CHARLESTOWN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11 General Warren Blvd, Suite 1 Malvern, PA 19355 Tuesday, December 10, 2024

Present

Call to Order:

Announcements

None.

Approvals

Approval of Minutes

Mr. Richter moved to approve the November 12, 2024 meeting minutes and Mr. Walker seconded. Mr. Rogers called for discussion and there being none called the vote. All were in favor.

Plan Reviews

DVP Phoenixville Pike Sketch Plan Application – 2^nd Review

Bill Dion, Esq. and Ronald Jackson, P.E. were present to discuss the sketch plan application for 3187 Phoenixville Pike. The applicant seeks comments on an updated sketch plan to construct a contractors’ yard and associated improvements on the property. He stated that after the prior PC meeting, they took a look at the plan and tried to make a smaller building footprint to minimize steep slope disturbance, but that the use didn’t fit a smaller building, so they went back and looked at the other permitted uses. They came up with a contractor yard use as the use that balances the permitted uses with economic viability.

Mr. Churchill commented that he would like them to advise the PC as to what their expectations are of the kinds of usages economically they are looking for. He further commented that their original concept was low usage, whereas the current concept will be heavy usage and trucks in and out a lot.

Mr. Dion responded that the self-storage use is rather innocuous, however a tenant would want a larger building footprint and that would be challenging because it would have a greater disturbance in order to create the plateau to build the building. So they looked at uses that would have smaller buildings to minimize slope impacts, however the use does have a greater impact in terms of traffic. They can be more flexible in the layout of a contractor yard and hopefully mitigate any traffic concerns and still develop the site in an environmentally balanced way.

Mr. Jackson stated that they are no longer looking to acquire the 2 parcels they planned under the original plan. They are now looking to acquire the 2 parcels to the east of the 2 parcels they already own. He stated that the prior plan disturbed almost all slopes on the property, however the new plan lessens the impact on slopes and he distributes plans to the members to show the new plan’s impact. He commented that the plan avoids the large areas of very steep slopes and is much better than the original plan.

Montrose Environmental Review letter dated 11/6/2024

2. Will not exceed the maximum height allowed.
3. They know they will need to deal with setbacks.
4. They will deal with screening as required.
5. No longer applicable.
6. No longer applicable.
7. No longer applicable.
8. They are still using online data for the slope information and it is valid for now and they will need more accurate data once they submit for approvals.
9. Steep slope plan has now been distributed to the members.
10. They understand variances will be required.
11. They understand variances will be required.
12. They understand variances will be required.
13. They will have a lot of variables to address with stormwater management. The desire is for infiltration, however the site likely has rock formations and the ability to infiltrate is questionable. The plan does show proposed subsurface facilities along the driveways and they will design the stormwater in more detail once they engineer the plan fully.

    Mr. Wright questioned the stormwater and sanitary sewer easement across Phoenixville Pike from the property. Mr. Jackson stated they did locate an easement from a prior development on the property across from his client’s property and it would take the discharge from the property. Mr. Wright further stated that there would be the ability to connect to the sanitary sewer system across Phoenixville Pike to the site.

14. They understand a conditional use would be required.
15. They understand variances will be required.
16. They understand variances will be required.
17. They will address the topsoil.
18. They will be addressing this in the NPDES Permit process.
19. They will address this through the PennDOT HOP Permit process.
20. This has been addressed.
21. This has been addressed.
22. Will comply.
23. They understand variances will be required. The reason for the smaller setback is to minimize the steep slope disturbance by not pushing the improvements further into the property. Mr. Rogers commented that since the buildings will be closer to the road, that the buildings should be designed with that in mind. He further commented about the need for screening for the neighboring properties and the layout of the parking areas. Mr. Richter commented on the parking spaces for tractor trailers and questioned whether there would be equipment and materials stored around the property. Mr. Jackson discussed the parking lot and the turning of large trucks and that there would likely be storage of equipment and materials on the property. Mr. Churchill commented on the amount of activity the use would have and how to control that. Mr. Jackson commented that they would like direction from the PC to be able to target the usage to address those concerns. There was further discussion regarding the driveways and parking areas and the number of separate users of the property. Ms. McLean commented that she has a client with this type of property and that the landlord will need to address these types of issues with the leases, since it will not be the Township’s issue. She also commented on the temporary construction easement the Turnpike has for the widening project. Mr. Jackson stated that it is not an easement for the stormwater facility and not an access easement across the property.
24. They used the 2.5 to 1 to try to limit the steep slope disturbances.
25. This will potentially be addressed by connecting the property to the public sewer system.
26. Mr. Jackson showed another plan with a different layout and showed the amount of disturbance needed to get to the northeastern part of the property. Mr. Motel commented on the percentage of slope disturbance as shown. Mr. Jackson explained how the driveway down to the road would create this level of disturbance.

    Mr. Richter questioned whether PennDOT has different sight view requirements for different use types. Mr. Wright stated it is based on the speed limit of the road the driveway enters onto.

    Mr. Rogers commented on removing the building that is closest to the adjacent residential properties. Mr. Jackson presented another plan showing this concept. Mr. Wright commented that this concept is a little disingenuous as it creates one big unified 5% slog that doesn’t give you flexibility. You could have a driveway with a 10% grade to get you to the upper portion of the property and then have a separate area in the flatter area closer to the road and not be in the front setback. Mr. Jackson commented that the plan provides for limited access and limited disturbance. Mr. Churchill and Mr. Motel commented on the impact on the adjacent properties and the visibility from the road.

    Mr. Rogers commented that going through and showing why a certain plan will not work is important, especially when seeking variances or waivers. Mr. Jackson questioned whether they could include multiple different sketches showing why the plan is the best with their land development submission. Mr. Wright stated that it would be a good idea.

    Mr. Churchill commented that he thinks they need to address the usages and the traffic intensity and that they need tell the Commission what kind of usage they are willing to limit it to. He further commented on the need to show the slope disturbance is minimized and how the hillside will be regraded and reforested. Mr. Motel commented that it would be good for them to show a graphic that shows how the property will look from the road when developed.

    Mr. Allen questioned whether they have considered the impact on the neighboring properties, especially with materials and equipment stored outside and the backup alarms from trucks. Mr. Jackson stated that they will not see anything stored once since there will be a fence around the property. He further stated that they have not considered the backup alarm impacts.

    Mr. Walker questioned whether they considered developing it in phases. Mr. Jackson stated there is not. He commented that it would be phased NPDES Permit and that is not something they would want to have to deal with. Mr. Dion commented that it would be impractical to develop part of it and then have to drive through the finished portion of the site to develop the other portion.

General Planning Items

1. Draft Ordinance Reviews
   1. Accessory Dwelling Units

      Ms. McLean gave an overview of the minor changes that had been made to the ordinance since the PC’s last review. The language in the whereas clause of the ordinance changed the term affordable housing to attainable housing.

      Mr. Churchill shared his view that the ordinance should define attainable housing then. There was extensive discussion regarding the term attainable and whether it should be defined. There was discussion regarding the Governor and State House’s push with regards to affordable housing and removing zoning decisions from the municipalities to further those goals. There was then further discussion regarding how to define attainable housing if it remains in the ordinance. Ms. McLean commented that including it in the ordinance could help with any potential challenges to the zoning ordinance in the future regarding providing for all housing types.

      Ms. McLean recommended that she work with Tom Comitta to look at this further and then bring the ordinance back in January for another review. The PC was in favor of this.

Administrative Note

Any documents referred to in the minutes are available to the public upon request at the Township office.

Adjournment

There being no further business, Mr. Walker adjourned the meeting at 8:42 p.m. The next meeting will be held on December 10, 2024, at 7:00 p.m. at the Township Building, 11 General Warren Blvd, Malvern, PA.