COMMUNICATIONS: The Commission received an invitation to attend a Regional Township Agricultural Symposium scheduled for Tuesday, July 30, 2002 from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. at the Landis Valley Museum. The meeting is being hosted by the Advanced Agricultural Institute.

CONSIDER THE PUTNIK PRELIMINARY LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN, PREPARED BY SAXINGER, BLACK & MURPHY, DATED 2/12/02: Mike Saxinger, representing Saxinger Black & Murphy, stated that the plan has been revised in accordance with the Township Engineer's March 18, 2002 comment letter and based on discussions with Township staff. Saxinger stated that the plan consists of two tracts; lot "A" fronts along Rothsville Road and lot "B" fronts along Lititz Run Road. He explained that Putnik and his wife live in the home on lot "B" along Lititz Run Road. He stated that the property owner intends to operate his automobile sales business from lot "A" and noted that his business "Front Line Motors" also has a location on South Broad Street in Lititz Borough. He explained that he would also service the automobiles he sells from the property. The property owner would like to construct a 62' x 28' (1,736 sq. ft.) building on the lot. The front portion of the building would serve as the sales office and the remaining portion of the building would serve as the garage area. Saxinger explained that the plan proposes an additional parking area on lot "B" of the plan that would be used for various purposes. He explained that the area has been identified as a parking easement on the plan.

The Zoning Officer stated that both lots that are a part of the proposal are zoned Community Commercial; however, lot "B" contains a residential dwelling and has always been used for residential purposes. He noted that lot "A" is currently a vacant lot. He explained that the plan reviewed by the Zoning Hearing Board only included lot "A" as part of the proposal and their decision was based on this issue. He outlined the approvals for the project that were granted by the Zoning Hearing Board. He stated that the use of a portion of lot "B" as part of the proposal does not change the use of lot "A" as reviewed by the Zoning Hearing Board. He added that the approval was based on the applicant's desire to fit the entire proposal on lot "A" and noted that the applicant had indicated during the hearing that the residential lot (lot "B") was not part of the proposal. He stated that the proposal now includes a detention basin and parking area on lot "B", and explained that the applicant has approximately 20 cars parked on the residential property currently, so the proposed additional parking area would needed for the proposal. He explained that the Commission needs to consider that the Zoning Ordinance provides for a second principle use on a lot; however, the proposed use is commercial on a lot that is currently used for residential purposes.

Attorney Mike Hohenadel, representing the applicant, explained that another attorney from his firm (Matt Creme) spoke with the Township Solicitor regarding the zoning issue today and they still need to followup on whether or not the revised proposal will need to be reviewed by the Zoning Hearing Board. The Zoning Officer explained that the Board of Supervisors would need to provide a determination on the issue. The Chairman inquired whether or not lot "A" of the proposal could meet the guidelines of the Ordinances if lot "B" is not considered as part of the plan. The Zoning Officer clarified that the Zoning Hearing Board did discuss the use of a portion of the residential lot (lot "B") for storm water management for lot "A"; although it was not illustrated on the plan presented to the Zoning Hearing Board. Garrett inquired whether or not the size of the detention basin was increased due to the additional proposed impervious (parking) area. The applicant responded that the size of the proposed detention would increase to accommodate the additional impervious area proposed on lot "B". Garrett expressed concern that a mixed use is now proposed for lot "B", which was previously used for residential purposes, only; and that the Zoning Hearing Board should review this proposal. The other Commission members concurred that the Zoning Hearing Board should review the proposal.

Saxinger requested that the Commission consider providing a recommendation on the remaining portion of the proposal to the Board of Supervisors in the event that they would not agree with the Commission's interpretation. The Chairman inquired why the applicant waited to submit the proposal to the Commission following the Zoning Hearing Board's approval of the original proposal in November, 2001, and the subsequent memo to the Township dated February 20, 2002. Saxinger stated that the Board of Supervisors granted an extension of time for the proposal in April, 2002 in order for this issue to be resolved. The Chairman stated that it is the consensus of the Commission to recommend that the plan be reviewed by the Zoning Hearing Board prior to any approval. Garrett stated that the Commission could provide recommendations on the Waiver requests.

The applicant is requesting a Waiver of Section 405 pertaining to Traffic Impact Study. A Waiver has been requested of the requirement to submit a Traffic Impact Study for the development of the site into a used car business. In support of the Waiver request an Abbreviated Traffic Study has been prepared and submitted to the Township. The Township Engineer commented that based on the information provided, it has been demonstrated that the new access drive intersection will not significantly impact the level of service for Rothsville Road (SR 772) and that a left turn lane into the site is not warranted for the anticipated traffic entering the site. Consequently, there does not appear to be any merit to providing any additional traffic analysis and they recommend approval of the Waiver request. On a motion by Garrett, seconded by Kimmel, the Commission unanimously recommends approval of the Waiver request.

The applicant is requesting a Waiver of Section 603.3A pertaining to required curb for all parking compounds. The developer's consultant has requested a Waiver of the requirement to construct vertical concrete curb within, and encompassing, the new parking compounds and access drives. The justification for the request is to allow storm water to "sheet flow" across the site and into the proposed Detention/BMP Basin. The Township Engineer commented that they have no objections to eliminating curb in those areas where it is feasible to allow the surface conveyance of storm water if adequate barriers are provided in substitution for construction curb. For this project, they have no objections to granting the Waiver if vertical concrete curb, precast concrete curb stops or another form of barrier is provided in the following locations: a.) To protect the inside edge of the paving and grass areas, curb should be provided around that portion of the access drive surrounding the proposed building; b.) There is no barrier along the lower side of the proposed bituminous paving (parking area) on Lot B. Without any barrier, the uncontrolled movement of parked vehicles could traverse the paved area and enter the Detention/BMP Basin; c.) In other areas of the site where the sheet flow of drainage is not necessary or cars will not be parked, they question if vertical concrete curb should be provided to protect the edge of the pavement and grass areas. With the tight circulation pattern, vehicles could easily leave the paved surface causing erosion and damage to the grassed lawn areas. For the benefit of the Commission, Saxinger indicated the location where curbing would be installed on the site. A brief discussion ensued regarding placement of curbing on the site. Saxinger stated that the applicant would be agreeable to installing guide rail to the east and to the south of the proposed parking area on lot "B". Garrett inquired whether or not the proposed parking area on lot "B" would be used to display vehicles for sale to the public. Saxinger stated that a bollard and sign would be installed at the entrance to the lot indicating that the area is not for public access. He added that the area would only be used to store cars. Garrett inquired whether or not the public would be permitted to walk to the parking area to look at cars for sale. Saxinger responded in the affirmative. Garrett explained that pedestrian access to the proposed parking area on lot "B" will have to be reviewed as part of a future plan submittal. Gutshall stated that a Waiver of the curbing requirement may be contingent upon any future revisions to the plan. The Commission took no action on the Waiver request.

The applicant is requesting a Waiver of Section 603.2.A pertaining to required installation of sidewalk. It has been requested to waive the requirement for installing sidewalk at the frontage of the site along Lititz Run Road (T923) and Rothsville Road (SR772). The Township Engineer recommends the following: a:) For Lititz Run Road where there is no existing or planned sidewalks, they have no objections to granting the Waiver contingent on the applicant agreeing to install sidewalks at any time in the future should the Township undertake a comprehensive roadway or sidewalk improvement project along the roadway. At such time in the future, and upon proper notification by the Township, the property owner shall install sidewalks at the frontage of the property along Lititz Run Road (T923). They added that, upon approval of such by the Township, this condition should be so noted on the Land Development Plan; b.) For Rothsville Road (SR 772), they recommend one of the following approaches: 1.) Considering the limited length of the site frontage, they recommend the denial of the Waiver request so sidewalks are installed at this time.

Since there will be roadway frontage improvements (widening, curb, etc.) constructed at this time, it seems that sidewalk could also be constructed at this time. Furthermore, in the vicinity of the project site, Luther Acres recently constructed roadway improvements with sidewalk as part of a Land Development project; 2.) If it is determined the limited amount of sidewalk along the frontage of the site will serve no benefit until additional sidewalk is constructed beyond the site limits; the Waiver could be approved with a condition similar to Lititz Run Road (T923). The Waiver could be approved provided that the developer/owner agrees to the condition to install sidewalks along the frontage of the site at any time in the future should the Township undertake a comprehensive roadway or sidewalk improvement project along the roadway. At such time in the future, and upon proper notification by the Township, the property owner shall install sidewalks at the frontage of the property along Rothsville Run Road (SR0772). They noted that, upon approval of such by the Township, this condition should be so noted on the Land Development Plan. The Township Engineer commented that the applicant previously indicated that no public access would occur for the parking area on lot "B"; therefore, their review comment did not address this issue. The Chairman explained that the applicant indicated this evening that pedestrian access would occur for the parking area; therefore the issue will need to be discussed further. On a motion by Garrett, seconded by Kimmel, the Commission unanimously recommends approval of the Waiver request along Rothsville Road and along Lititz Run Road contingent upon the applicant agreeing to install sidewalk on Lititz Run Road, and/or along Rothsville Road at such time as requested, and upon proper notification, by the Township.

The applicant is requesting a Waiver of Section 602.10.C pertaining to required improvement of existing streets abutting the site. A Waiver has been requested of the requirement to construct roadway improvements at the frontage of the site along Lititz Run Road (T923). The owner/developer is proposing to offer a fee in-lieu-of actually constructing any improvements at this time. Also, additional right-of-way will be dedicated as part of the plan that will permit the Township to complete the comprehensive improvement of the roadway (realignment) and the replacement of the bridge in the future. The Township Engineer commented that they have no objections to granting the Waiver under this approach. If agreeable to the Township, the applicant should submit a cost estimate to establish the amount of the fee in-lieu-of constructing the required improvements. The estimate and fee amount should be established as part of the Preliminary Plan application. The fee or contribution amount will then be payable upon the approval of the Final Land Development Plan for the project. Saxinger explained that the Waiver request applies only to Lititz Run Road since the owner/developer will be providing improvements to Rothsville Road. On a motion by Garrett, seconded by Kimmel, the Commission unanimously tabled action on the Waiver request in order to review the value of the additional right-of-way to be dedicated to the Township that might be deducted from the fee in-lieu-of actually constructing the roadway improvements.

The applicant is requesting a Waiver of Section 606.D pertaining to minimum easement width of 20'. Instead of the required easement width, a reduced 10' wide utility easement is proposed across Lot "B" that will encompass the sewer and water laterals that serve Lot "A". The Township Engineer commented that with the support of the Warwick Township Municipal Authority, they have no objections to granting the Waiver. Saxinger explained that the Municipal Authority is agreeable to the reduced easement width. On a motion by Hohman. seconded by Gazsi, the Commission unanimously recommends approval of the Waiver request.

The applicant is requesting a Waiver of Section 602.16.C pertaining to a required 50' x 100' Clear sight triangle easement for access drives. As indicated in the request, a modified or reduced clear sight triangle easement is proposed at the new access drive intersection with Rothsville Road (SR 772). The size of the easement has been maximized without encroaching onto the adjacent properties. The resulting easement measures 50' x 80±'. The Township Engineer commented that since adequate sight distances are available at the location of the access drive and a stop sign will be provided, they have no objections to granting the Waiver. On a motion by Kimmel, seconded by Hohman, the Commission unanimously recommends approval of the Waiver request.

Saxinger explained the lot "B" currently has two access points along Lititz Run Road that were constructed prior to the current Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance. He explained that since the lot is part of the overall proposal, they would be required to meet current sight distance regulations. He stated that due to the location of the existing barn/garage on the property, the eastern driveway does not meet these regulations.

The Township Engineer stated that the Township should determine whether or not the driveway at this location should be relocated. In addition, they inquired whether or not the visual obstruction(s) on the western driveway could be removed to improve the available sight distance to the right when exiting the site. Garrett inquired whether or not either driveway would access the parking area at the rear of the lot. Saxinger stated that the driveways on lot "B" are used for residential purposes only and would not access the rear parking area. The applicant requested a Waiver of Section 602.15.E pertaining to sight distance for the residential driveways. On a motion by Garrett, seconded by Gazsi, the Commission unanimously recommends approval of the Waiver request, contingent upon a note being added to the plan indicating that if the existing barn on the property needs to be reconstructed for any reason, the reconstruction would occur outside of the right-of-way of Lititz Run Road.

On a motion by Gazsi, seconded by Hohman, the Commission unanimously recommends the revised plan be reviewed by the Zoning Hearing Board, and also recommends granting a 60-day extension of time for plan review.

CONSIDER THE GARY AND JANET WILLIER SKETCH PLAN, PREPARED BY DIEHM & SONS, DATED 5/30/02: Kevin Varner, representing Diehm & Sons Surveyors, explained that the site is located at the intersection of Woodcrest Avenue and Waters Edge Road and is comprised of four tracts of land containing a total of approximately 7.97 acres. He stated that two of the tracts contain dwelling units. Each of the four tracts is zoned R-1 and the two northern tracts adjoin Agricultural zoned lands. The plan proposes an 830' long temporary cul-de-sac accessing Waters Edge Road accommodating a total of twelve lots. The plan proposes a 50' wide right-of-way at the end of the cul-de-sac to provide for its future extension into the adjoining property if needed.

Varner addressed the Township Engineer's June 17, 2002 comment letter. Varner stated that they reviewed the possibility of providing a new street connection directly across from Buckwood Lane; however, there is insufficient sight distance along Woodcrest Avenue at this location. He explained that the required sight distance along Woodcrest Avenue is 291' and only 272' could be provided at the intersection. In addition, the owner/developer would need to acquire additional right-of-way to accommodate a roadway connection at this location. The Chairman explained that the proposed length of the temporary cul-de-sac is 30' longer than permitted by the Ordinance and inquired whether or not the owner/developer would be agreeable to modifying the cu-de-sac to an 800' length. Varner stated that the length of the cul-de-sac could be reduced. He added that the intersection of the proposed cul-de-sac with Waters Edge Road is only 230' from the intersection of Waters Edge Road and Woodcrest Avenue. He stated that the Ordinance requires a separation distance of 300' and the owner/developer intends to request a Waiver of the requirement in order to provide the required 100' setback from the adjoining Agricultural land. Varner stated that a 10' landscape buffer will be provided on the lots along Woodcrest Avenue since they would be reverse frontage lots. Garrett expressed the opinion that the proposed layout does not show any imagination in the design elements of the plan, and that the plan only serves to maximum the build-out of the site. Varner explained that it was the owner/developer's intent to maximize the use in the R-1 zone and added that they considered another approach that would provide for access to the lots along Woodcrest Avenue and the creation of flag lots. He added that the layout of the lots also depends on the type of public sewer service that is provided to the serve the lots. The Chairman inquired whether or not the owner/developer considered the possibility of providing on-lot sewage systems. Varner explained that the Williers currently own four lots that are the basis for the proposed plan, and due to the amount of frontage required for on-lot systems (280'), they could create only one additional lot. Garrett commented that the current proposal may not be cost effective if it requires the construction of a pumping station as indicated by the Municipal Authority's Engineer. The Chairman concurred and added that the proposal also includes the cost of constructing an 800' long cul-de-sac and the extension of water lines. Varner expressed the opinion that the proposal could be feasible as currently proposed. A brief discussion ensued regarding potential sewer service to the tract. The Chairman explained that he would be more agreeable to granting a Waiver of the required intersection separation distance (280' vs. 300') if less lots are created since the proposal would create less traffic, and therefore, have a lesser impact to the roadway system. G. Willier stated that the number of proposed lots is based on what is permitted within the Zoning Ordinance, and since the proposal would require construction of the roadway and sewer and water extensions, this proposal could make the project economically feasible. The Township Engineer commented that the owner/developer could provide a 300' intersection separation distance by creating a curvilinear roadway in order to meet setback requirements, and also provide some creativity to the design of the plan. Garrett stated that the owner/developer should consider creating larger lots and the use of on-lot sewer systems to serve the lots.

The Zoning Officer explained that the proposal might require a Variance to reduce the required 280' of lot frontage; however, in instances where the topography of the land affects the proposed lot layout, and the overall proposal reduces the number of potential lots, the Zoning Hearing Board has granted approval of those Variance requests. He added that the proposal would require approval of the Municipal Authority. J. Willier stated that five lots are currently proposed along Woodcrest Avenue and inquired how many lots would be eliminated if larger lots are created. Garrett responded that perhaps only three lots could be provided along Woodcrest Avenue. The Zoning Officer noted that it is possible that larger lots could be served by public sewer, since the proposal would reduce the number of potential lots the Municipal Authority may be agreeable to the use of grinder pumps. He added that this proposal would eliminate the need for zoning approval. Varner explained that he will review these issues with the owner/developer and provide a revised plan.

CONSIDER THE SEWER MODULE FOR THE JOHN HESS SUBDIVISION: The Commission reviewed the Sewer Module. On a motion by Garrett, seconded by Gazsi, the Commission unanimously recommends approval of the Sewer Module for the John Hess subdivision.

CONSIDER THE SEWER MODULE FOR THE HMA COMMUNITY HOSPITAL PROJECT: The Commission reviewed the Sewer Module. On a motion by Slinskey, seconded by Gutshall, the Commission unanimously recommends approval of the Sewer Module for the HMA Community Hospital project.

OTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION: The Zoning Officer explained that the Township is requesting a volunteer to serve on the Regional Advisory Council to the Lancaster County Housing and Redevelopment Authorities. He stated that the Advisory Council would hold consecutive weekly meetings during August and September to review grant applications for County funding within this region. He added that the Township will be submitting an application for a Community Development Block Grant for the water line extension into the Brunnerville area.

The Zoning Officer stated that the Task Force for the Route 72 Corridor Study is requesting a municipal representative to attend a meeting, tentatively scheduled for July 30^th, to provide an update on the status of the study for municipal officials.

ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Thomas L. Zorbaugh
Code and Zoning Officer