and replace it with a smaller 2-3 car garage and to construct a small addition onto the Ott barn. The Ott barn will meet all setback requirements. Mr. Motel noted that the proposed location for the house has been moved out of steep slopes, which Mr. Camens confirmed, but then said the driveway will still require conditional use approval for construction in steep slopes. He also pointed out some significant trees that will be removed, saying they'll pick the best route to minimize this disturbance. Mr. Motel said there are Very Steep Slopes at the front of the property that would require a variance from the Zoning Hearing Board. Mr. Allen added Lot #2 will also require PennDOT highway occupancy approval. Mr. Motel asked about the sight distance at the proposed location, and Mr. Camens said it will have to meet PennDOT standards but he does think it's better than other possible entries. Mr. Camens said one big issue is the non-conforming use of the Ott barn and how it relates to the requirements for minimum net lot area. He said Mr. Comitta's review letter sees the barn as a principal use and not as an accessory use to the house. These two principal uses require 160,000 sq. ft. rather than the 80,000 sq. ft. required for one principal and one accessory use. Mr. Motel said this issue must be determined by the Zoning Hearing Board. Mr. Gluchanicz said his understanding is that if it is deemed an accessory use, his options are more limited, although the barn would be entitled to an adaptive reuse. He said he has an alternate sketch plan if it is determined the property requires 160,000 sq. ft. Mr. Motel asked for comments from the audience. Richard Findlay, 2217 Charlestown Road, asked about the present non-conforming use of the Ott Barn and what can be done to determine whether it should be permitted. Mr. Motel suggested he send a written complaint to the Zoning Officer, Mr. Kohli, who will make that determination. He said the Planning Commission has no enforcement power over this issue. Mr. Findlay said his interpretation is that the two structures constitute two principal uses. Casey Duffy, 2 Country Lane, asked for an explanation of the plan review process, which Mr. Motel provided. Mr. Motel said the sketch plan process is meant to foster a dialogue before the applicant moves into the more costly engineering phases of preparing a preliminary plan along with the constraint of review timelines and deadlines. Sketch plans are encouraged by the Planning Commission in order to settle as many issues as possible up front, and they're willing to review as many as an applicant wishes to submit. Betty Scott, 17 Country Lane, complained that she never received notice when Bala Investments subdivided the Ashford development property adjacent to her property. Mr. Churchill said the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code requires that abutting property owners receive notification of preliminary subdivision and land development plan submissions, but that is only for the first meeting at which the plan is reviewed. After that, property owners must check with the Township office or the citizen's website for when an item is scheduled on the agenda. Mr. Churchill asked what the neighboring property owners wish to accomplish with their concerns. He noted this property has historically been used in a similar fashion, and there is enough property to support the three proposed uses. He said these uses on nine acres can't create that much of an impact. He suggested that they try to work together with the applicant to reach an understanding. Mr. Casey said his property abuts the Gluchanicz tract and the proposed new house will be in his backyard. He said he understood when he bought his property that the land behind his was deed restricted and nothing would ever be built there. By moving the lot line, the applicant is stealing land from the protected lot. He said this affects his home value and quality of life. Mr. Churchill said the three acres presently protected would remain so. The question is whether the protected acreage can be used to count toward open space calculations for lot #2. Ms. Peck asked if the house were pushed back to 230 feet, the woods were to remain intact and the driveway relocated to leave more of a buffer between the two properties, would that be better? Mr. Casey said maybe, but the house would still be close to his property. Brad Bomm, 2170 Charlestown Road, asked if the applicant needs a zoning variance in order to move the lot line of the restricted lot #3. Mr. Motel said he owns both existing lots now and is only proposing to subdivide the non-restricted lot. However, his alternate plan would propose to use some of the restricted lot as net lot area for the newly formed lot, and the acceptability of this has yet to be determined. Mr. Casey said the proposed plan squeezes all the existing buildings onto a smaller lot. Mr. Churchill said they would meet the zoning requirements if the barn is determined to be an accessory structure to the house. He repeated his suggestion that the neighbors meet and talk with Mr. Gluchanicz. Mr. Bomm asked about the lot line change process. Mr. Churchill said the Planning Commission reviews the plan and makes a recommendation to the Supervisors. If the plan meets the zoning code, they have to grant approval. Mr. Findlay asked about the netting out calculations, since in addition to the deed restricted area, there are slopes to net out. Mr. Camens said the calculation varies depending on the slope. 100% of Very Steep Slopes are netted out, but only 25% of Steep Slopes. Mr. Findlay said there is an anecdotal report that the flag driveway is a historic pathway that was used by Revolutionary War troops. Mrs. Scott asked about restrictions for tree removal as she is concerned about the mature woodlands that include 200 year old trees. Mr. Allen said this is addressed during the construction approval phase of a project. Mr. Churchill said the ordinance has replacement requirements, but doesn't prohibit a landowner from removing trees on his property. Ms. Peck said she agreed with Mr. Churchill's suggestion that the landowners meet with the applicant. Mr. Findlay said Mr. Gluchanicz has made no overtures to them. Mr. Gluchanicz responded that he put a letter in each person's mailbox along with a copy of the plans. LauraBrooke Sketch Plan Ted Mondzelewski and Walter Kaupp, P.E were present to discuss a sketch plan for 5 office buildings on a 9.4 acre site along Phoenixville Pike. The plan had received approval in 1987 but was never recorded. Mr. Mondzelewski said he's the architect on the plan but is also part owner of the property along with Richard Puleo. Mr. Allen asked if they planned to start over in the approval process, and Mr. Mondzelewski said yes; they mentioned the previous approval just for a historical reference. Mr. Mondzelewski said the prior plan was for 3 buildings totaling 84,400 sq. ft with 422 parking spaces. The present sketch plan shows 5 buildings totaling 76,000 sq. ft. with 380 parking spaces, with much of it underneath the buildings in what he termed a daylight basement structure. The buildings would have elevator service from the parking to the upper floors. He is proposing modular green roofs and retaining walls that can support vegetative growth. He gave as an example of this type of retaining wall those at the Oaklands Corporate Center in West Whiteland. Mr. Mondzelewski indicated that the Alexander Building would be 16,000 sq. ft. in size, the 3 smaller Bradford buildings at the north end of the site would be 10,000 sq. ft. each, and the Charlestown Building at the western end would be 30,000 sq. ft. He anticipates the buildings would be used as medical offices or other professional offices. Mr. Mondzelewski indicated the surrounding uses to the site, which include three residences to the south, a residence to the west, and beyond it, a property owned by a church. Mr. Allen asked if the next revision could show the adjacent property owners' names and location of the houses. Mr. Motel asked about the topography, and Mr. Mondzelewski said the site generally slopes toward Phoenixville Pike from the Turnpike. Mr. Kaupp indicated bands of very steep slopes in several areas. Mr. Churchill said he recalls from the previous plan review that water handling was a big issue and that they needed to use a neighboring property for some of the stormwater management. There were also numerous slope issues, and concerns about the amount of impervious surface. Mr. Kaupp said they plan to use Best Management Practices for stormwater management but will still need to send water under Phoenixville Pike to an adjacent property. He said the plan shows parking spaces sized at 10 x 20 feet, but they'd like to request a waiver to allow 9 x 18. Mr. Churchill said he'd like a better understanding of how much grading is needed, the size of proposed retention walls, and asked for cross sections. He said that he was on the Commission when the first plan was approved and he was regretful of that fact. He said too much is being placed on the site and he said the Planning Commission would really look hard at the new plan. Mr. Motel asked what percentage of the site will have impervious coverage, and Mr. Mondzelewski said 45%, which is the maximum. Ms. Peck asked, with the BMPs and green building techniques, isn't there a way to manage the stormwater on site? Mr. Kaupp said the band of Very Steep Slopes creates a real challenge. Mr. Motel asked for the height of the buildings. Mr. Mondzelewski said Building A would be a one story building, 18 feet high, Building C would be three stories, and the remaining would be two stories. Mr. Churchill asked what conditional use approvals would be sought, and Mr. Mondzelewski said they are listed on the plan. They include the need for approval for driveways, walls and curbs in steep slopes. Mr. Allen asked if the applicant can address Mr. Comitta's review letter, and Mr. Mondzelewski said yes. Mr. Churchill asked about utilities, and Mr. Mondzelewski said they would have public sewer and water, adding that the sewer EDU's are still in reserve, for which they pay a quarterly fee to the Sewer Authority. Mr. Churchill asked why they didn't build the previously approved plan. Mr. Mondzelewski said it was due to changing market conditions, which had earlier favored townhouse-condo style buildings and changed into a demand for free standing buildings. He said the new plan gives them the ability to build in phases and still be viable from a marketing standpoint. Ms. Peck asked if any trees will remain on the site. Mr. Mondzelewski said yes, and they have to follow the replacement requirements for those taken down. Ms. Peck asked if the applicant has done market research as to whether the intended user finds the low visibility of the site acceptable. Mr. Mondzelewski said their research showed visibility wasn't an issue for their target market; they are more interested in privacy, location, and building size. The site is close to several area hospitals, and he has received positive feedback from potential buyers. He anticipates they will sell half of the space during the application process. Mr. Allen asked about the green building methods proposed, saying the Planning Commission would like to be educated on them. Mr. Motel asked if the applicant has built green roofs before. Mr. Mondzelewski said yes, and referred him to The Court at Upper Providence, which is a shopping center on Ridge Pike at Township Line Road. He said Weston has a product that comes in sections of a 4-inch thick plastic pallet that can be handled by one person and is put on a rubber roofing material. The supplier grows the plants, and by the time of delivery to the site, they are established plants specifically selected for ease of maintenance, often sedum, which doesn't require watering. They also propose a cistern system to collect and recirculate some of the water and use it for watering plants around the site. Ms. Peck asked if the green roofs reduce runoff 30-40%, and Mr. Kaupp says the product they plan to use from Weston reduces it somewhat more than 40%. Mr. Motel asked if this system, and the silver LEED rating, is attractive to prospective buyers, and Mr. Mondzelewski said it provides better insulation and is a good marketing tool. Mr. Motel asked if density affects the LEED rating, and Mr. Comitta said not for commercial construction. Mr. Motel asked the applicant if he has been in contact with the Turnpike Commission about their proposed expansion to six lanes, and Mr. Mondzelewski said no. Mr. Churchill suggested they make inquiries as to whether the future Turnpike plans will improve its water handling. Mr. Mondzelewski indicated on the plans where he proposes widening to Phoenixville Pike. Mr. Motel said it would be desirable to allow room for a bike path. Mr. Comitta suggested stacking the buildings more instead of spreading them out, which would reduce the amount of grading required. Mr. Mondzelewski said this would create parking problems. Mr. Reis asked if the buildings in the Bradford section could have two levels of parking, but Mr. Mondzelewski said that area is too level. Ms. Peck said she'd prefer to have the taller buildings at the base of the site and the others on the higher elevations to make the scale less intimidating. Mr. Mondzelewski said the buildings higher on the site won't be seen because of the trees. Mr. Comitta suggested the applicant look at the buildings at Lehigh University, which he considers the best sited buildings on steep slopes in North America. Mr. Motel asked if there were any comments from the audience. Theresa Fiore and her daughter Pat DiMino were present but said they had no questions at this time. Mr. Motel said the Planning Commission would take some time to think about the proposal, and in the meantime the applicant will revise the plans and return for further discussion. Great Valley Business Campus John Panizza and Bob Smiley of Genterra Corporation were present to discuss the revised sketch plan for the Great Valley Business Campus. Mr. Smiley said they've obtained approval from East Whiteland Township for a zoning change to correspond to the proposed industrial/office use in Charlestown. East Whiteland Township suggested creating a four way intersection with Phoenixville Pike and an existing access to the complex opposite the tract. Doing so would eliminate the need for a second access on Yellow Springs Road other than as an emergency access. Mr. Smiley noted the Phoenixville Pike access will require PennDOT approval. East Whiteland asked to be kept in the communication loop on the proposal, which Mr. Panizza said won't be a problem since both townships have Mr. Kohli as their engineer. Mr. Smiley pointed out other changes in the sketch plan, including the removal of one building for a total of six buildings, a reduction in total square footage from 193,000 to 187,000 sq. ft., and adding the required parking around the large flex building at the eastern end of the site. Mr. Motel asked if the flex building will require conditional use approval, and Mr. Smiley said yes. He added that a lot of the trees will remain and will serve as a buffer. Mr. Allen asked if the buildings at the northwest corner of the site are still proposed as contractor space, and Mr. Panizza said yes, but there would be no tractor-trailers permitted. Mr. Motel said this could be included as a conditional use condition. Mr. Smiley said the slopes on the site can be managed with proper grading, and gave some explanation of how that would be accomplished. Ms. Peck said this is a much improved plan. She asked how important it was to line up with the opposite road across Phoenixville Pike, as that causes some encroachment into steep slopes. Mrs. Leland said she likes the four-way intersection. Mr. Motel said that to move the access road to the east, the size of the large flex building would have to be reduced. Mr. Panizza said he wants to use as much of the ground in that area as possible, and that moving the road would not only reduce the building size but would require more grading. Mr. Motel cautioned the applicant that the Supervisors may not be willing to allow any encroachment on the very steep slopes. He said the applicant is trying to do too much on too constrained a site. Mr. Panizza responded that their impervious surface coverage is estimated at 27% as compared to the 45% shown on the LauraBrooke plan. Mr. Panizza said he'd like the Planning Commission's support on the four-way intersection. Without it he would have to reconsider a second access off Yellow Springs Road. Mr. Motel asked wouldn't potential customers find this plan more desirable than one with a Yellow Springs access? Mr. Panizza said their marketing consultants say their buyers don't see it as the problem the residents of the road do. Mr. Churchill asked how many parking spaces would correspond to accessing the Yellow Springs Road driveway if it were included, and Mr. Smiley estimated 140-150. Ms. Peck asked if there is any possibility of keeping the large flex building at its current size but moving some of the parking underneath. Mr. Panizza said they looked into it but the cost was too high. Mr. Motel thanked the applicant for the presentation, and said the Planning Commission wants to have Mr. Kohli review it. Mr. Panizza said they'll revise the plan first, and asked if they can show the grading at a 2:1 slope rather than 3:1 slopes. Mr. Motel said that would be fine, but cautioned him that the Planning Commission will take its cue from Mr. Kohli. Review of sewer flow projection (needs analysis) for Regional Act 537 Plan Mrs. Csete explained that Mr. Kohli prepared the Needs Analysis for the Valley Forge Sewer Authority and requested the Planning Commission's review and acceptance of this information as the Township's validated data. The Valley Forge Sewer Authority requires this data to obtain DEP approval to update its regional Act 537 plan. Mrs. Leland moved to accept the current needs analysis showing the total projected sewer flows for years 2007, 2015, 2025 and 2035 with its supporting documentation, and Ms. Peck/Mr. Motel seconded. Mr. Motel called for discussion, and their being nothing further, called the vote. All were in favor. Route 29 Improvement Plan Mrs. Csete indicated that Mr. Kohli forward a copy of the Route 29 Improvement Plan to the Planning Commission for their review this evening along with a copy of the 8/12/08 letter from Traffic Planning and Design, which outlines the following items that involve coordination with the Township: Request for expediting the Stormwater Consistency Letter to the DEP for NPDES permit approval; Request that the Township provide plans for bioswale amenities to TPD/PennDOT; Request for a Maintenance Agreement between PennDOT and the Township for the proposed sidewalk on the eastern side of Morehall Road from Yellow Springs Road to Whitehorse Road, including a segment under the PA Turnpike bridge; Request that the Township provide plans and specifications for street lighting and including PennDOT central office design approval and Turnpike approval for the bridge attachment. Request for a Reimbursement Agreement between the Township and PennDOT for the upgrade signal mast arms. Mr. Allen will visit the township office to review the plans. Mr. Motel said a critical item for PennDOT is their need for the consistency letter in order to obtain approval from the DEP & CCCD. Ordinance Revisions The Planning Commission discussed various ordinance revisions to be made, including some to the TND ordinance. The Secretary will prepare a list so they can determine when and how they want to proceed. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Linda M. Csete Planning Commission Secretary   Home      Site Overview      Contact Us Please report any problems with this site by clicking here. Site development, maintenance and funding by Township resident Jacob D. Merriwether. Hosting by PLH Worldgroup Communications, Inc.