A beautiful part of southeastern Pennsylvania

November 14, 2006     November 28, 2006   CHARLESTOWN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION GREAT VALLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL, 7:30 P.M. November 14, 2006 Present: Andy Motel, Chairman, Mike Allen, Vice Chairman, June Gorman, Sarah Peck, Wendy Leland, Michael Churchill, Rick Reis, Surender S. Kohli, P.E., Tom Comitta, Linda Csete, Township Administrator and those on the attached list. Call to Order: 7:35 PM Announcements Mr. Motel announced they will begin a presentation summarizing the Planning Commission's efforts since May of 2006 to apply Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) Zoning to the Devault Area as soon as all the Planning Commission members arrive. He explained that one or two members had earlier commitments this evening that may cause them to be a little late, and thanked the audience for their patience. Approval of Minutes October 16, 2006 minutes Mrs. Leland noted that the minutes should reflect she arrived earlier than indicated. Mrs. Gorman pointed out two corrections. Page 3, 4th paragraph, "incentive" should be "incentivize" Page 4, 2nd paragraph, "Mr. Kohli said the lots..." should be "Mr. Kohli said the homes..." Mrs. Leland moved to approve the minutes of October 24, 2006, and Mr. Reis seconded. Mr. Motel called for discussion, and there being none, called the vote. All were in favor. Presentation: Altair Co-Housing Resident John Pittock introduced himself as a member of the Charlestown Historical Society, inviting the public to join and attend their meetings. He said he's also a member of the board of the Altair Co-housing group, which has been making presentations to the Chester County Planning Commission and area municipalities. He said features of co-housing plans are that they preserve open space, minimize development, and offer affordable housing for working people. He introduced architect Joel Bartlett, also with the Altair group and a resident of Phoenixville. Mr. Bartlett presented a variety of written material on co-housing and said the concept developed about 15 years ago. There is no co-housing development in this part of the country, but the largest number is in the Washington D.C. area. He described co-housing as a simple concept with lots of applications. There are typically 30-40 clustered housing units, which are downsized single homes that share resources. There is a large common house where larger meals can be prepared, guest rooms are available, and activities are planned. The community itself develops the plan, which doesn't require a lot of land. Residents are multigenerational. Advantages are that the community of residents cares for each other, and usually has its own neighborhood watch. They employ a model of sustainable development, water conservation strategies and "green" architecture methods. An option is the possibility of partnering with a municipality, using one of its open spaces. They can also work with a land trust to save the open space in perpetuity. Although it wouldn't apply to Charlestown, in other communities they look to build on brownfields or urban infill sites. Mr. Motel asked for examples of existing developments. Mr. Bartlett said the closest is in Gettysburg, where fifteen families bought a Christmas tree farm and built modular housing in the hillside. The farmhouse was converted to the community house. In Washington D.C., there is a tour given every year that showcases nine communities. He also said there are six in Massachusetts and there is one called Echo Hill in Ithaca New York. There are four others in the greater Philadelphia area. Mr. Churchill asked if there are websites to see these examples, and Mr. Bartlett named www.cohousing.org, which also sponsors conferences. Mr. Motel asked if the plans require public water and sewer, and Mr. Bartlett said most do. Mr. Allen asked for the size of a typical house, and Mr. Bartlett said 1,200 square feet, in clusters of 2-3. Larger clusters can share a heating source. On average, the front doors in clusters are about 35 feet apart. Mr. Allen asked about ownership, and Mr. Bartlett said the homes have single family owners, and each owner has a share of the common areas. Most are condominium models, although in New York State a few are cooperatives. Mr. Allen asked if they thought this would be marketable in this area, and whether all meals were shared. Mr. Bartlett said not all meals are shared, just for larger functions. Mr. Allen asked if there would be a Homeowners Association and Mr. Bartlett said yes. Mr. Allen said the examples he's seen are infill sites in more urban settings. One of his concerns is that the community becomes insular. Mr. Bartlett said the opposite is true. They become a community center for the larger community. Activity is generated and house values in the development go up immediately. There is a social component to the developments that is missing from other communities. Mr. Churchill asked if some alteration would be needed in the zoning ordinance to accommodate this type of housing, and Mr. Bartlett said yes, and they ask for some creativity on the part of the municipality. Mr. Churchill said the Planning Commission is spending a lot of its time considering open space strategies, and if the Altair group has a concrete proposal they would look at it. Mr. Bartlett said he'll return with a few specific sites. Mr. Motel asked for questions from the audience. Karen Marlo, Tinker Hill Lane, asked why the Township would want them to come in and build on open space that was purchased with earned income tax money. Mr. Motel said there is a misunderstanding from what was stated previously. They would not be permitted to build on township owned or eased open space. They would purchase their own land and build on it. Mrs. Marlo asked, doesn't the Township require that 40% of the tract remain open, and Mr. Motel said yes, in the Farm Residential Zoning District, on parcels over 10 acres. Mr. Churchill said they propose much more intense clustering than what the Township currently allows, and reiterated nothing would be built on open space the residents paid for with their earned income tax dollars. Announcement Mr. Motel introduced the Township's Director of Open Space, Aliena Gerhard, who previously served on the Open Space Commission. She was hired in February of this year and was formerly an assistant district attorney for Montgomery County. Mr. Motel said the Earned Income Tax was enacted to provide funding for Open Space, and to supplement these funds, the Township applied for a number of grants. Mrs. Gerhard announced that the Township was recently awarded nearly $300,000 from the County, toward the purchase of conservation easements on two properties on Green Lane Road. The first property is the 71.7 acre Reinbow's End farm, which will have a trail link to the township owned Brightside Farm, and the second is the adjacent 16.2 acre Coleman property. Mr. Motel said Mrs. Gerhard has been doing a fantastic job for the Township and likewise received praise from the County Parks & Recreation director. Plan Review Valley Forge Christian College - Hartwick House Bill Werkheiser from the 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 provided some background for the attendees, describing the home as a beautiful old stone house located at the corner of Mary Hill Road and Coldstream Road. It was previously used as a nursing home but was in disrepair. The College approached the Supervisors to see if they would consider approving its use as a dormitory and were given the go ahead. He said the students living in the house would be under the same rules as the students living on campus. No drinking or smoking is allowed. He displayed a model of the house and proposed addition, which was changed from a more contemporary design to a more traditional one that is more in keeping with the architecture of the house. It will have a stucco fa ade to match the stone of the house. An older addition in poor condition has been demolished, and the new addition will be used as a student lounge. It is situated at an angle to the house to protect nearby wetlands. Mr. Werkheiser displayed the land development plan and showed the location of the two parking lots and the relocated driveway off Mary Hill Road. They want their design to blend with the residential uses of the surrounding neighborhood. He said a traffic study has been completed. Mr. Motel asked how many cars will be parked on site. Mr. Werkheiser said that since they now expect to house 22-25 students instead of the originally estimated 28-30, he anticipates all will have a car. Because the students spend all day at the campus, they can operate a shuttle van as an option to driving or walking to the campus. John Witchner, P.E. of Traffic Planning & Design, said they reviewed the feasibility of a three-way stop and crosswalk at Coldstream and Maryhill Roads, for which traffic counts are needed. In one direction, results showed that between 7 AM - 7 PM, Coldstream Road travelers were traveling at the 85th percentile speed for the road. The speed limit is 35 MPH (advisory 15 MPH) and the 85th percentile was 36 MPH. In the other direction the average speed was 37 MPH. The fastest speed was 42 MPH. These results, along with the traffic counts, do not meet PennDOT's warrants for an all-way stop. PennDOT will not approve an all-way stop solely to control speed, as drivers tend to become scoff laws cruising through the stop signs. Mr. Motel asked, won't they take the pedestrian aspect into consideration? Mr. Witchner said no, PennDOT focuses on volume only, and the volume on Maryhill Road is too low to trigger the warrant for an all-way stop. It's unlikely they would relax their standards, but a joint effort by the township and college to approach them may have some result. Mr. Kuhn asked how short of the warrant the numbers are for Maryhill Road. Mr. Witchner said they are about 160 cars per hour short. Mr. Churchill asked if PennDOT would approve a pedestrian light where the students would push a button to turn the traffic signal red for Coldstream Road. Mr. Witchner said this doesn't meet the sight distance measurements due to the two vertical curves and the bend in Coldstream Road. Mr. Churchill asked for accident data for the intersection, and Mr. Witchner said all they found in PennDOT's records was one accident in the past five years. The warrant for full signalization is not there, and it may not meet the warrant even for a pedestrian activated signal. Mr. Witchner said the traffic study data brought them to the point of recommending to the College that they use a shuttle service. Mr. Motel asked if he agreed that the road is unsafe for students. Mr. Witchner said as a traffic engineer, there is no adequate comfort level he can reach for crossing Coldstream Road as a pedestrian. There is already an existing sight distance deficit for those exiting Maryhill Road by car. Mr. Werkheiser said that during soccer games at the Park, more people cross Coldstream Road than will ever cross from the proposed dormitory. Mr. Motel said the Township is willing to assist the College in talking with PennDOT. Mr. Churchill said he'd much prefer some sort of signal as opposed to an all-way stop, as habitual drivers will run the stop signs on Coldstream. Mr. Reis asked if they looked at crossing at Township Line Road and Coldstream and seeing if a three way stop at that intersection could be warranted. Mr. Witchner said they didn't look at it. Bill Rhoad, State Road, asked if they considered a pedestrian tunnel, like the one that crosses Route 30 for the Church Farm School. Mr. Werkheiser said it would be too expensive. Paul LeMert, Tinkerhill Lane, asked if there could be a pedestrian signal in front of the house, not at the intersection itself. Mr. Witchner said they will work with the township further on the issue of a pedestrian crossing. Mr. Cokonis referred to Mr. Theurkauf's review memorandum dated 11/7/06: Item #3 Requires parking lot islands to be a minimum width of 8 feet. The plan provides only a 5 foot wide island, and Mr. Theurkauf said this would require a zoning variance. Mr. Cokonis said he thought the Planning Commission agreed to the smaller island width at a previous meeting, and that the need to go to the Zoning Hearing Board is a matter of interpretation. He noted that if the Township will allow a waiver reducing the 10 x 20' parking spaces to 9 x 18', they can meet the 8 foot requirement for the island. Mr. Motel said they will leave that for the Supervisors to consider. Mr. Kohli indicated he had no problem with the smaller parking space dimensions. Item #4 Requires street trees to be a minimum of 4 inch caliper. They request a waiver to allow for a 3 inch caliper. The Planning Commission was agreeable to this. Mr. Cokonis referred to Mr. Kohli's review letter dated 11/8/06: Item #9 They request a waiver from Stormwater Management Ordinance section 301.B.1.a. requiring that the total volume of water from the post-development conditions not exceed the pre-developed condition. The waiver is needed due to poor infiltration rates confirmed by soils testing. To mitigate this, they propose to enlarge the stormwater basin and add wetland plantings. Mr. Motel said that the Planning Commission will not be able to make a recommendation until the pedestrian crossing solution is provided. The applicant will meet with Mr. Kohli and return to the Planning Commission on December 12th. Presentation Traditional Neighborhood Development Ordinance Mr. Motel explained that in May of this year, after months of discussions, the Planning Commission told the Board of Supervisors it wanted to pursue a Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) plan for Devault. He explained how zoning for TND was added to the Municipalities Planning Code a few years ago, and allows a municipality more control over the design of the area. TNDs promote a walkable community, mix of uses, and diminished visibility of autos. Examples in the area are Eagleview in Uwchlan Township and Weatherstone in Chester Springs. He noted, however, that those two TNDs have higher density than what is being considered for Devault. The Planning Commission has been cognizant of the development pressures coming its way, and think that the control afforded by TND zoning is the best way to proceed. Mr. Motel said that through the discussions, he saw little public involvement, so for tonight's meeting he had postcards sent to the area residents on Whitehorse, Union Hill, Tinkerhill and Rees Roads to extend an invitation to tonight's meeting. He said that the Planning Commission is still in the midst of reviewing and revising the draft ordinance, which is a long, tedious process. Mr. Motel introduced Tom Comitta, the Township's Land Planner, and Architect Perry Morgan, who was engaged to draft some design sketches for the Devault Area's TND-2 that will be shown in a PowerPoint presentation this evening. Mr. Comitta provided some background on the Devault planning process undertaken thus far. In December 2001, the Supervisors adopted an update to the 1976 Comprehensive Plan. A recommendation was made to incorporate a TND in Devault. For the past 18 months, the Planning Commission has been considering the Devault Area, including the Quigley (Spring Oaks) Farm on Whitehorse Road, the Tyler Griffin tract at the northeast corner of Charlestown and Route 29, and the Devault Quarry off Route 29, trying to determine the best outcome for the area. Various sketch plans and preliminary plans have been submitted and reviewed for the Tyler-Griffin and Quigley tracts. More recently, a sketch plan was submitted by Tom Fillippo for a proposed office building on Whitehorse Road on the parcel adjacent to and west of the Devault Post Office. The Planning Commission brought in Perry Morgan to look at this parcel along with the surrounding parcels for a bigger picture, and turned the presentation over to Mr. Morgan. Mr. Morgan introduced himself as a member of the JLM Design Group and a resident of Chester County familiar with the Devault Area. He said he looks at designing the area as an opportunity to problem solve and create a win-win situation. He began his PowerPoint presentation, beginning with an aerial view of Devault. He said he first studied the road patterns, how the roads relate to the land, and how open spaces and residences relate to one another in order to develop a pedestrian friendly unified whole. He set down certain criteria for the design, including: Creating a discernable center, green or square, choosing the Post Office Building as this center; Making connections for dwellings within a short walking distance along with potential new residences and offices that will be within a short walk; Providing a variety in architecture yet making it reflective of the surrounding region so it looks like part of the community Providing a variety in use types Including shops and offices close to the neighborhood or within it Encouraging interaction and walking to minimize the use of the car Placing buildings close to the street to create "a sense of place" Keeping the blocks small with interconnected streets Keeping the streets narrow so they slow traffic and are safer Placing parking lots and garages at the rear of the properties Reserving the neighborhood center for civic uses Mr. Morgan displayed the Fillippo sketch plan for a 32,640 square foot building with 163 parking spaces. He said he was asked by the Planning Commission at no cost to Mr. Fillippo to take another look at the proposed building in Mr. Fillippo's sketch plan and suggest possible improvements within the parameters of a typical TND design, to include "main street" elements, including some first floor retail. This increases the size of the building and number of parking spaces, but better hides the cars. In the existing sketch first presented by Mr. Fillippo, the building is surrounding by asphalt, and there are a series of retaining walls in front and to the rear. From Whitehorse Road, you would see the building, parking lots, and walls. Mr. Morgan then displayed his sketch plans. It depicts Whitehorse Road divided by a green strip into a boulevard, and shows two buildings flanking one another, to create a sense of "main street". There would be calming devices for the crosswalk in the boulevard. The building would be built into the grade so it shows two stories in front and one in the rear, making retaining walls unnecessary. Retail shops would be located in the front on the first floor. There is at-grade parking, but it is terraced so you see mostly green space. The total square footage of both buildings would be 64,600 square feet with 229 parking spaces. The total of retail space would be 16,000 square feet in each building. The parking is mostly hidden in the back. He used this as a base, and then created several sketches, Scenarios A through F, with various alternatives. All show a municipal complex at the Post Office site. In the residential areas, houses and townhouses would feature rear alleys to hide the cars. Mr. Morgan displayed some other illustrations of TND design and style to underscore the difference in a TND design vs. the conventional buildings and dwellings. Mr. Motel said these sketches are intended to serve only as illustrative examples, to show what is possible in the area. He said that the TND zoning under state law affords a municipality control over design, materials used, road layout and all manner of details that a municipality is not allowed to control under any other section of the stated Municipalities Planning Code, and so by adopting a TND zone in Devault this would allow the township to have greater control over what happens it its own community. He sees the area as being in play due to the Turnpike Slip Ramp. He said the Planning Commission is sensitive to the numerous issues of designing the Devault area, but if they aren't proactive, it will eventually be all office buildings. Mr. Motel asked for questions and comments from the attendees. Jeff Frank, Mountain Laurel Lane, asked how TND's relate to the type of design being discussed in East Whiteland for O'Neil's Worthington Steel site. Mr. Kohli said Worthington has combined uses but is not a TND per se. Gary Birchall, Tinkerhill Lane, said he enjoyed the presentation and found it a creative approach. As a resident living just off Union Hill Road, traffic is his biggest concern and said it is already a nightmare. He said he's a real estate agent and not opposed to development but that progress should be controlled. He said the concept dovetails nicely into the community, but roads are always the problem in any design. Adding to that the potential development of the Altemose and Thompson properties and the construction of the Slip Ramp, traffic will increase tremendously. He said the road issues should be addressed first, and the design aspects later. He said bringing outside traffic into Devault will create a juggernaut, using Wayne as an example. The town is beautiful, but the traffic is absurd. Cars are pulling into the shops and backing out onto the roads. Mr. Motel said that he's now served six years on the Planning Commission and has learned that planning has to be pragmatic, using the tools available to the Township by the MPC. Development and the traffic it creates can't be legally stopped according to the MPC. He said he lives along Whitehorse Road and has similar anxiety about the traffic concerns. Mr. Churchill agreed the traffic issue can't be solved, but they have to make sure that the uses they propose for the area will be compatible with the traffic that will inevitably be there. Mr. Morgan said traffic is the first thing he looked at, studying the hierarchy of the road patterns. His designs keep the roads small and are meant to get cars off the road to where they need to go. The designs promote walking and biking. Mr. Birchall said Mr. Morgan's office design that would include retail will bring in more revenue for the owner of the building. Mr. Morgan said they didn't go through the financials, adding that that parcel is zoned for office presently. Paul Alpert, Tinkerhill Road, said the plans were beautiful, but noted that with office use, there is only daytime traffic Monday through Friday. These mixed uses will bring traffic every day of the week and include evenings. Mr. Motel said there will be no large "anchor" stores in the TND and that the retail uses are classified as "neighborhood" or "service commercial" and the total of all retail space now being considered for the entire Devault area is 60,000, and asked Mr. Comitta if he could suggest retail use to compare with a total of 60,000 square feet. . Mr. Comitta said that a large grocery store like a newer Giant or Acme is about 65,000 square feet. That is the amount of office/retail square footage being considered for the entire Devault center. Mr. Motel suggested those interested Google "Traditional Neighborhood Development" and see the types of retail uses they typically include, such as banks, professional offices, gift and card shops, coffee shops, etc. He added that by zoning the area TND they can control signage and not permit huge signs visible from the Turnpike. They also intend to prohibit drive through restaurants. Ted Bleecker, Tinkerhill Lane, said he's seen office building sprawl elsewhere, and sees Devault as the gateway into the Township, yet questioned how to make a TND work in an area with multiple parcels and multiple owners. Mr. Motel gave a brief description of the TND process. He said the Planning Commission will come to an agreement on the uses to be included in the ordinance and then make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. After it is in the Supervisors' hands, hearings will be scheduled at which the ordinance will be retooled and possibly sent back to the Planning Commission for more work. After the ordinance cycles through the process, the Supervisors would vote on whether to adopt the TND ordinance, and if so, the zoning would then be changed. In the Devault Area being considered for the TND, there are only three property owners, one of which is the Township itself. The other two owners have been extremely cooperative and have participated in all the talks so far. If the TND Zoning is put into place, the developer would come to the Township with their proposal, including design guidelines that are reviewed in a collaborative process. Mr. Bleecker asked what the current zoning is for the area, and Mr. Motel said it is Business-1 (B-1) except for the Quigley tract (Spring Oaks) which is Residential Cluster (RC). He added that there is an existing approved final plan for a business park at Spring Oaks, and that the developer presently has a residential cluster plan before the township for review that proposes 126 townhouse units. They can do either of these plans by-right. This developer also owns the Tyler Griffin tract, and sketch plans have been discussed for age restricted housing there. Supervisor Paul Hogan said underground parking should be considered, giving an example of a parking garage in West Chester that is barely noticeable due to its design and use of underground space. Karen Marlo, Tinkerhill Lane, said she's seen Eagleview at rush hour and the traffic is horrendous. She asked if there would be other access to the TND than just Whitehorse Road. Mr. Morgan said yes, due to the interconnectivity of the design. He stressed the importance of public input in this process. Mr. Motel suggested people view the PA Turnpike's website showing the traffic counts for the proposed slip ramp. He said that is one of the realities the Planning Commission is working with. He added that the municipal complex may be able to include a substation for the State Police that serves the Township. Mr. Motel thanked the public for attending and for their input. A short recess was called before continuing with the meeting. Plan Review Stonorov Conditional Use Application - Lot 1 and Lot Line Change for Lots 1 & 6 Mr. Churchill recused himself from the proceedings. Dave Fiorello of Momenee & Associates was present to discuss the lot line change and conditional use plans for the Stonorov subdivision lots 1 & 6. He began with the proposed lot line change, indicating that Lot 1 (44.7 acres) would be reduced to 43.4 acres in order to shift the lot line of the spring house onto Lot 6. Presently, the spring house, which houses the well serving Lot 6, is located on Lot 1 with an easement in the deed in favor of Lot 6. Lot 6 is presently 4.3 acres in size and would become 5.6 acres after re-subdivision. They will be requesting a variance for the side yard setback for the spring house, which would be only 5 feet from the new property line instead of the required 20 feet. Mr. Kohli asked for the rationale for the variance. Mr. Fiorello said if it was made 20 feet, it would encroach on the area they want to use for the Lot 1 driveway, which they feel is in the best location. Moving the driveway might fix the setback problem for the spring house but create one for the driveway. Mr. Kohli said the existing easement in place for the spring house doesn't create any problems and questioned why the situation should be changed. Mr. Churchill said the owner of Lot 6 prefers ownership of the spring house and its land rather than an easement to access it. Mr. Fiorello addressed comments on Mr. Kohli's review letter dated 11/8/06, stating they will comply with item #3 to add the maximum permitted building height to the Zoning Table. The remaining comments involve the need to obtain Zoning Hearing Board approval for the variance. Mr. Churchill asked about the slopes if the lot line was changed to provide the spring house with its 20 foot setback, and driveway was moved to comply with that lot line. Mr. Fiorello said the land is all steep along Pickering Road and can't be avoided. Mr. Reis asked for the distance from the edge of the Lot #1 driveway to the proposed lot line. Mr. Fiorello said it begins right on the property line because it is a shared driveway, then it makes a right angle turn into Lot #1. Mr. Kohli asked why the turn is necessary, and Eddie Scott responded that otherwise it would impact the landscaping. With regard to the variance, Ms. Peck moved to recommend the Supervisors take a neutral position toward the application, and Mr. Reis seconded. Mr. Motel called for discussion, and there being none, called the vote. Six were in favor; Mr. Churchill was recused. Mr. Scott asked the Planning Commission to reconsider their neutral position, asking for their support. With regard to the Lot Line change, Mr. Motel moved to recommend approval subject to the comments on Mr. Kohli's review letter dated 11/8/06 and to the approval of the variance, and then called for discussion. The Planning Commission members determined they were comfortable with the recommendation provided the variance is approved. Mr. Motel called the vote, and six were in favor, with Mr. Churchill recused. With regard to the Conditional Use Plan, Mr. Fiorello said the 40+ acres of Lot #1 are under a conservation easement and the parcel contains a lot of steep and very steep slopes. The driveway placement was the only way to position it for the least impact on the slopes and was identified as such by the conservation organization. Ms. Peck asked what other options were considered. Mr. Fiorello said the lot has a natural swale, and that the only options to reduce impact on steep slopes would bring the driveway too close to the springhouse. The stormwater management measures proposed would have more impact on slopes if the driveway was moved. With the proposed location, they can construct an underground basin that discharges to a culvert under the roadway. Mr. Fiorello referred to Mr. Kohli's review letter dated 11/8/06, indicating that most of the items are related to the land development of the site and these engineering details will be provided when the building permit is submitted. Mr. Motel asked if any more conditional use approvals will be needed at that time, and Mr. Fiorello responded no. Mr. Kohli said he has no objection to the alignment of the driveway. Ms. Peck asked about item #6 on his review letter, stating that the applicant must show how their proposed development meets the standards for approval for conditional use. Mr. Fiorello said they're required to address these standards during the hearing. Ms. Peck asked why they consider the proposed driveway location to be the least invasive on the steep slopes when following the lay of the land would seem to be a better option. Mr. Fiorello said that's true for the slopes, but following the land would create more drainage problems, which in turn would cause more encroachment into the slopes. Mr. Kohli said this design accelerates the water moving to the basin, but Ms. Peck said then they have to store more water. Mr. Kohli said that stormwater would be tougher to control with the other option. Mrs. Leland moved to recommend conditional use approval of the Stonorov application for Lot #1, and Mrs. Gorman seconded. Mr. Motel called for discussion. Mr. Fiorello said the final issues will be addressed at the time the building permit is submitted. Mr. Motel called the vote. Six were in favor, with Mr. Churchill recused. Bell & Clapper William and Denyce Rhoad, owners, were present to discuss their application for conditional use approval for the operation of a bed and breakfast inn on their 6 acre property at 4513 State Road as an adaptive reuse of a historic property. Mrs. Rhoad gave an overview of the application for those present, stating there would be four guest rooms. The main outstanding issues were on parking and fire safety. She turned over proof of notification of the property owners within 250 feet to the Secretary and provided proof of ownership of the property. Mrs. Rhoad said she's required to have one parking space per guest bedroom, which translates to four spaces. She said the home is on six acres and presently has three parking areas, which are shown on her plan. Area 1 measures 18 x 27 feet and Area 3 measures 30 x 60 feet. Area 2 is located in the rear and would be reserved for them as the homeowners. It measures 24 x 24 feet. She showed pictures of cars parked in the areas to show how they would fit. Mr. Allen asked about the walkway from the parking areas to the house. Mrs. Rhoad said the path is not paved, but it is lighted. Mr. Reis asked how far parking area #3 is to the front door, and Mr. Rhoad responded, about 50-60 feet. Mr. Kohli said the parking areas need to be shown with their dimensions on the plan. Mr. Allen added that the plan needs to have a scale and date added. Mr. Motel asked about the fire safety issue, namely, emergency egress from the guest rooms. Mr. Kohli said the applicant provided a photo and he'll check out the dimensions when he visits the site to ensure compliance. Mr. Churchill asked if the applicant needed any other approvals from outside agencies such as Labor & Industry, and Mr. Kohli said no. Mr. Churchill moved to recommend approval of the conditional use application for the Bell & Clapper subject to the revision of the plot plan and the consultants' review letters. Mrs. Leland seconded. Mr. Motel called the vote, and all were in favor. Mrs. Leland thanked the Rhoads for taking care of the beautiful historic home and their desire to invite guests in. Mr. Kohli added it's a wonderful adaptive use for the property. Thompson Sketch Plan Brown Vincent of Bentley Homes and Robert Showalter of Showalter & Associates were present to discuss the sketch plan for the Thompson tracts which straddle Charlestown and Schuylkill Townships. 76 single homes are proposed in Charlestown on 172.84 acres, and 73 in Schuylkill on 181.81 acres. Mr. Vincent explained that Bentley Homes is the equity owner of the Thompson tracts shown in the sketch plan, and the plan is to develop the properties in both Schuylkill Township and Charlestown Township with single family homes similar to those in other Bentley communities. The average square footage of the homes would range between 5,000 - 6,000 square feet with a price range of $1.2M and higher. Mr. Showalter displayed the sketch plan and pointed out the road network surrounding the site, including Tinkerhill Road and Tinkerhill Lane. He said the site itself is heavily wooded in the center, with varying degrees of slopes. There is a steep embankment leading down to the railroad tracks. There are three stream corridors feeding two ponds. There are several historic homes on adjacent properties. Mr. Showalter said the plan they propose is an open space development, a by-right use in the Farm Residential zoning district. They would access the site off the existing Tinkerhill Road, wrap around in the new development and connect to Tinkerhill Lane. The two Tinkerhills would be connected. There are also two accesses from Whitehorse Road. They propose little or no development in the steep slopes near the railroad. All the proposed lots are 40,000 square feet and larger. They reviewed the township's Comprehensive Plan, Open Space & Recreation Plan, Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance and proposed Phoenixville Regional Planning Commission Comprehensive Plan. They propose connected trails, attention to viewsheds, and open space corridors along the ponds, stream valley and wooded areas. Over 40% of the site is shown as open space, some of which is shown on individual lots that propose deed restrictions. He said they received Thomas Comitta Associates' review letter yesterday and haven't had time to go through it in any depth but noted that some of the comments and criticisms were valid. They're here tonight to get input from the Planning Commission. Mr. Motel asked what comments in Mr. Theurkauf's letter they found to be valid, and Mr. Vincent said they all are, and said they put together a plan they think is valid. Mr. Motel said there are a lot of comments in Mr. Theurkauf's letter and ask that they be addressed at the next meeting they attend. He said that while the applicants think they comply with the ordinance, but the review comments indicate they don't. Mr. Churchill asked how Schuylkill Township's ordinance compares to Charlestown's for their half of the plan. Mr. Vincent said the lot size minimum is 40,000 square feet so in that regard the plan is seamless. A woman asked what the minimum lot size is on the Charlestown side. Mr. Motel explained that for parcels under 10 acres in size, it's 80,000 square feet, but for parcels over 10 acres, it is 40,000 square feet with 40% of the property set aside as open space. There are some constrained areas that are partially or completely netted out of the calculations for lot size and open space. The open space requirements were designed to be density neutral to the previous zoning of 80,000 square feet minimum lots (net area) with no open space. Gary Birchall, Tinkerhill Lane, said the plan is very aggressive and while he is a realtor and loves developers, he's concerned about the tremendous traffic impact it will cause. He said he attended the Schuylkill Township Planning Commission meeting where this plan was presented and there seemed to be a lot of confusion on the definition of quality open space. He asked if Charlestown's idea of quality open space included steep slopes. Mr. Motel responded not necessarily. Mr. Birchall asked if open space on private lots is acceptable, and Mr. Allen said Charlestown's ordinance doesn't permit this. Jack Grocki, Tinkerhill Road, said that it's not possible to manage a left turn onto Creek Road from Tinkerhill Road during the morning rush hour. He said he tried to do this one recent morning at 8 AM and traffic was all backed up. He envisions that half of those cars will drive through Tinkerhill Road once it's made a through street with Tinkerhill Lane. Mr. Churchill said the Planning Commission sympathizes with his concern but has no power to prevent it as the Planning Commission has very little power over traffic issues under state law. The Township can't prevent development because the road capacity isn't sufficient. He said this is due to the state laws and people would have to talk to their state legislators about this enormous problem. A woman said they should be made to have bigger lots. Mr. Churchill said the small lot size on an open space plan translates to the same number of units permitted on a conventional plan, but this way there is more open space. The woman asked about the schools. Mr. Motel said that is the same situation as the overburdening of the local roads: that the Township cannot prevent development because of expected advertise impacts on schools anymore than the expected adverse impact of increased traffic. Additional single family homes (as opposed to other uses) are always a tax drain on the school system. This was part of the impetus for Charlestown enacting a 1/2% earned income tax dedicated to open space. The woman asked why then doesn't the Township buy this property to keep it from being developed. Mrs. Leland said the land owner has rights that must be respected. Mr. Kuhn said the Thompson family has kept their land open longer than all their neighbors. Mr. Motel said he lives along Whitehorse Road and they will all be impacted by new development, the slip ramp, and the heavy traffic from the North heading to the corporate centers, including the Atwater corporate park which is barely occupied at present. Regardless of this, it is not legal and not equitable for the Township to restrict a property owner's rights and the property owners must be treated with respect so we can try to reach a balance point to get the best possible design. The Planning Commission is limited by the Ordinance in what it can require of the developer. Ann Ferentz, Tinkerhill Lane, asked what being "equitable owner" means for Bentley Homes. Mr. Vincent said they are under contract to purchase the property but the title hasn't been transferred yet. Ms. Ferentz asked when that would happen. Mr. Vincent responded that this will occur when the conditions of their agreement are met. Bob Kelly, Tinkerhill Lane, asked if they have an escape clause, and Mr. Vincent said that the agreement is a private one, so details on it are confidential. Mr. Motel confirmed that as equitable owners, Bentley Homes has standing for this application and the terms of the contract between the parties are private. Gail Stewart, Union Hill Road, asked if there is any way to prevent the applicant from joining the two Tinkerhills, and also said it's time to reconsider speed bumps on Union Hill. Mr. Motel pointed out that while many neighbors were objecting to the connection of the two Tinkerhills that the disconnection of them creates a safety issue with regard to access for emergency services that must be considered. A man suggested that if connected, it be gated as an emergency access, the way it was done for Charlestown Hunt. That is a larger community and only has one access in addition to the emergency access. Mr. Motel said this is a possibility and they will investigate it. A man said he moved to the area for tranquility, because the road was a dead end. Mr. Birchall said the Township should have veto power due to the traffic issue and asked who to go to. Mr. Motel said to contact the legislature; there is no local power under the MPC. Ms. Peck said there are practical, de-facto ways to leverage development to address traffic. Mr. Churchill said the emergency access suggestion is very useful, and asked the audience for more comments. Mr. Grocki said he lives down slope from the proposed development. He asked what they plan for water and sewage facilities. Mr. Vincent said they haven't done the engineering yet, but intend to have on-lot septic systems and public water. Mr. Grocki expressed concern for his well. Mr. Churchill said the County controls the water and septic permitting, but bringing in public water that recharges the groundwater via private septic systems in generally acceptable. Adam Sirkin, Tinkerhill Road, asked if the Township can take right of way from the residents on their road if it has to be widened due to traffic in the future. Mr. Vincent said when they get into the engineering and design stages they'll include a traffic impact study, which includes their proposed development in conjunction with existing and other future development. Mr. Churchill said in many developments, the Township requires the developer to undertake off-site improvements. The Township would rather limit traffic, however, so the first task is to ensure these consequences don't happen. Debbie Kuhn, Whitehorse Road, said many of the adjacent property owners have horses, and asked if the trails will be available to the general public for both pedestrian and equestrian use. Mr. Vincent said they will address this when they return to the Planning Commission for another meeting. Mrs. Kuhn asked if the trails will be available only to the development or for the general public. Mr. Allen confirmed that the Township will want to create a community trail. Betsy Pilgrim, Mine Road, asked if the rail road has been abandoned. Mr. Reis said there was a recent article in the Evening Phoenix that indicated a group is interested in converting the rail line into a commuter rail service line. Mr. Hogan said the rail line is presently "out of service" but not officially abandoned. William Stewart, Union Hill Road, said the neighbors should be aware that there is a potential future land fill at the Quarry, which would be a dirty operation and bring lots of truck traffic to the area. Mr. Kuhn reminded Dr. Stewart that the Board of Supervisors is in the midst of a Curative Amendment proceeding with the Quarry owners and acting in a quasi-judicial capacity. They can't comment on the application. Mrs. Birchall said she is in favor of using the Tinkerhill Lane-Tinkerhill Road connection as an emergency access only. She said a second concern she has is how the township defines open space. Mr. Churchill said Mr. Theurkauf's review letter speaks to this issue. Open Space is not supposed to be wasteland. Mr. Rodgers asked if the applicant is sure they have access to public water. He said in Charlestown Township the Farm Residential District is not under the public water franchise. Mr. Showalter said they would address this matter later. Mr. Motel said it's up to the Township whether they choose to extend the public water franchise. A man asked what issues are included in Mr. Theurkauf's review letter. Mr. Motel said it includes comments on how the open space was calculated, the general layout of the plan, which is unimaginative, confusing lot lines, lack of topography lines, and the plan not showing the adjacent properties. Mr. Allen commended the developer for coming to the Planning Commission with a sketch plan, which is not a requirement in the subdivision process. He said this is the optimal time to elicit feedback before the engineering work and its associated costs are put into the plan. He said the process may be a little contentious but this is the nature of it. Mr. Motel agreed that starting with a sketch plan helps them work out the best possible result. Mr. Birchall asked if the Planning Commission visits the sites that are under review, and Mr. Motel said yes, with the property owner's permission. This is done for all larger applications. Mr. Allen added that the Charlestown Planning Commission will be in communication with Schuylkill Township. Mr. Kohli asked if the topography was available, and Mr. Showalter said they just recently obtained it. Mr. Motel asked if the revised sketch could show the wetland and riparian buffers. Ms. Peck added that the adjacent homes should be shown, and Mr. Showalter agreed to do so. Mr. Kohli asked if the traffic study was underway, and Mr. Showalter responded not yet. Ms. Peck asked if perc testing was underway and Mr. Vincent said not yet. Mrs. Leland said that in light of the number of interested neighbors here for this application, a better presentation is needed, perhaps a PowerPoint presentation. Mrs. Birchall asked for the length of time for the typical plan approval. Mr. Vincent said it depends on the process and he can't venture a guess. Mr. Churchill asked if they propose to construct in phases, and Mr. Vincent answered yes. The market will dictate the phasing, but they average 15-20 deliveries per year for other projects. Mr. Reis said Charlestown is a member of the Phoenixville Regional Planning Commission, presently working on a regional Comprehensive Plan. This may add to the review time. Mr. Birchall said the loud construction over a period of years will impact the neighbors' quality of life. Mr. Churchill asked if they expect to start from Tinkerhill Road or Whitehorse Road, and Mr. Vincent said they don't know yet. Mrs. Marlo asked how trucks will get in. Mr. Vincent said there will be a construction entrance that they will want to keep minimally invasive. They will take the neighbors' concerns into consideration. A man thanked the Bentley Homes representatives for reaching out to the neighbors and being up front about the development plans. He said their main concern for Tinkerhill Lane is traffic, especially with the existing 90 degree turn toward the top of the lane. A woman added that the steep hill is bad in winter weather. Mrs. Kuhn asked if the mines under the property have been mapped. Mr. Vincent said they know where the mines are and have history on them. They will provide whatever information the Township requires. Mr. Showalter said they have to undertake a field survey of the mines, and Mr. Motel asked him to include this information on the plans. Mr. Churchill asked if they would be filling the mines, and Mr. Showalter said they'll need to get consultants to look at them but believe they're already filled with water. Mr. Motel thanked the applicants and audience for their attendance. He suggested that interested attendees check the website or call the township office to see when the matter is next scheduled on their agenda. Ordinance Review Due to the late hour, Mr. Motel tabled the ordinance reviews on the Traditional Neighborhood Development Ordinance and ordinance to increase the open space requirement to 50% in the FR district to November 28, 2006. The Ordinance to determine the number of horses permitted on FR parcels over 25 acres in size was tabled until December 12, 2006, when Mrs. Gerhard arranged for an equestrian expert to be present. Mrs. Gerhard indicated that John and Shannon Muldoon were present for this agenda item and had waited all evening. Mr. Motel indicated there may be a subcommittee work session for the TND ordinance on November 16, 2006 at 7:30 P.M., notice of which will be posted on the citizens' website. Phoenixville Regional Planning Commission Mr. Kuhn said the Supervisors need a recommendation from the Planning Commission on the PRPC Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Motel said they were held up by the Fair Share issue. Mr. Comitta said they transmitted comments to the PRPC consultant, Kise, Straw & Kolodner, and Mr. Reis said there was an invoice issue in that Kise was looking for remuneration from Charlestown for $1,500 for changes due to their comments that would affect plan. Mr. Motel added this item to the November 28, 2006 agenda. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:36 P.M. The next meeting is scheduled for November 28, 2006, 7:30 P.M. at the Great Valley Middle School, with a possible work session on November 16th. Respectfully submitted, Linda M. Csete Planning Commission Secretary     CHARLESTOWN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION GREAT VALLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL, 7:30 P.M. November 28, 2006 Present: Andy Motel, Chairman, Mike Allen, Vice Chairman, June Gorman, Sarah Peck, Wendy Leland, Rick Reis, Surender S. Kohli, P.E., Tom Comitta, Linda Csete, Township Administrator and those on the attached list. Call to Order: 7:30 PM Announcements - none Approval of Minutes November 14, 2006 minutes Mr. Motel tabled the approval of the minutes to the December 12, 2006 meeting. Mr. Reis had two corrections: Page 5, second sentence, change "existing" to "exiting" Page 10, last sentence, first paragraph, remove word "prospective" Ordinance Review Increase Open Space Requirement in FR District to 50% Mr. Motel explained that the Planning Commission had been asked to revisit the open space requirement by members of the Board of Supervisors. It was discussed at the previous meeting at which the general consensus was that they would support the increase if a plan submitted under the increased requirement can remain density neutral. He said both Mr. Allen and Mr. Reis undertook some additional review on the density question. Mr. Allen referred to a sheet of calculations he prepared entitled "Yield Comparisons - 40% Open Space vs. 50% Open Space vs. Conventional Lot Development", and determined that if the property is relatively unencumbered there is no impact on the lot yield when the open space percentage is increased. He began to see a penalty when 10% of the property is netted out. To some extent the lot configurations can be manipulated, but as constraints increase, it becomes problematic. Generally, the 40% open space allows some wiggle room as compared to conventional lot development. Mr. Motel asked if they could generalize about Charlestown, and Mr. Allen said it would be difficult to do so, but noted that the topography of the township is not typical of southeastern PA. Also, when considering the septic systems, soil type is a major factor, particularly subsoils, which can impact the yield considerably. Mr. Reis said he found that constraints in the range of 13-14% create a breaking point, and agreed that the septic systems are a major concern, noting that years ago in his neighborhood, public sewer had to be brought in when the area began to fail. The lot sizes were in the 20,000 square foot range. Ms. Peck said she questions the value of changing the ordinance in light of the fallout the Board might expect from landowners. The change will antagonize many of them, and even if it could be proven that there is no yield change, the perception would be damaging. She suggests if they go to 50% open space there be a density bonus in the form of a proportionate increase in the number of lots permitted. Mr. Motel said that on lots smaller than 40,000 square feet, he questioned the housing product that would be built and whether they could handle the septic. Mrs. Leland said she agreed with Ms. Peck's comments except for the suggestion on density bonuses, which she opposes. Mrs. Gorman said her opinion stated at the last meeting hadn't changed, namely that amending the ordinance wouldn't be worth the cost as far as the public trust is concerned. Mr. Reis said a 50% open space requirement would be reasonable if it did not affect the yield, but that's not the way the current ordinance is written. Mr. Motel said his position hasn't changed and discussion this evening solidifies his opinion that the ordinance remain as currently written. He asked for comments from the audience. Ben Thompson said that lots under one acre require a secondary septic system, and he finds this very difficult to achieve. Mr. Allen clarified that in Charlestown, the ordinance states that a secondary system is required regardless of lot size if the system is something other than a conventional in-ground system such as a sand mound or drip system. Mr. Townes pointed out that the County regulations vary somewhat from the Township's. The Health Department permits septic systems in open space, and only requires a back up system if the lot is less than one acre in size. He asked the Planning Commission to consider what the harm would be in allowing septic systems in the open space. Mr. Allen moved to recommend that the Board of Supervisors not adopt the proposed amendment to increase the open space to 50%, and Mrs. Leland seconded. Mr. Motel called for further discussion, and there being none, called the vote. All were in favor. Sound Barrier/Noise Ordinance Mr. Motel said that the solicitor, Mark Thompson, has prepared a revised Noise Ordinance based on elements from the Tredyffrin and East Whiteland Township ordinances in order to remain consistent for roads traveling through more than one township. Mr. Reis asked if those ordinances had been upheld in the courts, and Mr. Motel responded that there have not been any challenges to date. Mr. Reis asked if the sound barriers along Route 202 in Tredyffrin were a result of their ordinance, and Mr. Motel responded no, the barriers were in place before they adopted the ordinance. Mr. Townes indicated that sound barriers are required by the federal government whenever federal funding is used. Mrs. Leland said that at the meeting she attended with PennDOT today, all five PennDOT representatives were in favor of sound barriers provided they're made of a softer material that better absorbs sound. They agreed that sound barriers help control dust, noise, and discourage animals and pedestrians from entering the roadway. A man asked, if the state privatizes the Turnpike, as had been suggested by a recent newspaper article, who would be accountable for adherence to noise regulations? Mr. Motel said ultimately, whoever develops the highway would be required to do so. Mr. Reis questioned some definitions, such as that for noise that states it is "any sound which annoys or disturbs humans or which causes or tends to cause an adverse psychological or physiological effect on humans." Ms. Peck said the ordinance doesn't address the appearance of the barriers, just their function. Ms. Peck moved to recommend adoption of the ordinance to amend provisions for noise pollution and provide requirements for absorptive sound barriers. Mrs. Leland seconded. Mr. Motel called for further discussion, and there being none, called the vote. All were in favor. Traditional Neighborhood Development Ordinance The Planning Commission continued its review of the proposed ordinance, which was revised on 11/27/06 by Tom Comitta following a subcommittee work session. Mr. Comitta led the discussion. He indicated he's still working on the design guideline manual and would welcome additional input from Mr. Townes and Mr. Fillippo. If they could crystallize their ideas for their properties he would be able to incorporate that information into his diagrams. The Planning Commission reviewed approximately half of the ordinance as follows. Article II - Definitions Mr. Comitta said he met with a subcommittee of the Planning Commission on November 19th at Mr. Motel's office. There were numerous questions on definition terms already in the current zoning ordinance. He showed them on the new draft with a box around them for easier reference. He said the most significant definitions involved dwelling unit types. There are various forms of attached and multi family dwellings, singles, duplexes, two-family, etc. Section 604 of the MPC provides a definition of a two-family dwelling that the ordinance should include. They concluded at the 11/19/06 meeting that if a dwelling unit isn't a single unit, they should all be called multi-family units. These would include apartments, duplexes, and other dwelling types. Once the definitions are worked out they will have to go back to each article in the draft ordinance to make the terminology consistent. Mr. Motel said terms shouldn't be defined differently unless the difference is intended. He added that, as has been discussed at previous meetings, the zoning ordinance should eventually be amended to include all definitions in the Definitions section rather than be scattered throughout the ordinance. Mr. Allen questioned the differences between civic use and municipal use as defined. Mr. Comitta suggested they take it out of the use regulations but keep it as a definition, as it includes several uses not defined as civic, such as a sewer treatment plant or salt storage shed. Mr. Allen said that under the definition for Continuing Care Retirement Community, the 2% maximum square footage for accessory uses seems small, and Mr. Townes agreed. He said that in CCRCs he's seen, 2% is extremely low, giving Brandywine as an example. Mr. Allen suggested that the definition be changed to include a list of accessory uses but leave out the percentage, and the others agreed. Ms. Peck suggested adding language "primarily for the benefit of residents". Mr. Townes said that with the uses located in the interior of the buildings and no signs outside this would generally be the case. Mr. Comitta said the definition for 'Dwelling-Age Qualified" should be used rather than "Dwelling-Age Restricted". Ms. Peck asked if they can put porch dimensions in the design manual rather than in the definitions section as she thinks the minimum width of 14 feet is too large and that the porch widths should vary. Mr. Comitta said he'll review this, but indicated a minimum depth should still be listed. Article 22 - Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) District Page 22-2, Section 2202.B.8. Mr. Comitta indicated he added this item specifying that curb bulbouts shall be located at all street intersections. Mrs. Gorman asked if this might not be too restrictive. Mr. Allen said he thought it would be good for traffic calming. Mr. Motel suggested adding "except where for good cause shown" or similar language. He agreed bulbouts are pedestrian friendly. Mrs. Leland said during her meeting with PennDOT this morning, the representatives were very amenable to the boulevard design for Whitehorse Road, citing safety reasons. Mr. Motel asked if they had any comments on the traffic circle, and Mrs. Leland said one of the PennDOT reps was not in favor of it, saying that they don't create gaps in the traffic for new cars to merge in easily. Mr. Motel added that they are not pedestrian friendly. Page 22-3, Section 2202.C.6. Mr. Comitta asked if they would like to include a minimum percentage of single family homes to be accessed by alleys, and responses were mixed. Mr. Motel said he'd rather leave this to the developer and see what they come up with for their design. Mr. Allen said some alley access would be good. Ms. Peck suggested 50%, Mrs. Leland 40%. Mr. Townes said he'd rather see the requirement for alley access on the single homes rather than the multis. Some multis could be accessed from the sides. Mr. Motel asked for an example, and Mr. Townes named Applebrook in East Goshen. Ms. Peck suggested a percentage of 80% for the multis allowing some to have side access. Mr. Allen disagreed, saying he saw no advantage to side loading. Ms. Peck noted side loading would interrupt the pedestrian flow with driveway cuts. Mr. Comitta will put 50% in as a minimum number of singles to be accessed by alleys. Page 22-4, Section 2202.D.6 Move the specifications for roof overhangs to the design standards section. Page 22-5, Section 2202.H.1 Correct the wording that off-street parking shall be located to the rear of building "within a garage". Mr. Motel suggested adding the term "to the greatest extent possible." Mr. Comitta will review. Page 22-5, Section 2202.H.5 Mrs. Gorman researched other ordinances for guest parking and found a useful table in an ordinance from Sunnyvale California, that links the number of parking spaces required to the number of bedrooms. All units required 2 covered spaces, and in addition, a 4-bedroom unit requires .65 spaces for unassigned/guest parking, a 3-bedroom unit requires .5 spaces, a 2-bedroom unit requires .4 spaces and a 1-bedroom unit requires .25 spaces. She said from her experience living in Charlestown Oaks she thinks these requirements are reasonable. She'll provide Mr. Comitta with the information. Mr. Townes said if there's also some provision for parallel parking these figures sound good. Ms. Peck suggested specifying the two spaces for the residents be "covered wherever possible". Page 22-5, Section 2202.J.2 Ms. Peck questioned the on street parking stalls being seven feet wide but Mr. Townes clarified that is for parallel parking. Page 22-6, Section 2202.K.2 Mr. Comitta added width to the sidewalks in the commercial areas to accommodate outside dining. Page 22-6, Section 2202.K.3 Mr. Allen said the wording for the Homeowner's Association, with regard to responsibility for maintaining and repairing sidewalks, should be consistent with the wording in Section M.1. Page 22-7, Section 2202.N.1.b. Mrs. Gorman questioned the removal of unit paver strips of 24 inches in width in the commercial and civic streets. Mr. Motel said the Kentlands in Maryland have a wide strip that looks very attractive, with mature trees. He suggested that N.1.a. for residential streets add the phrase "except where otherwise specified." He suggests that N.1.b. be moved to the design guidelines section. Page 22-8, Section 2204.B.4. Remove "other multi-family units" from the list, and change "At least three housing types" to "At least two housing types." Page 22-9, Section 2204.C.2. Mr. Allen asked, why change the gross tract area for common open space from 40% to 30%, stating he didn't see the justification for this. Ms. Peck said the community should be walkable and tightly knit, and that quality open space is better than quantity. After some discussion, they changed it to 35%. Page 22-9, Section 22-9, Section 2204.D The reference to "the required ten percent" was removed, and "or other municipal uses" was removed. Page 22-9, Section 2205.A.3. Mrs. Gorman questioned the townhouse unit lot size of 1,000 square feet in conjunction with the setback requirements, which don't work together. Mr. Townes suggested losing the lot area specification and just specify the lot width. Page 22-10, Section 2205.D.1 Mr. Comitta indicated he changed the maximum impervious surface coverage for residential uses to 70%. Mr. Townes referred to a sketch he made that illustrated 75% would be ok, and the planning commission agreed. Page 22-10, Section 2205.D.2. Agreed to the maximum impervious surface coverage for civic use lots of 85%. Page 22-10, Section 2205.E.2 Ms. Gorman questioned the maximum height of 45 feet for principal buildings, and Ms. Peck said if that refers to the mean height, this is acceptable. Page 22-11, Section 2206.A.3 Change "professional office" to "office", and remove #10, Municipal use, #12 Library, and #14, Police and/or fire substations, which are included under #7, Civic uses. Ms. Peck suggested removing #11, Museums, and adding this to civic uses. Page 22-11, Section 2206.A.3 Mr. Motel asked why the 60,000 square feet total retail is included here and not elsewhere. Mr. Comitta said it's in this section so that the conditional uses, including pharmacies and banks, are not allowed square footage in addition to the 60,000 maximum. Mr. Motel agreed that the aggregate retail maximum of 60,000 square feet must be made clear. He suggested that the pharmacy use be permitted by-right instead of by conditional use. Ms. Peck said banks should remain in the conditional use section because that use is not as pedestrian friendly. She agreed the pharmacy use could be moved to by-right use as long as there was a square footage cap of 12,000 square feet. She also suggested that under conditional uses adding "and other uses deemed appropriate". Page 22-11, Section 2206.A.3 Mr. Comitta said a size limitation is needed for the neighborhood commercial area. Mr. Motel said "offices over retail" should be removed. Ms. Peck said "dress shop" should be removed as this is covered under "clothing store". Page 22-12, Section 2207.B.2. Change "Live-Work Apartments" to "Live-Work Units" Page 22-12, Section 2207.B.3 Delete "Other Multi-Family Units". Ms. Peck suggested adding to "At least two housing types shall be provided", "including but not limited to" Page 22-12, Section 2207.C.1 & 2 Mr. Reis said the use composition for retail commercial dictates a percentage of the total tract area, but the use composition for live-work units uses a percentage of total dwelling units. These two should be consistent. Page 22-14, Section 2209.A Mr. Comitta said the permitted uses will be made consistent with the changes for Section 2206.A.3 . Page 22-14, Section 2209.C.1 Change "automobile service station" to "motor vehicle service station" as a conditional use in TND District 3. Mr. Motel suggested changing the designation for three parcels east of the township owned 6.2 acre tract from TND-2 to TND-1 or another designation that would be more suitable as he stated the current size of TND-2 might be too large given the intention to restrict the retail uses to the 60,000 square foot range. This will be discussed further at the next meeting. Valley Forge Christian College - Hartwick House Mrs. Leland said during the PennDOT meeting this morning, a pedestrian signal for Coldstream Road was discussed and the representatives responded very positively. They recommended a pedestrian cross walk with a blinking signal and an advance warning signal due to the curve in Coldstream Road that affects the sight line. The light would always blink red for Maryhill Road, and yellow on Coldstream Road except when the pedestrian signal was activated to turn it to blink red. Mr. Motel asked if they discussed shaving the vertical curve on Coldstream Road, and Mrs. Leland said PennDOT was not in favor of any changes in that regard due to the wetlands in the area and associated drainage concerns. There was some discussion on costs, which Mr. Townes estimated to be in the $40,000-50,000 range. Thompson Sketch Plan Mr. Motel said he and Mr. Allen visited the Thompson property this past Saturday at the family's invitation, and John Thompson invited the other members to visit as well. Mr. Motel said the property is stunning. Mrs. Leland said the sketch was given to PennDOT, and they will respond with comments. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 P.M. A work session was scheduled and will be advertised for Saturday, December 2, 2006 at noon at the Township Office to complete the review of the second TND draft. A subsequent meeting is scheduled for December 12, 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.