Mrs. Leland called the meeting to order, noting that the Chairman would arrive late.
Mrs. Leland announced the passing of Ray Ott, for whom there is a memorial service on May 14, 2010 at 11:00 a.m. at former “Fur Shop” property now owned by Mr. Gluchanicz. Mrs. Csete noted for the residents present that Mr. Ott had served on the Planning Commission for fifty years, in addition to more recently serving on the Historical Commission. Mrs. Leland added that the Board of Supervisors recently recognized Mr. Ott for his contributions at a meeting this past fall.
Mr. Allen moved to approve the minutes of April 13, 2010 and Mr. von Hoyer seconded. Mrs. Leland called for discussion, and there being none, called the vote. Four were in favor.
Mrs. Csete explained that the Open Lands Act requires that any property or property easement purchased for open space preservation using dedicated open space taxes must first be placed on a map approved by the Township for this purpose. The Thompson property is the first property to be considered under the Act.
Mrs. Csete said that in 2001, Tom Comitta prepared a “Candidates for Open Space” Map that included the Thompson property and many others that were considered of interest for preservation. The map remains current other than the need to update several properties from “candidate” status to “existing open space” status.
Mr. Allen moved to recommend adoption of the Candidates for Open Space Map by the Board of Supervisors, and Mr. Richter seconded. Mrs. Leland called for discussion, and there being none, called the vote. All were in favor.
Mr. Motel arrived at this time. Mr. Allen explained that the revisions to the TND ordinance wouldn’t be reviewed this evening, as the Planning Commission has addressed the changes in previous meetings. A hearing to consider adoption of the revisions is scheduled before the Board of Supervisors on June 7, 2010.
Paul Gluchanicz, Neal Camens, P.E. and Greg Davis, Esq. were present to continue the review on Mr. Gluchanicz’ conditional use and subdivision plan.
Mr. Gluchanicz said he first wanted to review the issues brought up in previous reviews and expressed his wish to reach an amicable resolution with the Township and neighbors to his property.
Mr. Gluchanicz started by stating that his comments were what he thought to be the facts and to be accurate, including his interpretation of Township ordinances that were relevant to his property, its use and potential for subdivision. He acknowledged that some members of the Planning Commission or others might disagree with the statements and that they were his opinions alone. He stated his opinion that the Fur Shop is a continuing non-conforming use, which allows for expanded use with no residency on the property required provided he is not running a business there. He can, however, rent the building for income provided the net lot area is a minimum of 160,000 square feet and conditional use approval is obtained. The Fur Shop and Farmhouse would both be considered principal structures.
A second option would be to operate under the guidelines allowed by the adaptive re-use provisions in the ordinance, which requires residency by the owner on the property but requires only an 80,000 sq. ft. net lot area. The ordinance allows limited commercial use, which would also require conditional use approval. All adaptive reuses listed in the ordinance would be acceptable except “J”, which is converting the building into apartments. If the lot size was increased to 120,000 sq. ft., two apartments would also be permitted. Under the adaptive re-use requirements, the farmhouse would be the principal structure with the fur shop as an accessory structure.
Mr. Gluchanicz said he has several options for subdivision. On the current plan, Lot 1 has 194,000 sq. ft. However, he could reduce this to 80,000 sq. ft. and make Lot 2 larger. It could then be subdivided without using the deed-restricted portion of that property.
Mr. Gluchanicz said conditional use approval is needed for the current subdivision plan for slope disturbance to construct a new driveway that enters from Charlestown Road where an “flagpole” easement is in place to access the back lot, Lot 2. He notes that he has a right to ingress/egress for that lot. However, instead of strictly following the easement, his meandering driveway design would preserve more woodlands and lessen the grading issues. Stormwater would be fully absorbed by the property and would not reach Charlestown Road, and he feels the location of the driveway here provides the best sight distance.
Mr. Gluchanicz said the Farmhouse, Fur Shop and Spring House are all on the Historical Resources Map, but this doesn’t obligate him to live in the Farmhouse or to renovate it. He can opt to board up the house or demolish it following a conditional use hearing.
Mr. Gluchanicz summarized the concerns he’s heard from his neighbors. He said they object to any commercial use due to concerns for traffic safety, slope and woodlands disturbance, and perceived reduction in their property value. He said they feel it would be invasive to their backyards and that they don’t want to see a third driveway created. Finally, they feel uncomfortable due to a level of uncertainty on how the property will be developed and used.
He said it was his understanding that the Township’s concerns are first and foremost be the preservation of historic structures, then, preservation of open space, the use itself, the additional driveway and finally the slope and woodland disturbance.
His own interests are in creating an accessible building lot and in having the ability to have a principal use in the Fur Shop. He intends to demolish and replace the large, but not historic, garage. He is concerned by what he perceives as a sense of resistance he feels from the Township, micromanagement of his property, a feeling of intrusion into his personal business and general uncertainty of what he can have approved.
Mr. Gluchanicz said the current conditions are the worst from the neighbors’ viewpoint. Lot 1 is 5 acres in size with 2 principal structures and continuing non-conforming use, and Lot 2, although restricted, allows for agriculture use and has means of access.
He proposes two additional scenarios. One is for Lot 1 to become 3.3 acres, with all historic structures to remain and be eligible for one adaptive use only, or for the Fur Shop to be permitted for personal use. Lot 2 would become 4.9 acres, with 3.2 acres remaining deed restricted while the balance would allow for residential use and a private driveway access through the woodland on the existing easement.
The third scenario is that he demolish the farmhouse, which would make the Fur Shop the principal structure on 3.2 acre Lot 1, allowing either one adaptive reuse or use as a residence. Lot 2 would have residential use only, with a driveway access that could go through the area of the demolished farmhouse, creating minimal slope and woodland disturbance. Conditional use approval would still be needed for some slope and wetland disturbance. He could live in the Fur Shop and also use it under the adaptive re-use provisions, so on the total property there would be two residential dwellings and two driveways. He provided a sketch plan of this third option to the Planning Commission and the neighbors in attendance. The lot lines are the same as that on the originally submitted minor subdivision plan but the driveway is relocated toward the farmhouse area.
Mr. Gluchanicz said in all three scenarios he would demolish the garage and rebuild one with approximately half the footprint. He said the farmhouse has major renovation needs, including total electrical re-wiring and a new septic system. He’s apprehensive about making these investments, doubting he’ll ever see a return on them as a rental unit.
Mr. Gluchanicz then addressed comments on Thomas Comitta Associates’ review letter of April 29, 2010 for the conditional use application.
Comment #1: Uses for Lot 1 - addressed previously this evening.
Comment #2: He disagrees with Mr. Theurkauf’s assessment that only one apartment unit could be created from the Fur Shop, believing it can accommodate two units.
Comments #3 & 4: He acknowledges that the new driveway creates disturbances, but feels his plan is a compromise.
Comment #5: Woodland Disturbance – He doesn’t think the disturbance will be as great as what Mr. Theurkauf indicates.
Comment #7: EIA Report – He says this requirement is burdensome, particularly in light of the fact that the Planning Commission members and consultants have been to the property for site visits several times and can make these assessments without a detailed report. However, he said it is something he can provide.
Comment #10: Condition the approval on abandoning the driveway to the existing residence – He sees this as a deal breaker.
Mr. Gluchanicz said he’s asking for feedback on his proposed options. Mr. Motel said that the third option allows for more uses of the Fur Shop. Mr. Gluchanicz responded, only if the continuing non-conforming use applies, or if he can live in it and use 1,000 sq. ft. of it for a business. He said that Mr. Kohli’s zoning interpretation issued in April that the Fur Shop is not accessory to the Farmhouse, speaks to the use, not the structure itself.
Mr. Gluchanicz said an 80,000 sq. ft. Lot #1 is sufficient for all adaptive reuses except J. The fur shop is 1,500 – 1,600 square feet. Anything over 2,000 sq. ft. allows for conversion into two apartments, and he feels that the other buildings on the property can be counted toward that square footage. He noted that the Historic Resources Protection Ordinance wasn’t written to consider a situation where there are two principal uses on one property.
Mr. Motel asked about the proposed driveway on the current plan. Mr. Gluchanicz said he understood something Supervisor Philips said on the March 20th site visit as being a desire that the entrance of the driveway be within the designated flag easement, so he changed his plan to accommodate this. Mr. Motel asked if there was a cross-section of the driveway provided as requested previously so that the Planning Commission could evaluate the safety issues of a driver pulling out of the proposed driveway given the cutting needed to achieve the 4% or less landing. Mr. Camens said he provided the grading and profile, and demonstrated that the water is contained on the site but had not provided the cross section. The Township’s requirements match PennDOT’s, in that the slope meeting Charlestown Road is not to exceed 4%. Mr. Motel confirmed that the Planning Commission wants a cross-section to show the line of sight for a car waiting to exit the driveway. Mr. Allen said he thought PennDOT required more length to the driveway portion that must be less than 4% slope, but Mr. Kohli said they don’t require more unless there is a turning lane from the main road. Mr. Camens said it’s basically a 25-foot length that is required, approximately 1 car length. The Township Ordinance states it’s to be the length of the right of way.
Mr. Allen said a shared driveway through the middle of Lot 1 is still a possibility. Mr. Gluchanicz said he dislikes this option in the extreme. He said the Fur Shop is the crown jewel of the property and he’d like to live in it someday. He wouldn’t want the neighbor’s driveway so close to the house, and there would also be a loss of privacy for the garage. He would only want to share the new driveway with the Farmhouse, not the Fur Shop. Mr. Allen said he still feels it could serve the Fur Shop, though Mr. Motel said they are somewhat restricted because of the location of the springhouse. Mr. Gluchanicz said he sought a compromise when proposing the meandering path along the flag access. He could go straight up the flag but it would cause more extreme disturbances, so he proposed an alternative. Mr. Motel asked if he felt a shared driveway with the Fur Shop would detract from the value of the property and the use of the building, as well as being less attractive in marketing the lot in the back, and Mr. Gluchanicz said yes, emphasizing he wants to maintain ownership of the Fur Shop.
Mr. Allen said if conditional use approval is granted to construct the driveway in the flag area, Mr. Gluchanicz maintains it would be difficult to eliminate the farmhouse entrance, but he disagrees, saying it wouldn’t be onerous to connect the farmhouse access to the new driveway.
Mr. Motel asked if, practically speaking, the Farmhouse’s days are numbered due to the cost of needed repairs and upgrades, and Mr. Gluchanicz said yes. Mr. Gluchanicz said he tried to accept the historic protection status of the Farmhouse but the double principal use on the lot creates a hardship. He hasn’t had tenants there since August 2009 and they were there at the time he purchased the property so he hadn’t inspected the interior too closely. He didn’t realize the extent of the problems until they moved out. With its location only 30 feet from Charlestown Road, its most likely use is as a rental house. Mr. Allen disagreed as he had lived in homes with similar minimal setback. Mr. Davis said Mr. Gluchanicz has a right to demolish the house, the historic resources protection ordinance only requires that some procedures be followed first.
Mr. Allen asked why Mr. Gluchanicz sent his recent letter to the HARB, asking for background on the passage of the Historic Resources Protection Ordinance. Mr. Gluchanicz said as a historic property owner, the ordinance impacts him and he wanted to know its background. One question he included was whether neighbors to historic properties were notified that those properties would be permitted some commercial use. Mr. Motel said his recollection that when the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance was created, the objective for the Township was to incentivize historic preservation by allowing additional uses for these structures. He doesn’t think the adaptive reuses would so commercialize a property as to be onerous to neighbors. Mr. Gluchanicz said he spoke to a neighbor across Charlestown Road from his property and asked him what he would think of a florist shop or service business in the Fur Shop building, and these suggestions didn’t sit well with him. His neighbor had expressed concerns over strangers in the area and the additional traffic. Mr. Motel said the incentives aren’t meant to open a Pandora’s box for neighbors, but added the ordinance doesn’t preclude the owner from demolishing a historic structure.
Mr. Gluchanicz asked for examples of other adaptive re-uses approved by the Township. Mrs. Csete recalled approval of a Bed & Breakfast for the Bell & Clapper property on State Road, though the owners never followed through with it. Mr. Motel said it’s difficult to draw any conclusion from the fact that there haven’t been more adaptive reuse because there’s little turnover in these properties and the adaptive reuse ordinance is only about 10 years old.
Mr. Gluchanicz said if he did nothing with his proposed plans but instead moved into the farmhouse and used the Fur Shop for an adaptive re-use, would the Township support him when the neighbors object? Mr. Motel said yes he personally would, provided it meets the ordinance requirements. (Mr. Churchill arrived at this time.)
Mr. Gluchanicz again expressed his feeling that he’s meeting resistance from the Township, that no one is trying to help him figure out how to move forward. Mr. Motel said that’s what his own engineer and attorney are for. The Planning Commission’s role is to respond to the application before them, and he noted the Commission had addressed the issues of “net lot area”, and whether the Fur Shop is a use that is accessory to the Farmhouse. And beyond that, Mr. Gluchanicz must decide what he desires to do. Mr. Motel added that in 12 years on the Planning Commission he’d never seen so many complicated issues in a two-lot subdivision.
Mr. Motel opened the floor to the public. Dr. Swartley expressed his concern for safety if the third driveway is permitted, particularly in bad winter weather when piles of snow interfere with the sight lines. He said he would have a problem with any road cut near the flag area for the same reason. Mr. Motel said this is why a cross-section was requested.
Dr. Swartley said if the farmhouse is demolished, a separate driveway further up the hill and going above the springhouse would be preferable to one in the flag area. Mr. Motel said it would be close to the Fur Shop. Mr. Churchill questioned why this would be detrimental. Mr. Gluchanicz said he respectfully disagrees with Dr. Swartley about the sight lines, saying they’re better higher on the hill. Mr. Motel said the engineer’s cross-section will address this.
Judy Swartley questioned why a historic structure is permitted to be demolished. Mr. Motel said outside of Charlestown Village, the Township designated a number of historic structures but being owned privately, their owners can opt for demolition if they don’t meet their needs. Mr. Kohli said they must apply for a demolition permit through the HARB. Mr. Davis explained that in or out of Charlestown Township, an owner can’t be forced to keep any structure. In this situation, keeping the Farmhouse isn’t a viable alternative for his client. Mrs. Swartley felt he should have been aware of its condition when he purchased it. Mr. Motel agreed with Mr. Davis’s assessment, as did Mr. Churchill.
Jean Bomm asked about the placement of the proposed new house on Lot #2 and how it affects the eased portion of that lot. Mr. Motel confirmed that although the eased portion can be included in the net lot area calculation, no structures can be placed on it but must remain outside that area. Mrs. Bomm asked if this holds true if Mr. Gluchanicz later sells the property. Mr. Davis confirmed that the restriction remains on the deed in perpetuity. She asked if the other 1.9 acres of Lot #2 can be developed, and Mr. Churchill said it can be, as long as all the zoning requirements, such as setback distances, are met.
Dr. Swartley asked how steep slopes are designated. Mr. Motel said steep slopes are between 15-25%, and to disturb them, conditional use approval is needed. Slopes over 25%, which are Very Steep Slopes, require a zoning variance before any disturbance can be considered. Mr. Kohli noted an exception to that is if the very steep slope disturbance is for access to a permitted use.
Mr. Findlay said he thinks Mr. Gluchanicz’s alternate plan is very sensible. He said he’s been in the Farmhouse and there are no significant historical architectural features to it either inside or out. He’s surprised it’s on the Historic Resources list and doesn’t object to its demolition. Creating a two-lot subdivision with one residence on each is the perfect solution. Mrs. Leland noted that the Farmhouse is only designated as a structure of “local significance” on the historic resources map.
Mr. Gluchanicz said he listened to the neighbors’ comments and Dr. Swartley’s emphasis on safe access, but Mr. Gluchanicz again commented he doesn’t believe moving the access up the hill improves safety. Demolishing the Farmhouse makes the question over the deed restriction moot.
Mr. Findlay said if the Farmhouse is demolished, his concerns are met. Mrs. Bomm agreed, conditioned on there being no further subdivision. Mr. Gluchanicz said he wanted to clarify the neighbors’ understanding that if he rebuilds the garage with a 2nd floor, he could include an in-law or guest suite, but it wouldn’t be a second residence. He showed a sketch of the proposed garage structure, which has a barn-like design.
Mr. Motel said that with regard to the conditional use application, the applicant must provide a cross section of the proposed driveway and be prepared at the hearing to show why the other suggested driveway locations aren’t feasible so that the Planning Commission can properly evaluate the sought-after Conditional Use approval to disturb steep slopes at the presently proposed driveway location. Mr. Findlay pointed out that the ordinance states the use must be “viable and feasible” not “viable and reasonable” as has sometimes been stated. Mr. Churchill said for conditional use approval, the applicant has to show the other alternatives are not as feasible as the one he proposes. Mr. Davis said his client wished to revise the subdivision plan and return to the Planning Commission if the feedback on his proposed alternative was positive.
Mr. Churchill expressed his intention to work with the applicant on adaptive re-use alternatives. However, he remains unconvinced that the proposed conditional use for the flag driveway is either necessary or feasible. He would prefer using the entrance by the Fur Shop or through the Farmhouse area if it is demolished. Mr. Gluchanicz asked, assuming he demolishes the farmhouse and moves the driveway to where Dr. Swartley suggests, would Mr. Churchill be as opposed? Mr. Churchill said no, because the driveway cut is already there, feasibility would likely be proven. He said he’s most against the scenario with three driveways.
Mrs. Leland said she’s been to the property twice, and finds the turns out of the Farmhouse driveway to be difficult, particularly the right-hand turn because the Fur Shop hedges are in the way. She thought the flag access was possible but prefers the Farmhouse drive access, though she agrees it shouldn’t pass too close to the Fur Shop. If the Farmhouse is demolished, she said the drive could be split to access Lot #2.
Mr. Von Hoyer somewhat agreed with Mrs. Leland, stating he doesn’t like the flag option, however, he doesn’t see a problem with the new driveway going past the Fur Shop.
Mr. Allen said he wants to see the Farmhouse preserved. He suggests using the flag access and connecting the Farmhouse driveway to it. If the Farmhouse is demolished, then he would connect the Lot #2 driveway with the Fur Shop driveway.
Mr. Richter said he’d hate to see the Farmhouse demolished but it makes no sense to board it up either. If the Fur Shop is the showcase of the property then it’s the best use for that lot.
Mr. Motel said he disagrees with Mr. Churchill and believes that the Planning Commission can consider economic impact to the landowner in determining what is feasible. He said he doesn’t like the idea of the driveway going past the Fur Shop but doesn’t like the flag lot either. He thinks the driveway can be located in the Farmhouse area while avoiding almost all the steep slopes and this can be accomplished without demolishing the Farmhouse.
Mr. Davis said Lot #2 is entitled to access and this could be accomplished by going straight up the flag area, which was an easement created for this purpose. The Township can’t require that the applicant create a second easement across Lot #1 to accommodate Lot #2.
Mr. Findlay asked if the conditional use hearing scheduled for June 7th was still going forward in light of the proposed changes. Mr. Davis indicated they will request a continuance, while Mr. Gluchanicz meets with the HARB next week.
John Mosteller and Eric Schrock were present from Dewey Land LP to review documents accompanying the preliminary subdivision plan for Spring Oak, along with Jason Engelhardt, P.E. and Bill Warwick and Doug Olson from Barton Partners.
Mr. Allen said the Planning Commission has already recommended the Preliminary Plan for approval to the Board of Supervisors, but a number of issues arose after that recommendation for review this evening.
The applicants went through a PowerPoint display of 25 items to be reviewed in a document entitled “Conditions of Preliminary Approval: Pending Modifications to Spring Oak TND Assessed by the Charlestown Township Planning Commission’s Review October 2009 through April 2010.” Comments were as follows:
|1||Lots 1 & 2 were shifted northeast to provide additional buffer from the entrance road.|
|2||A right turn lane was added to the Whitehorse Road entrance.|
|3||The pedestrian path and Horse Shoe Trail were moved closer to Whitehorse Road.|
|4||Parking spaces along Road B were changed to parallel spaces.|
|5||Alley 2 was made a dead end with bollards added, instead of connecting to Road B. Unit #33’s garage was moved toward Road B. Mr. Churchill said the residents will have a long way to drive to reach their property. Mr. Mosteller said they’ll be aware of this when they purchase it.|
|6||Units for lots 5-11 were reduced in size. Mr. Allen asked where the grading plan is, and Mr. Engelhardt said it was presented as part of the Conditional Use plan and will be included with the final plan.|
|7||An emergency access was added to Alley 11 and Lot 155’s driveway and garage was reconfigured. Mr. Schrock said he met with the Fire Marshal, who suggested bollards at both ends of the access rather than chains. A fire hydrant is to be added to Whitehorse Road. Mr. Schrock said he’ll prepare a memo memorializing his discussions with Mr. Alston.|
|8||Units on Lots 174 & 175 were reduced in size.|
|9||Parking was added to Road B to provide additional parking for Lots 170-173; signs and directional arrows were added. Mrs. Leland was concerned about cars being parked next to this green area where children are likely to play. The other Planning Commission members wanted the parking to remain in the plan.|
|10||Traffic signs and directional arrows were added to direct traffic counterclockwise along Road E.|
|11||A Basketball court was added. There will be no lighting.|
|12||Transition between the alleys and roads were revised to an at-grade intersection.|
|13||The traffic circle was revised to better control/direct vehicular movements per the traffic engineer. Exhibit 13A: Mr. Mosteller said this exhibit was added and depicts a tree and other plantings in the circle. Signs were removed. Mr. Engelhardt said for a limited traffic volume area, there were too many signs recommended by the Township’s traffic engineer. Mr. Kohli said he’ll ask him to take another look. Mr. Von Hoyer said a big snow would kill the tree in the center. Mr. Mosteller said snow would have to be trucked out. Mr. Churchill asked for the diameter of the circle, and Mr. Mallich said 40 feet. Mr. Olson said they felt there was a lot of paving in the center island for no great purpose, which led them to adding the tree. Mr. Allen suggested a deciduous tree rather than a spruce.|
|14||Perpendicular parking was removed from active open space area.|
|15||Lots 104, 105, 137 & 138 were rotated to face the central green with Alleys 5-8 reoriented to accommodate the change. There was some discussion one whether the original orientation or current orientation was preferred. Mr. Warwick said the current plan would isolate the other units along the alley. Mr. Richter preferred the original orientation from a marketing standpoint. The Planning Commission decided to revert to the original orientation with the four units facing the alley.|
|16||Perpendicular parking was removed from active open space area.|
|17||Alley 4 was moved to the East to provide a larger buffer from Devault Foods.
Additional plantings and a guide rail will be added.
Mr. Schrock pointed out the widened buffer, staggered tree line, and fencing on the Fillippo property. There will be a guardrail between the alley and the walking path. Mr. Allen said he’d prefer an 8-foot fence rather than a 6-foot fence for noise mitigation. Mr. Von Hoyer asked what material the fence will be made of and Mr. Mosteller said PVC, which Mr. Allen said is a sound reflector. Mr. Allen indicated the buffer would be comprised of three tree types, which Mr. Olsen said will be 6-8 feet wide at maturity.
|18||Alley 4 was moved to the North to provide a larger buffer from Devault Foods. Additional plantings and a guide rail will be added.|
|19||A Right of Way was added for future access to the Souder property. Mr. Mosteller said there will be a dedicated easement in case the abutting TND developer wants to make a connection. Mr. Richter said this should be disclosed to the buyers of Lots 67 & 68.|
|20||Two options were shown for future roadway through Souder property.|
|21||Revisions were made to clubhouse area. Mr. Allen said design of this area is unresolved and the plans are in their infancy. Mr. Mosteller said that between now and the June 8th meeting, he’ll be working with his consultants and Mr. Comitta to firm up designs for the clubhouse and other recreation areas.|
|22||Units 80-85 were changed to have detached garages. Mr. Allen asked if these units are the only ones being revised to have detached garages, and Mr. Mosteller said detached garage homes are premium properties and they may add more.|
|23||Road C was reduced to 16 feet wide alley between Road B and Alley 4. Mr. Schrock indicated it could be reconverted if desired in the future.|
|24||Details of porous asphalt were shown. Mr. Schrock said the alley curbing is similar to that at the new Wegman’s and would be slip formed. He noted that Mr. Kohli hasn’t had an opportunity to review the design yet. Mr. Mosteller said he’d like to use flush concrete curbing so that a damaged piece can be repaired without tearing up a large portion of curbing, yet it has a better appearance than raised granite Belgian block.|
|25||The community gardening area is moved away from the back corner. Mrs. Leland asked if it would be fenced, and Mr. Schrock said possibly; they’d use post & rail with wire if needed.|
A photo of the guardrail proposed for the alley adjacent to Devault Foods was shown. Mr. Allen said he preferred black rail to pressure treated lumber, noting a fence across from Maplecroft Dairy that is very attractive. Other planning commission members were not in agreement. Mr. Motel asked how long this guardrail will be and Mr. Allen said about a quarter mile.
Mr. Allen confirmed with the Planning Commission they are in agreement with the modifications as discussed this evening, with the understanding that Exhibit 15 would be changed back to the original plan with all units facing the Alley.
Mr. Engelhardt said a full drawing set containing all the updates reviewed this evening would be submitted to the Supervisors and township consultants prior to the June 7th meeting.
Mr. Allen indicated that the applicant must go through and respond to Mr. Comitta’s latest review letter dated 4/30/10 before going in front of the Supervisors.
Mr. Mosteller said the revised Manual of Written & Graphic Design Guidelines dated 4/23/10 incorporates all the comments provided by the Planning Commission to date.
Mr. Allen said he wants to confirm that in the section, “About the Manual and Architectural Review” that it’s clear the Township Architect will have the latitude to approve minor changes without returning to the Design Review Committee or Board of Supervisors. Mr. Mallich said he’ll confirm.
The Design Manual was then reviewed page by page via PowerPoint, with numerous minor verbiage changes and clarifications throughout.
Specific items addressed were as follows:
|8||Mr. Allen said the acronym HERS should be spelled out.|
|11||Mr. Olsen said the overall plan pages, including page 11, don’t include the changes approved this evening. Mr. Allen said they should be included before going to the Board of Supervisors. Mrs. Leland asks that the Horse Shoe Trail behind Gil Mariano’s property be shown.|
|16||Mr. Mallich asked if an actual picture of the intersection detail could be shown.|
|20||Mr. Schrock indicated that additional stormwater management pictures would be added to the design manual per Mr. Philips request.|
|31||Mr. Allen said to be sure the lights are indicated to be LED.|
|33||Mr. Richter confirmed the outdoor furniture will all be black.|
|34||Mr. Schrock said there are two new pictures of the guide rail and perimeter fencing. Mr. Mosteller said he’ll finish the fencing detail in the front area as well as the entry features.|
|35||Mr. Allen said a satin finish to the vinyl or PVC materials should be specified.|
|36||Mr. Allen asked why these undesired entry monument pictures are still in the manual, and Mr. Mosteller said he will re-design them.|
|38||Mr. Olsen said this overall plan will be updated.|
|39||Mrs. Leland asked for clarification on the notes that “porches may not project into the building zone”.|
|45-50||These pages include a depiction of the planting strips.|
|52||Mr. Mosteller asked for an opinion on placement of fencing within 8 feet of the rear property line instead of flush with the garage, and Mr. Warwick said he sees no problem with that.|
Mr. Mosteller said the overall drawings will be updated after the civil plans are revised.
The review stopped at page 67, to be continued at the June 8th meeting. The Planning Commission approved the manual to this point.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:07 p.m.