Mr. Motel introduced the three new members to the Planning Commission: Charlestown Oaks resident Andre von Hoyer, Bill Westhafer, Howells Road, and Michael Richter, Tyrone Farms.
Mrs. Csete announced that the Bodine Road Bridge over the PA Turnpike has been scheduled for demolition and replacement starting this spring. Bodine Road will be closed except to local traffic beginning March 17th, with re-opening anticipated in November 2010.
No matters were brought forward at this time.
Mr. Motel provided some background for the new members on how the minutes are processed, noting that he first reviews the draft before it’s circulated to the rest of the Commissioners. Mrs. Csete said that minor changes or corrections can be communicated to her via email, but if there is any substantive change it has to be made in public during the meeting when the minutes are approved.
Mr. Motel moved to approve the February 23, 2010 minutes subject to clarification by Mr. Churchill on p. 2, 3rd paragraph from the bottom, last sentence which ends “the overall tract would be under 50%.” Mr. Churchill asked if this should be 75%. Mr. Churchill seconded. Mr. Motel called for discussion, and there being none, called the vote. Six were in favor.
Mr. Motel referred to the proposed Amendments to the Stormwater Management Ordinance; last revised 11/11/09 and recommended by the Planning Commission by a 6 to 1 vote. The Supervisors should consider the comments made by the Planning Commission at that time as well as Mr. Kohli’s comments in his 11/23/09 review letter.
Mr. Churchill made the following comments on Mr. Kohli’s letter:
Item #1: Mr. Churchill said comment #1 has two recommendations to be considered by the Supervisors if their intention is to require underground systems as the primary Best Management Practice. The first recommends that a stormwater BMP hierarchy be included, and the other recommends applying less stringent requirements to underground BMPs. Mr. Churchill suggested these recommendations be left to the Supervisors to decide.
Item #4: Mr. Churchill said he accepts the suggested language to clarify section 302.E.6.d.1. It’s not clear as written whether the maximum depth of 5 feet is part of the minimum depth of 3 feet for wet basins or in addition to it.
Item #5: Mr. Churchill said yes to Mr. Kohli’s question on whether the minimum 20 foot separation distance between the property line or ROW and the stormwater basin should cover end walls, but no, it should not cover energy dissipating structures.
There being no further comments, Mr. Motel indicated the Planning Commission would forward the ordinance, along with Mr. Kohli’s review letter dated November 23, 2009, to the Board of Supervisors for consideration of adoption.
Paul Gluchanicz and Neal Camens, P.E. were present to discuss the minor subdivision plan and conditional use application for Mr. Gluchanicz’s property on Charlestown Road.
Mr. Gluchanicz first addressed items on Mr. Theurkauf’s review memorandum dated 2/22/10 as follows.
|1.||Compliance of Proposed Lot 1 and Uses – Mr. Theurkauf’s comment indicates that Mr. Kohli, as Zoning Officer, shall determine whether the barn is accessory to the house or a principal non-residential use. Mr. Gluchanicz’s position is that his continuing use of the barn (former Ott Fur Shop) as an office defines it as an accessory use to the principal structure on the property, the farmhouse. Mr. Motel said if Mr. Kohli agrees, the lot lines don’t need to be changed, but if he determines it’s a principal use, item #2 on Mr. Theurkauf’s letter listing alternative permitted uses would apply. Mr. Patry will confirm with Mr. Kohli. Mr. Motel said for the purposes of the discussion this evening they will assume it’s an accessory use since Mr. Gluchanicz is proceeding on that assumption in the Plan as currently presented for consideration.|
|3.||Mr. Theurkauf’s comment states the proposed driveway to Lot 2 meanders through
a wooded area along an old access road. This path would require less tree removal than utilizing
the straight existing (“flagpole”) easement across Lot 1 and would lessen the slope disturbance
somewhat. Mr. Camens said they had surveyors locate the driveway so only three trees would be
removed. Others may be affected, but less than the 20 that would be affected by the flagpole easement.
Mr. Gluchanicz said the proposed drive is further from the neighboring properties than the flagpole
easement. Mr. Camens indicated that disturbing both the steep slopes and very steep slopes require
a conditional use approval. Mr. Allen said that the meandering design is similar to what he did
on his own property and he thinks it’s preferable to strictly adhering to the flag easement. Mr.
Mallich said the proposed driveway allows retention of the existing buffer.
Mr. Churchill asked why they want to create a new driveway instead of using the existing driveway that accesses the barn Mr. Gluchanicz said the sight lines are better and the access is safer than the existing driveway to the barn located further up the hill along Charlestown Road. Also, the proposed new septic system for the farmhouse would be in the way, and at some point in the future he’d like to rebuild the garage. Mr. Motel reviewed the structures on Lot 1, indicating there is the barn currently used as an office, a farmhouse, springhouse and garage. One additional house is proposed for Lot 2.
Mr. Motel clarified that the applicant proposes that all the structures would be accessed from the new driveway with the exception of the barn. Mr. Allen noted the distances to the neighbors’ houses from the new driveway, of which 285’ was the shortest.
Mr. Churchill asked about the building envelope for the proposed house on Lot 2 as none is shown. Mr. Camens said there’s not much flexibility, pointing out on the map how the house location would be limited due to slopes and an existing easement.
Mr. von Hoyer asked why the existing driveway isn’t used to access the farmhouse and proposed new house. Mr. Motel said the Planning Commission reviewed several sketches, including one where the new house was accessed from the barn’s driveway. Mr. Gluchanicz said since the barn is used as an office, sharing the driveway with a residential use would be detrimental to both properties. Cars accessing Lot 2 would be driving through the middle of Lot 1. Mr. von Hoyer asked if the driveway could be widened and moved away from the barn, but Mr. Gluchanicz said the spring house is in that area and the garage and proposed septic system would also be impacted.
Mr. Westhafer asked for the percentage slope of the proposed driveway. Mr. Camens said it’s close to the maximum at about 15% and later flattens out. Where it meets the road in the road right of way, the slope is about 4%, which is the maximum permitted. Mr. Motel asked what the slope of the driveway is presently, and Mr. Camens said about 20%, which limits the sight line to the left and would be improved by the new plan. Mr. Churchill said this will require a lot of cutting into the slope. He asked if there would be retaining walls. Mr. Gluchanicz said no, and also commented that the bank is clearly manmade. He referenced Mr. Kohli’s comment #18 on his 3/1/10 review letter, which indicates a 25 foot clear sight triangle is required at the driveway entrance. Mr. Motel noted that PennDOT will control the permit. Mr. Camens said that for a minimum use driveway, PennDOT requires that grading be done before the permit is issued. Mr. Churchill said he’d like to see a cross section of the driveway, and Mr. Camens said he’ll provide it.
|6||Mr. Gluchanicz questioned if the street trees are required, as he’s noticed this requirement isn’t enforced elsewhere, for example, in Ashford. He said he could comply if required.|
|7||Mr. Gluchanicz noted that he’ll submit a request to waive some of the requirements
in the EIA report, and asked what the Township specifically wants him to include. Mr. Allen suggested
that the consultants address this question, indicating that Mr. Theurkauf’s letter already makes
some suggestions. He said a full EIA report is not expected. Mr. Mallich noted that impacts from
the commercial use of the barn must be addressed in the report. Mr. Motel asked how the barn is
being used now and what is proposed. Mr. Gluchanicz said he’s using the barn now as a professional
office and would like to continue doing so. He goes to the office every day. He understands that
if he rented the building out, a conditional use approval would be required, and if he elected
to go with one of the adaptive re-uses he understands he would have to reside in the farmhouse.
He said the farmhouse is currently vacant and he’s planning renovations. Mr. Motel asked if his
business receives customers and if there are any employees. Mr. Gluchanicz answered no to both
(Mrs. Leland arrived at this time).
Mr. Gluchanicz then addressed comments on Mr. Kohli’s review letter dated 3/1/10.
|4||Mr. Gluchanicz agreed to add the deed restriction information to the plans.|
|5||Mr. Gluchanicz said he can’t meet the recommendation that the proposed driveway be entirely located on Lot 2. He said they’ve looked at this many times and the area is very tight.|
|6||Mr. Kohli’s comment states that to obtain conditional use approval, the driveway layout must be the only viable one. Mr. Gluchanicz agreed the slopes could be less impacted but it would be a trade off with increased tree removal. Mr. Patry agreed.|
|9||Mr. Gluchanicz said the Planning Commission is welcome to visit his property for the mandatory site visit. Mr. Motel said they’ll schedule the site visit during the upcoming bus tour of Township developments. A date will be set for this tour later in the meeting.|
|10- 12||Mr. Gluchanicz said his attorney will address these items, which include providing a title report, a description of the proposed driveway easement and legal descriptions for both lots.|
|19||Mr. Gluchanicz asked if he’s permitted to locate the well for the Lot 2 house in the deed restricted portion of the lot. Mr. Churchill said his attorney should advise him on that.|
|20||Mr. Gluchanicz agreed to provide hydraulic routing calculations to meet the stormwater management ordinance requirements.|
|21||Mr. Allen asked that along with revising the plan to show clearer contours, that the trees to be removed be shown.|
Mr. Motel opened the floor to questions and comments from the public.
Matthew Findlay referred to email comments provided by his absent neighbor, Casey Duffy. Mr. Motel declined to hear the comments read, stating that the Planning Commission is a face-to-face group, further noting that Mr. Duffy’s e-mail concerned the issue already addressed by the Solicitor on calculating the “net tract area”, and the Planning Commission can’t give the relief the neighbors have requested. Mr. Findlay said his neighbor had other concerns for steep slope and tree disturbance and the proximity of the proposed driveway to his property. Mr. Motel reiterated the Planning Commission can’t hold an interactive dialog with an email, and Mr. Findlay can’t act as someone’s proxy. He said these comments can be entered into the record by Mr. Duffy personally appearing during the conditional use hearing before the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Churchill added that there would be no recommendation on the subdivision plan this evening, so there would also be more opportunity to comment the next time this matter is on the Planning Commission agenda. Mr. Findlay said the neighbors want their lawyer to meet with the Township Solicitor, Mark Thompson, and Mr. Motel said he had no objection.
Mr. Findlay said he doesn’t agree that replacing the farmhouse driveway with the new driveway proposed at the southern end of the site is safer. He also notes that Mr. Kohli’s review letters indicate that accessing a single family home through steep slopes is only permitted if there is no feasible, viable alternative alignment or location. He believes that accessing the proposed house on Lot 2 from the existing driveway that travels past the barn is a viable alternative, and also doubted that the proposed driveway can meet line of sight requirements without going onto Mr. Duffy’s property. Mr. Motel said they’ve requested a cross section of the proposed driveway, but also noted that the ultimate decision to approve the driveway access to Charlestown Road is PennDOT’s.
Dr. Robert Swartley had several comments. He said in December 2005 he and Mr. Duffy witnessed a bad accident in the area of the proposed driveway and he feels peoples’ lives are more important than saving trees. He said Charlestown Road lacks proper drainage and the road is often icy in the winter. Abundance of deer is another problem. He said that his property takes water from Charlestown Road through a swale that has seen increased erosion over the past 13 years. An additional driveway will bring more water onto his property. Mr. Allen said the applicant is required to handle all the water on his own property from any improvements. Mr. Motel added that Mr. Kohli reviews the stormwater plans and they aren’t approved until he’s satisfied. Dr. Swartley said he wants to emphasize the problem of freezing in the winter. Mr. Motel acknowledged there’s a problem with sheeting water in the stretch of Charlestown Road near Country Lane and that this is a legitimate concern, but again stated the applicant’s obligation is to handle his own runoff and not exacerbate any existing problem. Mr. Patry said they use hydrological calculations to prove the water is handled properly. Dr. Swartley asked what his recourse is if it turns out to be a problem after all. Mr. Motel said he can address this question further with Mr. Kohli, who is looking out for everyone’s best interests. Mr. Motel also suggested Dr. Swartley have his own engineer look at the stormwater plan when it’s submitted before final approval. Mr. Churchill agreed there are problems on Charlestown Road and the Township’s engineer will err on the side of caution. He noted that the Township can only control what the applicant does, not the conditions that are already there.
Mr. Gluchanicz asked if it would address any of the neighbors’ concerns if he eliminated the farmhouse driveway and made the new driveway a shared one. Mr. Findlay said he’d prefer to have the Lot 2 house accessed from the barn driveway, saying there won’t be high office traffic on it.
Judy Swartley said there could be more problems in the future if Mr. Gluchanicz brings in additional uses, but Mr. Motel said the Planning Commission can only address the plan in front of them right now.
Mr. Findlay asked for an explanation of the type of plan that was submitted. Mr. Motel said that this is a Final Minor Subdivision Plan. Previously, there had been a series of sketch plans reviewed. Sketch plans are optional and serve to start a dialog between the applicant and Township before the applicant spends a lot of time and money on engineering. Mr. Churchill noted that although there’s a deadline before which the Township must issue a decision on the plan, they will nevertheless take as much time as they need and will request a deadline extension if necessary to ensure they have all the information.
Mr. Motel said if the applicant submits a revised plan for review at least two weeks prior to the next Planning Commission meeting on April 13th, the matter will be placed on that agenda. Jean Bomm asked if the site visit would take place before the next meeting, and Mr. Motel said they’re going to try to schedule it before then.
Mrs. Csete advised those interested to check the Township website for the agendas to see when the Gluchanicz plan is scheduled next.
Mike Murray, Esq. and Neal Camens, P.E. were present to discuss the revised preliminary plan for the addition of a new parking lot at the site plus a revision to the existing lot.
Mr. Murray explained why the application was submitted. He said the original approval for the building allowed for 60,000 sq. ft. of office space with the remainder warehouse space. If additional office space is proposed beyond that 60,000 sq. ft., the owner is required to return to the Township for approval.
Mr. Murray referred to Mr. Stubbe’s review comments on lighting in his letter dated 2/25/2010. He said they were generally technical notes to be added to the plan, and agreed to include them. He also agreed to provide the arm length for the arm mounted luminaires as indicated in comment #1.
Mr. Camens then addressed comments on Mr. Theurkauf’s review memorandum dated 3/1/2010:
|1.||Mr. Camens said he and the applicant have meet with Mr. Theurkauf, and he acknowledges that there’s a point in the evolution from warehouse to office use where trucks and cars will have to share the same area. Mr. Richter asked what uses are there now, and Mr. Murray said flex space. Mr. Camens said Aegon Print Shop uses 4-6 bays and there are one or two other tenants that have some trucks. The other locations are vacant. Mr. Camens said they will have enough space for trucks to maneuver, stating that although there is some car traffic and parking, it’s not a high volume use like a supermarket parking lot.|
|2.||With regard to the zoning ordinance requirements for raised landscape islands of 8 foot minimum width, which can’t accommodate truck traffic, Mr. Motel said he understands that the applicant is trying to be versatile to adapt to market conditions, but he questions if there are implications for other properties that may be looking for similar relief. Mr. Murray said the islands can usually be reconfigured since this requirement is typically in a township’s SLDO, but in Charlestown’s case, it’s in the zoning ordinance. He said the new parking areas will be fully compliant but they have a problem near the existing bays. Mr. Murray said they have no problem with the landscape design requirements.|
Mr. Murray said the Planning Commission had previously approved a reduction in the parking stall size to 9 x 20 feet. He asked if they need to make a separate request for approval from the Supervisors. Mr. Motel said no, the Board will generally go with the Planning Commission’s recommendation.
Mr. Allen asked if the applicant can meet all the comments in Mr. Theurkauf’s letter, and Mr. Camens said yes. Mr. Murray noted that comment #10 indicates Thomas Comitta Associates has no objection to consolidating some of the islands into larger islands, relocating some of the shade trees, and deferring the tree removal inventory until the new lot is constructed.
Dan Mallich asked that item #1 on Mr. Theurkauf’s review memo be addressed further, which suggests that trucks be brought along the front of the building to alleviate some safety concerns. Mr. Camens said not knowing which spaces are available for trucks to maneuver, the flex uses will need to have trucks traveling in both directions, with the exception of Aegon. Mr. Churchill said Aegon is the larger user and it’s more critical that their trucks go past the front.
Mr. Camens then addressed to Mr. Kohli’s review letter dated 3/2/2010.
|3||Mr. Murray said the ALTA plan referred to by Mr. Kohli showing paint lines and one of the center aisles doesn’t correspond to the Land Development plan because the client prepared the ALTA plan when they purchased the building. He acknowledged they’ll have to go to the Valley Forge Sewer Authority to confirm they accept the proposed revision to their easement.|
|4||Mr. Murray said he’ll need an opinion from Mr. Thompson as to whether they’ll need a zoning variance to allow fewer, but larger, parking islands. Mr. Kuhn said the Board doesn’t know what it’s approving because the mix of uses is unknown. He asked what changed from the use of the building years ago. Mr. Murray said the trigger was the requirement to return to the Township after 60,000 sq. ft. of office space is in place.|
|5||Mr. Murray said they are aware of the need for an NPDES permit.|
|6||Mr. Camens said the grading will be revised if necessary.|
|7||Mr. von Hoyer asked for confirmation that the applicant will add a note to the plan indicating that the truck bay at the southwest corner of the building can’t be used once the parking lot has been revised. Mr. Camens agreed, stating they’ll add a note to the plans.|
|8||Mr. Camens said he’ll correct the total number of parking spaces to indicate 945 stalls.|
|9||Mr. Camens said they’ll add documentation on the stormwater BMPs.|
|10||Mr. Camens noted that the issues relating to the inspection of the underground infiltration basin have been resolved.|
|11||Mr. Camens noted that since PennDOT determined no traffic signal is needed
at the access point to Phoenixville Pike, he feels the access is fully improved with the left
and right hand turning lanes as shown.
Mr. von Hoyer asked about access for emergency vehicles, and Mr. Camens said the Fire Marshal, Fred Alston, had no concerns.
Mrs. Leland moved to recommend the Preliminary Plan for Exeter 3222 Phoenixville Pike subject to the comments on Mr. Kohli’s review letter dated 3/2/10 and Mr. Theurkauf’s review memorandum dated 3/1/10. Mr. Allen seconded the motion. Mr. Motel called for further discussion, and there being none, called the vote. All were in favor.
John Mostoller, Eric Schrock, Jason Engelhardt and Doug Olson were present to continue review for Spring Oaks.
Mr. Engelhardt discussed the reports to be reviewed, beginning with the Stormwater Operations & Maintenance Agreement. He referred to Mr. Kohli’s review letter dated 2/1/2010 which outlined the requirements for the Operations & Maintenance Plan. He said they’ll be able to comply with the requirements that a Professional Engineer be responsible for the Plan, that invasive species be controlled and that the schedule and responsibility for inspection of the stormwater system be addressed. He said the onus will be on the Homeowners’ Association. A few text changes are needed in the report, which will ultimately be recorded along with the final plan.
Mr. Engelhardt then referred to the Traffic Impact Study and Whitehorse Road Speed Study. He said the traffic plans were submitted to PennDOT in late February, and they responded with a request for a deceleration lane into the site from Whitehorse Road. Mr. von Hoyer asked if the entrance road is in the same location as the existing driveway, and Mr. Engelhardt said it’s south of the existing driveway, a decision that was dictated by sight distance requirements. He then displayed Highway Occupancy Plan 30.01, and pointed out the new pavement areas including a right hand turn lane from Whitehorse Road. Mr. Churchill asked for the grade, and Mr. Schrock said it’s close to at-grade. Mr. Motel asked if no left turn lane was needed and Mr. Engelhardt confirmed that traffic volume wasn’t high enough to require one. Mr. Churchill asked how close that volume is to warranting a left turn lane. Mr. Engelhardt said the volume was significantly lower than the warrant, and would provide the data. Mr. Engelhardt said there’s been no formal written response from PennDOT yet but verbal discussions have been good. He said they’ve clarified several items relating to drainage calculations, and noted that they’re significantly reducing the water being handled through the existing cross pipe. Mr. Motel asked when they expect to hear from PennDOT, and Mr. Engelhardt said by late spring they hope to have their permit.
Mr. Engelhardt said the biggest issue with traffic volume relates to the signal at Whitehorse Road and Route 29, where the signal timing will have to be changed. Mr. Kuhn said he thought that was part of a closed loop system, but Mr. Allen said it will be in the future but isn’t at this time. Mrs. Leland asked how much time will be added to the left turn from Whitehorse Road to Route 29, and Mr. Engelhardt said 7 seconds.
Regarding the mini-roundabout at the intersection of Road A and Road C, Mr. Engelhardt noted that the McMahon review letter dated 2/4/10 suggests that splitter islands should be provided. Mr. Engelhardt said he’d rather just stripe out a “pork chop” marking that directs people to travel in the same direction, to the right. Mr. Schrock noted that this comment went beyond McMahon’s purview. Mr. Churchill said he’d like to hear some elaboration on this comment from the McMahon consultant, and Mr. Motel said he’d ask Mr. Kohli to inquire.
Mr. Schrock then referred to the Environmental Assessment Report, which was last revised 3/5/10. He said the fiscal section followed Mr. Comitta’s methodology on financial data, but there was some debate over the valuation of the units. Jennifer Reitz from Mr. Comitta’s office favored a range of values per unit while the Dewey team thinks they should just go by the more conservative value for each. Mr. Allen indicated he preferred Dewey’s approach and to use their best judgment on the market value. Mr. Mostoller agreed, saying they would be conservative. Mr. Allen questioned the value of the clubhouse at $200,000, and said this should be adjusted. Mr. Mostoller said the pool and clubhouse will cost $800,000. Mr. Allen said the fiscal analysis spreadsheet indicates that real estate transfer taxes come in every year, when they are only paid upon resale. Usually a resale once in every ten years is used to base this on. He questioned whether interest earnings should be included, and also asked that the decimal points and cents be removed from some of the figures.
Mr. Churchill thanked Mr. Comitta for having pointed out the errors in methodology in the original report which vastly underestimated the fiscal impact on the schools and the overall fiscal impact.
Mr. Allen made a motion to approve all the reports, which have now been reviewed and found to be acceptable with the changes noted this evening. Mr. Churchill seconded. Mr. Motel called for further discussion, and there being none, called the vote. All were in favor.
Mr. Mostoller continued the PowerPoint presentation from the February 23, 2010 meeting, going through the Design Manual page by page beginning with page 53. The following comments were made.
|53||Doug Olson showed how the houses are situated on the lots relative to the streets in what is considered an urban street design.|
Mr. Westhafer asked if there will be any restrictions on fencing in the development. Mr. Olson said there will be both public realm and private realm fencing, which is depicted on p.43. He noted this will be expanded to two pages, and said p. 60 has additional comments on fencing. Mr. Motel suggested they consider use of means other than fences, such as trellis, in some instances. It could still address privacy concerns but be less conspicuous than a fence. Mr. Richter asked who installs the fencing, the builder or owner. Mr. Olson said a little of each; there are some lots identified as having fencing. Mr. Mostoller said those lots are shown on p. 61, and that comprehensive fencing information will be available after the preliminary plan approval stage. If an individual property owner wants fencing, they’ll go to the town architect for approval if it’s during the construction process, and to the architectural review committee after construction is completed.
|54||Mr. Motel asked if wraparound porches are feasible on the small lot singles, and Mr. Mostoller said they aren’t precluded if the house is made narrower. He said the town architect will have some latitude.|
|55||Mr. Motel suggests some wraparound porches on the little smaller twin houses. Mr. Motel said some variety in the roofs is good but questioned having different colors of roof on attached units.|
|56||Mrs. Leland said she likes the 3-D street lighting diagrams. Mr. Allen noted there’s also a separate lighting plan in the plan set. Mr. Richter asked if some of the garages can be closer to the alleys to allow for a bigger yard. Mr. Mostoller said some are closer, but the distance is limited by the requirement that there is room for two cars to be parked in front of the garage off the alley. For parking areas parallel to the garage, 8 feet is needed, and for perpendicular parking, 18 feet. Mr. Westhafer asked if there are zero lot lines, and Mr. Mostoller said on the townhouses and some of the duplexes.|
|57||Mr. Motel said the corner units don’t show any windows. Mr. Mostoller said the drawings are meant to illustrate setbacks, sidewalks and driveways.|
|59||Mr. Olson said these drawings show the color variety available, with the caveat that adjacent units or units across from one another not have the same color.|
|60||Mr. Olson said this shows where higher privacy fences can be located between units but not alongside them.|
|61||Mr. Olson said special attention was paid to the corner lots since they have two sides seen from the street. Mr. Mostoller said the details will be fleshed out by the town architect.|
|63||Mr. von Hoyer asked if the homeowner can add fencing in addition to those fences
shown as part of the building plan, and Mr. Olson said yes. Mr. Allen said there may have to be
some restrictions on fencing.
Mrs. Leland said she wants to see details on the units as viewed from the alley.
Mr. von Hoyer asked if street parking is open or reserved, and Mr. Olson said open. He asked how spaces will be marked, and Mr. Allen said with short perpendicular lines.
|67||Mr. Olson said this page shows the different depths of the parking area between the garage and alley for parallel and perpendicular configurations.|
|68||Mr. Olson said this page shows the minimum plantings required for the various housing types. Mr. von Hoyer asked if the homeowners can add plants, and Mr. Mostoller said yes.|
|69-70||Mr. Mostoller said these pages show the varieties of plants proposed.|
Mr. Motel said the Planning Commission will complete the review of the Spring Oak manual, beginning with p. 74, at the March 23rd meeting.
Mr. Mallich suggested that some of the improvements planned for Phase 2 be done in Phase 1, such as the construction of the large recreational field adjacent to Rees Road along with access to it, the community gardens, and screening from Devault Foods. Mr. Mostoller said access to the gardens will be limited during construction. Mr. Mallich said the first two items can be decided by the applicant, but the screening is the most important item and should be included in Phase 1.
The Planning Commission scheduled a bus tour for March 20, 2010, leaving from the Township Office parking lot at 9:00 a.m. to visit various developments in the Township.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 P.M.