CHARLESTOWN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES GREAT VALLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL 255 N. PHOENIXVILLE PIKE, MALVERN, PA, 7:30 P.M. TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 2012

Present:

Wendy Leland, Chairman, Bill Westhafer, Vice Chair, Michael Allen, Michael Churchill, Andy Motel, Michael Richter, Andre von Hoyer, Dan Wright, P.E., Tom Comitta, Linda Csete and those on the attached sign-in sheet.

Call to Order:

7:35 p.m.

Announcements

Mrs. Leland welcomed the members of Boy Scout Troop 67, who are working toward their Citizenship in the Community badge, along with their parents.

Mrs. Csete made the following announcements:

1. She reminded everyone that the Township is hosting a meeting on January 24th on pipeline safety and planning. An information sheet is on the reverse side of the agenda. Those interested need to call the township office and register if they’d like to attend.
2. The Parks & Recreation Board invites the Planning Commission to attend the first of their visioning meetings for the update of the Open Space and Recreation Plan, scheduled for February 29th, 7:30 p.m. She’ll confirm the location for them via email.
3. She informed the Planning Commission that she will be advertising for a recording secretary to help share the job of taking minutes.

Reorganization

Mrs. Leland called for nominations for the position of Chairman of the Planning Commission for 2012. Mr. Allen nominated Wendy Leland for Chairman and Mr. Richter seconded. Mr. Churchill moved that nominations be closed. Mrs. Leland called for discussion, and there being none, called the vote, and all were in favor.

Mrs. Leland called for nominations for the position of Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission for 2012. Mrs. Leland nominated Bill Westhafer for Vice Chairman and Mr. von Hoyer seconded. There being none further, Mrs. Leland closed the nominations. She called for discussion, and there being none, called the vote, and all were in favor.

The meeting schedule for 2012 was set for the second Tuesday of the month, with the fourth Tuesday in reserve to be scheduled as needed, to be held at the Great Valley Middle School, Room 154, at 7:30 P.M.

Approval of December 13, 2011 Minutes

Mr. Motel had the following corrections to the 12/13/2011 minutes:

Page 2, 3rd paragraph – change “Mr. Motel said if Area 2 of the TND is included” to “Mr. Motel said if the details of Area 2 of the TND are included”

Page 3, 4th paragraph – change “Mr. Motel said he met…” to “Mr. Motel said he and Mr. Kuhn met…”

Mr. Allen moved to approve the minutes of Dec. 13, 2011 and Mrs. Leland seconded. Mrs. Leland called for discussion and there being none, called the vote. All were in favor.

Mrs. Leland told Mr. Comitta the Planning Commission will talk about the Devault Base Plan and the proposed changes to the Lighting Ordinance at the February 14th meeting. Mr. Comitta said Stan Stubbe sent him a scope of work for the lighting ordinance revisions, and he’ll prepare a proposal and forward it to her. Mrs. Leland asked him to speak with her on the Wednesday before the February 14th meeting. Mr. Allen asked if Mr. Stubbe will be looking at the lighting ordinances of other townships, and Mr. Comitta said yes, he discussed this with him.

Review

Mr. & Mrs. Tashir Kassam Conditional Use Application for the Bell & Clapper

Tashir and Maria Kassam were present to discuss their application seeking conditional use approval to rent the apartment at the back of their house to a single family.

Mr. Kassam said he and his wife are the most recent owners of the Bell & Clapper, having purchased it 18 months ago. They’ve done a lot of work on the property. He explained that there is an attached apartment at the rear of the house with a separate entrance. The former owners used it as an apartment for a caretaker. Mr. Kassam said he is requesting conditional use approval to rent the apartment to a family of no more than four.

Mr. Wright said that since this is a request for a specific use, no plan is needed with the application.

Mr. Churchill asked for the size of the property, and Mr. Kassam said 6.5 acres, with the house at 5,000 square feet. Mr. Churchill asked for the age of the house, and Mr. Kassam said it was built in 1803.

Mrs. Leland asked for the last time a tenant was living in the apartment, and Mr. Kassam said 18 months ago. She then asked if they have a specific tenant in mind, and Mr. Kassam said yes, a friend, who has an immediate need.

Mr. Motel asked why this requires conditional use approval. Mr. Kassam said he wanted to be sure the use was permitted. While the property previously had approval to operate as a Bed and Breakfast, there was no mention of the apartment in that approval. Mr. Kuhn recollected that the Bed and Breakfast was considered a temporary occupancy use. Mr. Churchill said he thought the Kassams’ proposed use was a good one.

Mr. von Hoyer asked if the septic is separate for the apartment, and Mr. Kassam said no. Mr. Motel asked if the Kassams live in the main part of the house, and he said yes.

Mrs. Leland described the location of the Bell & Clapper for those present in the audience, and asked if there was any further discussion. There being none, Mr. Churchill moved to recommend approval of the conditional use application for the apartment use, and Mr. Richter seconded. Mrs. Leland called for discussion, and there being none, called the vote. All were in favor.

Dolan Contractors – 53 Acre tract, Phoenixville Pike & Yellow Springs

Mike Dolan of Dolan Contractors Inc. presented a sketch plan for four commercial buildings on the tract at the corner of Yellow Springs Road and Phoenixville Pike often referred to in the past as the Volpi tract.

Mr. Dolan said his firm is based in New Jersey, and they’re partnering with the Exeter group on a proposal for this property. Mrs. Leland described the location of the property to those present.

Mr. Dolan said Building #1, the easternmost on the site, is shown as a warehouse, which would require conditional use approval in the Industrial/Office Zoning District. The other three buildings would be for general office space.

Mrs. Leland said this plan is similar to others the Planning Commission has seen, but the road layout is different.

Mr. Motel asked what type of warehousing is proposed, and Mr. Dolan said this is speculative at this time, but it would be code compliant under conditional use regulations. Mr. Churchill said the situation of Building 1 is the least controversial for the property and perhaps the smaller Building 2 closest to the corner of Phoenixville Pike and Yellow Springs Road.

Mr. Churchill asked how they will handle all the parking and impervious coverage toward the top of the site. Mr. Dolan said he’s interviewed engineers, although they haven’t started design work yet. He said the plan shows under 50% impervious coverage and he understands the requirements of the ordinance.

Mr. Churchill asked how they arrived at the parking calculations, and Mr. Dolan said they assumed five spaces per 1,000 square feet.

Mrs. Leland asked if they looked at the historic building, and Mr. Dolan said he understands the Township has a strong preference for its preservation, and they want to convert it to some useful purpose, although not residential.

Mr. Allen asked for the use of Building 2, and Mr. Dolan said possibly a restaurant, bank or small office. He said he understands the challenge at that location due to an adjacent small stream.

Mr. Allen asked if he has any idea of the variances or conditional use approvals that will be needed. Mr. Dolan said it’s a challenging property for steep slopes, although they’ll work around them when possible. He said they’ll need a conditional use approval for warehouse distribution at Building #1.

Mr. Allen said the plan shows 130,000 square feet of office space in Buildings 3 and 4 at the top of the site, and asked what traffic it will generate. Mr. Dolan said they have no one under contract at present, but would like to pursue a corporate headquarter type of client for which a stand-alone building might be attractive. They would have recognition from the Turnpike with accessibility from the future Slip Ramp.

Mr. Motel said the greatest truck traffic will be generated by Building #1 and asked if there would be much for the top two buildings. Mr. Dolan said those two will be basically offices so would have limited truck traffic. Mr. Motel said the Planning Commission will need to know the volume of traffic anticipated for the warehouse.

Mr. Churchill said the Planning Commission’s reservations aren’t due to the concept of the buildings but their sizes. If they are asked for numerous variances and conditional uses, approval will be difficult to justify. He sees this as the essential problem. Mr. Dolan said this concept plan shows impervious coverage below the limit. Mr. Churchill said impervious coverage isn’t the problem; it’s that much of the land can’t be used, so parking and building space are squeezed into the smaller, usable areas.

Mr. Churchill asked about the access from Yellow Springs Road. Mr. Dolan said this would be for emergency only, such as police and ambulance. There would be no general access from this road.

Mr. Allen said that on the plan, below the warehouse, is a note that “existing forest to remain” but there is no forest there. He said this brings up a screening issue. The office buildings will look nice, but they don’t want a big blank wall on the warehouse; they will want an upgrade. Mr. Dolan said he can work on that.

Mr. Motel asked, since conditional use is needed for the warehouse, how it fits with the neighboring uses, especially the high density residential use across the site from Yellow Springs Road and the truck traffic on Phoenixville Pike. He noted in response to Mr. Allen’s question that there are two warehouse buildings directly to the east of the site. Mrs. Leland said since this property is adjacent to East Whiteland Township, they will have to interface with them as well.

Mr. Westhafer asked if they’ve looked at the grading, suggesting they may want to come back with a rough sketch that includes it.

Mr. Richter said there are 23 bays shown for the warehouse, but no area for truck or trailer storage. Mr. Dolan said the companies they’re talking to are not the type to need storage, and they’re building to this lighter standard of more limited use. For any change they’d have to come back to the township.

Mr. Richter asked if the warehouse is proposed for dry storage only, and Mr. Dolan said yes.

Mr. Motel asked if the Exeter building was fully occupied, and Jason Honesty said no.

Mr. Allen said if they return with a revised plan, it should show outlines of the adjacent properties and who owns them. He asked if they anticipate selling the buildings separately on separate lots, and Mr. Dolan said yes.

Mr. Dolan concluded by thanking the Planning Commission for their helpful feedback.

Antonio Goncalves – Conditional Use Application for Home Occupation

Antonio Goncalves was present to discuss his and his wife Ellen Davis’ application seeking conditional use approval to operate a psychologist office at their home at 4053 Tinkerhill Road. He said both of them are licensed psychotherapists and provide services to individuals and families on a part time basis. He said they share roles, taking turns seeing clients while the other takes care of their two children. They each see about 12 to 13 people per week. They’ve been operating the business at their home since March 30, 2010, and previously they were in private practice in King of Prussia.

Mr. Churchill said two rooms are shown for the business. Dr. Goncalves said one is a waiting room. Mr. Churchill asked for the size of the lot, and Dr. Goncalves said about 4 acres. Mr. Churchill asked how close the closest neighbor is, and Dr. Goncalves estimated they are about 2 house lengths away, about 200 feet. He said the closest is relatively close but there is a screen of trees between them. On the driveway side there’s a large field of green space.

Mr. Allen asked where they are located on Tinkerhill Road, and Dr. Goncalves said near the top on the right. Mrs. Leland asked if their property backs up to the Thompson property, and he said no, it backs up to Township owned land. Mr. Allen recalled a home with a long bridge at the front entrance, and Dr. Goncalves said that’s two houses away.

Mrs. Leland asked about the proposed parking, which is shown as a pad for two cars. Dr. Goncalves said sometimes they see couple who arrive separately. Mr. Allen asked why the pad isn’t closer to the house, and Dr. Goncalves said there’s a shed in that area along with slopes and a pathway.

Mr. Allen asked if they’ve discussed their application with any neighbors, and Dr. Goncalves said they’ve spoken to one across the street who expressed no concern.

Mr. Allen said they would generate about 25 car trips per week. Dr. Goncalves agreed but said it would be intermittent, with one car at a time.

Mr. Motel asked if they have room for two cars, and Dr. Goncalves said yes, and he can fit 3 cars side by side on the existing driveway, plus there are two garage spaces. Mr. Motel noted it’s only on the first visit that a client wouldn’t know where to park. He asked if they have to walk across the front of the house, and Dr. Goncalves said yes, then they go around to the back entrance.

Mr. von Hoyer asked if the clients are voluntary, and not state assigned or paroled, and Dr. Goncalves said they are voluntary.

Mr. Motel said he’s agreeable to this use, which is in keeping with the home occupation regulations the Planning Commission crafted a few years ago.

Mr. Wright said Dr. Goncalves addressed the items on his review letter dated 1/3/12, but suggested that for the hearing he provide more information on the parking spaces relative to the 50 foot right of way of Tinkerhill Road. Mr. Churchill said he should indicate how far the proposed parking pad is from the center line of Tinkerhill Road. Mr. Wright said if there is no pad, they could just park at the end of the driveway where there’s room for two cars. The ordinance doesn’t specify the parking other than to state the applicant must demonstrate he can provide for two cars. It’s up to the Township to decide if this is sufficient. Mr. Churchill said he wouldn’t want people backing up 100 feet but if they can turn around it would be acceptable.

Mr. von Hoyer noted that the addendum to Dr. Goncalves’ application states that Zoning Ordinance sections 1809.1.H (use relating to unique location) and 1.M (registration and licensing) are not applicable. Mr. Wright agreed with this.

Mr. Churchill moved to recommend approval of the conditional use application for the home occupation, and Mr. Richter seconded. Mrs. Leland called for discussion, and there being none, called the vote. All were in favor.

Pickering Grant Final Plan

Tim Townes of J. Loew & Associates was present to review the Final Plan for Pickering Grant. Mrs. Leland gave a description of the plan and its location to those present.

Mr. Allen said he’d first like to note that architect Dale Frens has not reviewed the plans but does have the documents. He wants to wait until after tonight’s meeting to brief Mr. Frens but has already asked him to review the old comments and check for anything new. Mr. Townes noted that Mr. Frens has the Design Manual but no architectural plans to review.

Mr. Allen said the Planning Commission just received the engineering review comments yesterday. Mr. Townes said he’s gone through them and was disappointed in his own engineer that some items they were aware needed correcting remained in the new submission.

Mr. Townes gave a copy of the Highway Occupancy Permit and Wetland Report to Mrs. Csete for the Township file.

Mr. Allen said there were several items to discuss before going over the review comments as follows.

1. PECO’s negative position on moving service mains or meters: Mr. Allen said just this afternoon the Planning Commission received a response letter from the Township Solicitor, Mark Thompson, responding to PECO’s position as it was explained in Greg Carey’s 11/15/11 letter to the Township Manager. He said a meeting should be scheduled with the applicant, the Township and PECO representatives to discuss further. Mr. Townes offered to call the meeting, expecting it will be held at the PECO office. Mr. Allen suggested including the Spring Oak applicants, and he agreed to do so.
2. Hierarchy of Documents: Mr. Allen said there are three documents to reconcile on this project, including the TND ordinance, the Design Manual and the engineered drawings. He notes discrepancies among the documents and says it must be made clear which one takes precedence, particularly if the project was sold to a new owner who took issue with certain variations. He said they need to ask the Township Solicitor to provide a note on the documents to prevent a problem.

   Mr. Townes said his opinion is that the construction drawings are recorded and are therefore the official public record. Everything in the Design Manual should be reflected in those drawings. Mr. Kuhn suggested a note that says if there is a conflict between documents, the Township makes the decision on which to use. Mr. Churchill said all the documents should be reviewed and reconciled to one another. Mr. Townes said a note could be added to the recorded plan that explains what to do in the case of a conflict. Mr. Allen said it should also be noted in the Design Manual, since it takes precedence over the ordinance, but again noted the Solicitor should review this.

3. Tracking Approvals: Mr. Allen said both current review letters list items as outstanding that were already approved by the Planning Commission. As an example he said the mailbox issue was taken care of but is still in Mr. Comitta’s review memo. Mrs. Csete noted the consultants get copies of the minutes where these approvals are noted. Mr. Wright said they leave a “preamble” to each review item in their letters to provide a history, and note if the item is resolved.

   Mr. Comitta suggested providing a list on the plan cover sheet of waivers requested, waivers granted, and modifications granted, saying it’s the easiest way to track them.

4. Type of Property Ownership: Mr. Allen asked Mr. Townes to explain the change from condominium form of ownership to fee simple ownership. Mr. Townes referred to an email he sent to the Planning Commission today that provided some background. He said at Mr. Allen’s and the Engineers’ request, he created a sheet demonstrating they could meet the density and green space requirements for condo versus fee simple lots. They drew lines around each unit but didn’t add metes and bounds since that’s time consuming and expensive, and they hadn’t decided at that point which direction to go. Since then they did decide on fee simple ownership and added the metes and bounds. He said he’d spoken to banks about financing, and they don’t like the condo approach so no one would finance them. He said the change to fee simple ownership doesn’t visibly change the plan.

   Mr. Richter said he spent a lot of time reviewing the HOA documents and sees ambiguity and conflicts over who will maintain what. Mr. Townes said the HOA document was crafted from other documents as a starting point. Mr. Richter said it’s left open that the HOA will raise fees for maintenance without being clear what they are responsible for. Mr. Townes said there’s language in the document that the HOA can step in if necessary by decision of their Board, which is elected by the community. He said this keeps fees down, especially initially. He said if the Township has a preference, they can either give the HOA all the control or just some of it. He added that the Solicitor’s office will review this document in depth.

   Mr. Allen confirmed that the ownership will be fee simple, and the drawings will be changed along with the Title Sheet, Note #18. Mr. Townes agreed.

The Planning Commission then went through Tom Comitta’s review memorandum dated 12/29/11. Mr. Comitta said even though there are comments shown as “resolved or corrected” there are still 22 outstanding. 15-16 of these are housekeeping items that the applicant can sort out. There are also three lighting issues outstanding from Stan Stubbe’s review letter dated 12/31/11.

Mrs. Leland reminded everyone that this project should be referred to as “Pickering Grant” from this moment forward, not “Tyler Griffin”.

Mr. Comitta went through his comments as follows:

1.A	They are now compliant with the open space calculations.
2.A	The connection to the Elementary school has been added to the plan.
3.A	If the applicant doesn’t want to add the location of lighting fixtures to the plan, this could be turned into a waiver request if the Township goes forward with moving the lighting provisions from the Zoning Ordinance to the SLDO. Mr. Allen asked about the location of the lights relative to the trees. Mr. Comitta said the lighting plan could be combined with the landscape plan by AutoCAD. Mr. Townes said this is difficult, because you can’t show an 8 foot light on a 50 scale plan clearly. He said there should be a note that there will be a field review by a lighting consultant. Mr. Comitta agreed that the applicant’s landscape architect could meet with the lighting consultant in the field. Mr. Allen said a plan isn’t able to clearly show the interference with underground utilities either.
4.A	Additional exterior lighting for the Commercial Area, the Mail Center and the entrance signage must be added to the Lighting Plan. Mr. Townes agreed.
4.B	The locations of the pedestrian-area bollard lights must be added to the Lighting Plan. Mr. Townes agreed.
4.C	Resolved – details on the pole, fixture and luminaire have been provided. Mr. Allen said the foot-candles on the Lighting Plan are hard to read but it appears to show 3.0 f-c between standards, which is much too high. Mr. Townes will check this. Mr. Motel asked if it was 0.1 f-c in the residential areas, and Mr. Townes said yes, it’s what they agreed to.
5.A	Minor item to add a trash can to the Site Furniture and Sign Plan, Sheet 29, and to the Furnishings page of the Design Manual, pg. 35.
5.B	Minor item to move a trash can shown at the Retail/Office Building to the east side of the adjacent bench.
5.C	Provide a cut out for each bench located along paved sidewalks. Mr. Townes agreed to change items 5.A through 5.C.
5.D	Graphic error for tot lot border has been corrected.
5.E	Mr. Townes said he wasn’t planning to lay out the garden plots as requested in this item. Mr. Motel said that can be left to the HOA but the fencing should be shown. Mr. Allen said for Spring Oak, they were required to show the garden layout, raised beds, and specify the bedding material.
5.F	Mr. Townes said they can show the fitness trail widened to 6 feet on the detail sheet.
6.A	Mr. Comitta said this is a minor note on sheet 12 to reference the tree protection fence detail on sheet 25.
7.A	Mr. Townes agreed to provide details for the unit pavers for the Civic Plazas.
7.B	Mr. Comitta said details have now been provided for the street lights, bollard lights, play equipment and fitness trail equipment.
7.C	Mr. Townes agreed to add additional dumpster enclosure detail.
8.A	Mr. Townes agreed to include all plan sheets continuously numbered for the record plan submission.
8.B	Mr. Comitta said a misspelling had been corrected on Sheet 1 of the Plan Schedule.
8.C	Mr. Townes will change the reference on the Title Plan, Sheet 3, from “Preliminary” to “Final”.
8.D	Mr. Townes agreed to show the correct revision/submission date on all plan sheets and on the Manual cover.
9.A	Mr. Townes agreed to provide space in the Community Garden layout for organized composting.
9.B	Already discussed this evening.
9.C	Already discussed this evening.
10.A	Mr. Comitta suggested dropping this item about including an additional mail delivery location in the HOA documents.
11.A	Mr. Townes will include notes that the Board of Supervisors agreed to allow several dead- end alleys.
11.B	Mr. Townes will add to the Waivers listing where the Board of Supervisors agreed to have sidewalks on only one side of the street. Mr. Comitta said that East Bradford Township provides approvals that state “in accordance with all waivers on the cover sheet”. Mr. Allen liked that language and said someone should document all waivers. Mr. Townes said he’ll ask Andy Eberwein to do so.
12.A	Mr. Comitta indicated this item is resolved since the TND ordinance was amended to accommodate the Applicant’s proposed building setbacks.
13.A	Mr. Comitta said the Environmental Impact Assessment Report now meets all the requirements of Section 707.
14.A	Mr. Comitta pointed out housekeeping typos to be corrected.
14.B	Mr. Comitta said the question of whether the documents provide for adequate HOA protection/indemnity for the public’s use of the Horse-Shoe Trail is one for the Solicitor. Mr. Richter asked how the indemnity is any different than for a sidewalk. He questioned whether a special note is needed.
14.C	Mr. Comitta said this item, related to item 10.A should likewise be removed with regard to the construction of an additional mail delivery location.

Following the review of Mr. Comitta’s memo, Mrs. Leland asked if the Horse-Shoe Trail group is responsible for the trail or if the HOA is. This question wasn’t answered.

Mr. Townes said he’s agreed to grant a link to the Horse-Shoe Trail, but since they would be penalized in their open space calculations if it was added to the plan now, they were going to add the link after approval. Mr. Churchill noted the Planning Commission had agreed to this.

Mr. Comitta said Stan Stubbe’s lighting comments are still to be addressed.

Mr. Westhafer said a disclosure statement is still needed for the quarry and other nearby activities. Mr. Townes said this will be added to the HOA documents.

Mr. Allen said the Planning Commission will need more time to review Dan Wright’s review letter dated 1/9/2012 but he wished to go through it preliminarily.

Mr. Wright began the review saying he should have been informed of the ownership change to fee simple, which was already discussed this evening, as it caused extra calculation work. He did determine, however that the applicant’s demonstration that impervious coverage is under 50% is still acceptable.

1	Mr. Wright said if more right-of-way is to be provided to PennDOT, a note must be added to the plans and new density calculations will be needed. The easement and total area of the ROW must be shown on the plans. The Office/Retail Building is now shown at least 35 feet from the ROW so this is resolved.
2	The dimensions for the 10 foot building setback for Units 13-17 must be added to the plans. Increasing the total number of units allowed to be in excess of this setback from 5% to 15% was resolved when the TND ordinance was last revised. A clear note should be added stating the HOA is responsible for the stormwater management basins. Mr. Allen said the basin at the corner is a PennDOT facility, but Mr. Townes said this is temporary; it will become the developer’s. Mr. Wright said there will be no difference in maintenance for this compared to the other basins, even though this will handle some water for PennDOT. Mr. Allen asked if PennDOT can come after the HOA for anything, and Mr. Townes said yes, if water goes onto their road. Mr. Churchill asked if regular maintenance of the basins will be required. Mr. Townes said there will be a recorded Stormwater Management Plan, and Mr. Wright added there’s a standard Stormwater Management Agreement they must sign. Mrs. Csete said she’ll email a sample to the Commissioners.
3	The Solicitor must review all covenants, easements and restrictions for the project prior to final plan approval.
4	Mr. Wright said the applicant provided him with a study to demonstrate that some soils differ from the USGS Survey and he still needs to review it. It appears these soils are not in an area that will impact development.
5	Mr. Wright said he’s aware the Land Planning Modules are in process.
6	No comment needed – this note provides details on the six underground infiltration/detention basins.
7	A waiver note must be added stating that the Board of Supervisors approved the request from the peak rate reduction requirement of SLDO 301.B.1.b at their 5/2/11 meeting.
8	Mr. Wright said easements for all storm drainage systems not within a ROW must be shown on the plan labeled with bearings and distances along with written legal descriptions of the easements. Mr. Townes asked if the Township will be the recipient of the easements, and Mr. Wright said yes, so they will have the right to come in and repair them if needed. He added they will not take dedication of them, however. Mr. Allen asked why an offer of dedication is included on the plan. Mr. Townes said it’s offered but doesn’t have to be accepted. Mr. Motel said it should be removed from the plan.
9	Mr. Wright said more detail is needed on the emergency spillways for Beds 2, 3 and 6.
10	Mr. Townes has now submitted a copy of the Highway Occupancy Permit to the Township.
11	Mr. Wright said there are corrections needed on the storm drainage calcs and profiles.
12	Mr. Wright said a note must be added to the plan on the proposed type of retaining walls for the site.
13	Mr. Wright said this item is resolved, to add a note to the basin detail.
14	The new PECO easement should be added and the existing one shown as abandoned.
15	A list of all waiver requests must be added stating that the Board of Supervisors approved them at their 5/2/11 meeting.
16	Mr. Wright said they defer to the County Conservation District and DEP on the remainder of the E & S Design.
17	Regarding phasing of the plan, Mr. Townes said they don’t intend to phase the development, but the buildings will be constructed in a particular sequence. He said the site is too small to phase the infrastructure.
18	Mr. Wright said Note 11 on Sheet 1 will be removed, relating to dedication of roads and storm sewer easements, which the Township will not be accepting.
19	Certification by an engineer or surveyor must be added to the plan.
20	The applicant must provide copies of all required permits and approvals to the Township.
21	A SLDO agreement must be provided.
22	Note 14 on the Site Plan musts be revised to reference SLDO 22-308.
23	The closure error of the tract boundaries must be added to the Site Plan.
24	Proposed monuments and pins must be shown on the property line between the residential and commercial parcels and along the proposed ROW of Route 29 and Charlestown Road.
25	Mr. Wright said Mr. Townes can talk with him about changing the reference to Sheet 2 to “Open Space Plan” and change references to Equivalent Lot Area to Residential Use Area.
26	Sheet 3 must show the tie lines dimensioned with bearings and distances.
27	Sanitary sewer easements must be added to the plans.
28	A note must be added regarding who is responsible for construction and maintenance of the improvements.
29	Final documents of proposed covenants or restrictions must be provided for review.
30	Clarification is needed on what type of material will be used for the stormwater beds with a detail of the proposed chamber or pipe arch for the stormwater basins. Mr. Allen asked where this should be shown, and Mr. Townes said on the Stormwater Management plan.
31 – 35	Mr. Wright described these items as general housekeeping items to address.

Mr. Allen asked for confirmation that by changing to a fee simple structure for the lots the drawings will still meet all setback requirements, and Mr. Townes said yes.

Mr. Comitta suggested the landscaping design plans show which tree belongs to which lot. Mr. Townes questioned the need for this since the HOA is clearly responsible. Mr. Comitta said fencing should be shown too, but Mr. Townes said there is no fencing. Mr. Richter said the HOA document says fencing is permitted. Mr. Townes said this was supposed to have been removed from the document.

Mr. Allen asked how a homeowner would go about planting a vegetable garden. Mr. Townes said they would need permission from the HOA. Mr. Richter asked why the lots can’t be defined by the house footprint, but Mr. Townes said that wouldn’t comply with the ordinance.

Mr. Allen then turned to the Landscape Plan. He said the term “proposed” for the lots should be stricken, and there are too many layers on the plan, which confuses the reader. He said there’s an issue with some of the plantings, giving the pine trees as an example. They can’t be trimmed up as other trees can if they start to encroach on the sidewalks, so they shouldn’t be planted there.

Mr. Allen said the rain gardens have plantings in them and asked if they should be included in the landscaping plan. Mr. Townes said they’re included on the Stormwater Management plan since they are part of that system. Mr. Allen said they should be in the landscaping plan too, but Mr. Townes thought that would be redundant, suggesting they show dimensions only. Mr. Allen asked who will do the actual planting, and Mr. Townes said the site work contractor will bring in a landscaper.

Mr. Allen said legends are needed on the drawing for the planting beds, and a note should be added that the site will be flagged.

Mr. Allen said the notes in general are acceptable but asked about note 14, which states all trees shall be wrapped immediately after planting. He asked if this was typical as it’s an older procedure. Mr. Comitta said it’s done about 20% of the time, noting that Perry Morgan wrapped all the trees at Charlestown Hunt. Mr. Allen said this is expensive and is done for no good reason.

Mr. Allen said note 15 talks about tree paint, which isn’t done anymore.

Mr. Allen said note 16 calls for 2 inches of mulch in the planting beds and this isn’t enough.

Mr. Allen asked about the planting soil mix in note 18 and whether sand is added. There was no response.

Mr. Allen said note 23 should have a section added to avoid all conifers at maturity.

Mr. Allen said note 29 refers to snow fencing, and he asked what material this is. Mr. Townes said plastic.

Mr. Allen said a reference to sheet 25 should be added to the plan, and note 31 should include that the contractor shall monitor the plantings and add a guarantee period.

Mr. Townes said he’ll ask for a review of all the Landscaping Plan notes.

Mr. Allen said there are numerous changes to be made to the Design Manual, and he offered to loan Mr. Townes his marked up copy after going through it this evening. He then began a review of it. All comments are from Mr. Allen unless otherwise noted.

p. 1	There are a number of errors on this sheet and it should read more like the manual for Spring Oak. Mr. Comitta offered to email him the Spring Oak page.
p. 10	The open space plan shown here doesn’t agree with the engineered plan.
p. 17	Sidewalks are missing on the drawings and need to be added.
p. 18	The crosswalk detail shown as stamped concrete is not acceptable.
p. 27	Parking was changed for the Community Plaza but is not reflected here.
p. 29	No bench or bike racks are shown.

Mr. Westhafer said the Design Manual shows the intent of the plan, and only important items should be changed. Mr. Townes agreed, saying it’s to act as a guideline to the plan and the plan is the default. Mr. Westhafer suggested adding an appendix to the Manual listing all corrections.

Mr. Allen continued reviewing the Manual as follows:

p. 31 & 32	Shows the wrong street lights.
p. 34	All references to “Tyler Griffin” must be changed to “Pickering Grant”.
p. 37	The dumpster enclosure doesn’t show the entrance for people. Mr. Comitta agreed this should be corrected.
p. 76	The hardy plank is shown as 5/16”. Could this be changed to 5/8”? Mr. Townes said this would be more expensive, but he’ll check into it.

Mr. Townes said he has a problem with fine tuning the Manual, since no one building the plan will see it. Instead, they’ll work directly from the construction drawings.

Mr. Richter said the HOA documents should note that their decisions should fit in with the Design Manual, and Mr. Townes and Mrs. Leland agreed this is a good idea. Mr. Churchill said the Manual should act as a reference point for the HOA.

Mr. Allen said the Design Manual is of more value for the architectural details, and Mr. Townes agreed that’s more to its purpose. Mr. Allen said it will be Dale Frens’ guideline when he approves the drawings.

Mr. Comitta said in Clay Township, Lancaster County, a developer for Hometown Square has trained its sales staff to know the manual and they believe this has helped sales. For the buyer, the Manual is more user friendly than construction plans.

Mrs. Leland asked Mr. Townes to make corrections to the Design Manual by referring to Mr. Allen’s marked up copy.

Mr. Townes said he’ll next go to the Design Review Committee meeting on February 6th, and will make revisions to the documents, expecting to be ready for the March 13th Planning Commission meeting.

Mrs. Leland adjourned the meeting at 10:10 p.m.