Chairman Thomas Zug convened the August 28, 2002 meeting of the Warwick Township Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. Present were Commissioners Thomas Zug, Jane Boyce, Kelly Gutshall, and Daniel Garret. John Gazsi, John Hohman, and Brian Slinskey were absent. In attendance were Township Manager Daniel Zimmerman, Kevin Varner, Mike Saxinger, Matthew Creme, Michael Palasz, Reuben King, and Jacob King.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Commission unanimously approved the minutes of the July 24, 2002 meeting as submitted.

COMMUNICATIONS: The Commission received a copy of the Lititz Borough Planning Commission’s August, 2002 meeting minutes.

CONTINUED REVIEW OF THE TRAJAN PUTNIK PLAN, PREPARED BY SAXINGER & BLACK INC., DATED 2/12/02: Michael Saxinger, representing Saxinger & Black, Inc., stated that at the request of the Commission he presented the revised plan to the Zoning Hearing Board on August 14, 2002. He explained that the Zoning Hearing Board confirmed their prior decision for the case (Case #574). He stated that the revised plan being presented this evening illustrates the removal of several of the parking spaces near the proposed building in order to accommodate the necessary turning radii on the lot. He explained that additional parking is proposed on the rear lot and added that the revised plan also proposes to add land at the rear of the property which would provide for all of the uses relating to the used car business on one lot.

Saxinger stated that a Waiver of Section 602.10.C pertaining to improvement of existing streets abutting the site is no longer needed since lot B (fronting on Lititz Run Road) is no longer part of the Land Development Plan. He noted that although the Township Engineer’s comments indicate that a Waiver is required, the applicant’s attorney (Matthew Creme) submitted a letter supporting his client’s position that the Waiver is not necessary.

Saxinger explained that the lighting plan has been revised to reduce the wattage of several of the lights and to provide shields to prevent the overhead lights from illuminating the surrounding properties. He noted that sidewalk would be constructed extending from the front of the lot to the proposed lot add-on area. In addition wood railing has been included around the car storage area at the rear of the lot due to some steep slopes in the area.

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 in some portions of the site to allow for the "sheet flow" of stormwater from the paved areas into grass swales. The Township Engineer commented that the submitted plans have been revised in accordance with their previous review to provide precast concrete curb stops (bumper blocks) in those locations where vehicles are parked adjacent to landscaped areas, and wood guiderails where there is a potential for vehicles to drift into the Detention Basin. The required vertical concrete curb is provided in other locations on the site including around the proposed building as previously suggested. Consequently, they have no objections to eliminating curb in those areas where it is necessary to allow the sheet flow of stomwater if alternative barriers are provided in substitution for the construction of curb as now shown on the plan. Saxinger indicated the locations where curb and sidewalk would be installed. On a motion by Garrett, seconded by Gutshall, the Commission unanimously recommends approval of the Waiver request.

The applicant is requesting a Waiver of Section 603.2.A pertaining to required installation of sidewalk. Saxinger stated that this Waiver no longer applies to Lititz Run Road since there are no improvements proposed to Lot B as part of this plan. Garrett requested confirmation that no part of Lot B would be used for any purposes relating to the proposed use on lot A (i.e. no overflow parking or storage) and inquired whether or not the applicant would agree to a note being added to the plan stating that at no time will Lot B be used for any purpose relating to the use of Lot A.

Saxinger responded that a note will be added to the plan outlining the stipulation. The Township Manager explained that, under the Municipalities Planning Code, the Township has the right to require the installation of sidewalks along any roadway for public safety purposes. Therefore, a specific requirement for the future installation of sidewalks is not necessarily needed as part of the Waiver request. On a motion by Garrett, seconded by Boyce, the Commission unanimously recommends approval of a Waiver of Section 603.2.A.

Garrett inquired whether or not the applicant has petitioned to rezone Lot B to residential. Saxinger explained that, to date, both Lot A and Lot B are zoned Community Commercial and the applicant has not petitioned to rezone Lot B to residential.

Attorney Matthew Creme stated that the original plan illustrated the use of the lot along Rothsville Road for the used car lot. Subsequently, a plan was submitted that provided for additional parking on the rear lot abutting Lititz Run Road which is primarily a residential use. Attorney Creme stated that the Lot Add-on Plan being proposed this evening removes the use of Lititz Run Road and the remaining portion of Lot B from the proposed use along Rothsville Road. He stated that since the actual land development is restricted to Lot A, then Section 602.10.C of the Township’s ordinance (pertaining to required improvement of existing streets abutting the site) does not provide for improvements along Lititz Run Road. He explained that the Township’s Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance states that where a subdivision or land development abuts an existing Township road, or will have a traffic impact on the existing Township Road, then certain improvements can be required. He added that since the actual land development portion of the plan would not abut Lititz Run Road, the Township can not require specific improvements to be provided. Attorney Creme stated that the issue deals with the definition of on-site and off-site improvements. He expressed the opinion that due to the plan revisions, Lititz Run Road would be considered as part of the off-site improvements. Garrett explained that the lot add-on itself does not prevent the property owner from providing access from Lititz Run Road to the used car lot and stated that the property owner must agree to a plan note indicating that access to the used car lot will be restricted from Lititz Run Road. Attorney Creme stated that the property owner would be agreeable to a plan note since that is the intent of the plan being presented this evening. The Township Manager stated that the Township intends to improve the culvert along Lititz Run Road and if the property owner’s concern relates to the granting of additional right-of-way as part of the project, then the Township could contend that this proposed improvement directly benefits the property owner since his property is the only one that floods in this area. He added that if the issue relates to a fee-in-lieu of roadway improvements, the Township would be agreeable to granting a Waiver if the property owner includes a note on the plan stipulating that Lititz Run Road would not be used as part of the used car operation. Attorney Creme clarified that the property owner is agreeable to offering the additional right-of-way; however, it is his opinion that a Waiver of Section 602.10.C is not applicable to the project. He noted that if the Township wishes to grant a Waiver, he still would not concede that the Waiver is necessary. On a motion by Garrett, seconded by Gutshall, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of a Waiver of Section 602.10.C to eliminate the requirement of actual roadway improvements and the requirement for a fee in-lieu-of actual roadway improvements along Lititz Run Road contingent upon a note being added to the plan restricting access to the used car lot from Lititz Run Road, and upon the property owner granting additional right-of-way to provide for a 25' right-of-way to the centerline of the road at the frontage of the site along Lititz Run Road as part of the Final Plan submittal.

Saxinger addressed the Township Engineer’s August 21, 2002 comment letter. Gutshall expressed concern over the type of lighting proposed for the site. Saxinger stated that the lighting detail has been revised from the original submittal and explained that the wattage of several of the lights along the perimeter of the property have been reduced from 1,000 watts to 400 watts. He noted that he will provided a revised lighting plan that illustrates the wattage for each light and also which lights would be designated for security lighting. On a motion by Gutshall, seconded by Garrett, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Trajan Putnik Preliminary Plan contingent upon the Township Engineer’s August 21, 2002 comment letter being addressed.

REVIEW OF THE LITITZ ORTHODONTICS SKETCH PLAN, PREPARED BY DIEHM & SONS, DATED 6/20/02: Kevin Varner, representing Diehm & Sons, explained that the project site consists of three lots located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Toll Gate Road and Furnace Hills Pike (SR 501). He stated that Lititz Orthodontics is located on the center tract and noted that the lots on either side are currently vacant. The average size of the lots is 0.38 acres and all of the lots are zoned Community Commercial.

Varner stated that the lots were created as part of the "Toll Gate North" subdivision plan which was approved in 1983. He explained that the plan this evening proposes to combine the three lots into two lots in order to make each lot more functional and able to meet ordinance requirements.

The plan proposes an addition to the existing Lititz Orthodontics building and a new 2-story building on the adjoining lot. The plan illustrates the extension of the existing parking area at the front of the Lititz Orthodontics building along the front of the proposed 2-story building. He explained that the plan proposes a shared one-way access drive which would be accessed near the front of the proposed building and egresses through the Lititz Orthodontics site. Garrett inquired whether or not signage would be installed to restrict access to Furnace Hills Pike; therefore, traffic would be directed to West Newport Road which is less traveled. Varner explained that he has not discussed the issue with the property owner. Garrett noted that signage at the access to Toll Gate Road from Weisser’s Market restricts right-turns to access Furnace Hills Pike since it is not a signalized intersection.

Varner explained that he would like the Commission’s input on the plan since it proposes to provide parking against the right-of-way along Toll Gate Road. He noted that at the suggestion of Township staff, several street trees have been added to the proposal to provide aesthetics for the roadway along this parking area. He explained that the berm along the intersection of Furnace Hills Pike and Toll Gate Road will remain as part of the project; however, one tree would need to be removed in order to accommodate the proposal. Varner explained that the site also includes a potential site for a Township-operated water booster station. The Township Manager noted that the water booster station is only conceptual in nature and added that any booster station that would be constructed on the site would be architecturally compatible with the other buildings on the site. He noted that the proposed location of the water booster station was selected due to the location of the main water line that extends along Furnace Hills Pike (SR 501).

The Township Manager explained that due to the narrowness of the existing lots, several Waivers have been requested as part of the proposal. Garrett expressed concern that several parking spaces are located in close proximity to the entrance to the site which could create a conflict between vehicles backing out of the parking spaces and vehicles accessing the site. Varner stated that the parking spaces could be moved farther away from the entrance in order to eliminate this potential conflict.

Gutshall stated that due to the narrowness of the lots, it may be more feasible to combine the two buildings into one building to make the parking design on the site more efficient. Palasz stated that the consideration would be a last resort for the plan, since he would like to keep the buildings separate in order to provide an option to sell one of the lots in the future. Varner noted that the proposed site layout is similar to the other lots in this area. He added that the project would require zoning approval for the proposed parking area setbacks.

Varner stated that when the entire development was originally approved, there were no requirements for a basin; although a stormwater report was approved for the project. Garrett stated that there are drainage problems in this area and inquired whether or not the detention basin proposed for the site would address stormwater flows from the additional impervious surface area. Varner explained that they have not performed stormwater calculations for the basin to date and added that they have requested a Waiver of the requirements to provide stormwater management for the project. He noted that they are not requesting any action on the requested Waivers until the Preliminary Plan review since additional information needs to be obtained for the project.

Garrett inquired whether or not the proposed parking is adequate to meet the needs of the facility. Palasz stated that he would like to provide some additional parking spaces on the site if possible. Garrett reiterated his concern regarding the proximity of the parking space to the proposed entrance to the site. Zug inquired what is the Commission’s opinion of the parking area being proposed in the front yard. The Commission members expressed the opinion that the proposed parking keeps with the character of the other lots in the area and that the one-way traffic pattern is essential to the proposed layout of the parking spaces.

CONSIDER CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION AND SKETCH PLAN FOR JACOB AND SARAH KING (APPLICANT REUBEN KING), PREPARED BY DIEHM & SONS, DATED 8/05/02: Kevin Varner, representing Diehm & Sons, explained that the project area is an approximate 121.5 acre farm located along Becker Road. The property owners would like to construct a third detached dwelling unit and associated barn on the property for their son (Reuben King). The property is zoned Agricultural and single-family dwellings are permitted as a Conditional Use. Varner indicated the location of the other dwelling units and associated outbuildings on the site for the benefit of the Commission. He explained that based on discussions with Township staff, the proposed dwelling would be accessed via the existing driveway on the site.

Varner stated that the area where the dwelling unit is proposed contains steep slopes and is one of the least viable farmland portions of the site. He explained that the plan proposes to use cisterns to collect stormwater from the proposed dwelling and barn and noted that the other dwelling units also use cisterns to collect stormwater.

Zug stated that if the property owners sell the lot in the future, the potential exists for the existing dwellings to be subdivided to create individual lots. He expressed the opinion that the second dwelling would have sufficient frontage for the proposal; however, the proposed dwelling unit would be located on a narrow lot. The Township Manager explained that since the site is zoned Agricultural, any potential lot could be created as a flag lot. He added that if additional homes are proposed the Township will have to evaluate their future location on property. He inquired wether or not the property owner intends to construct additional dwelling units on the lot. Jacob King responded that he has two more children living at home; however, he has not made specific plans for them to live on the property. He added that as long as he owns the property, the property would continue to be farmed. On a motion by Garrett, seconded by Boyce, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Conditional Use application contingent upon the Township Engineer’s August 21, 2002 comment letter being addressed.

Garrett expressed concern over the amount of erosion that is occurring on the property in close proximity to the Lititz Run stream. Varner explained that they have submitted a plan to the Lancaster County Conservation District for the new home and added that the Conservation District may be requested to also develop a Conservation Plan for the property.

Varner requested a Waiver of Section 301 pertaining to plan processing procedures. The applicant has requested relief from the requirement to submit/process a subdivision or land development plan for the construction of a third principle dwelling on the farm for the property owners son. There is no subdivision of the property proposed at this time. Therefore, the proposed dwelling will remain for the "resident owner" since it can not be sold or transferred in the future without processing a subdivision plan. The Township Engineer commented that at the discretion of the Township, action should be taken on the Waiver request. If the Township determines the project is eligible for the Waiver, they suggest the following conditions: a.) A building permit must be obtained from the Township. The application for the building permit should include a Site Plan which addresses the review comments contained in their letter dated August 21, 2002; b.) A PA Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Sewage Facility Planning Module should be processed for the connection to the municipal sewage system. Otherwise, a Waiver of such requirements should be processed through the Warwick Township Municipal Authority and DEP; c.) An Erosion & Sedimentation Control Plan should be prepared for the proposed construction activities as indicated on the plan; and d.) Unless addressed as part of the requested stomwater analysis, the extension of the existing "macadam driveway" to serve the proposed dwelling unit should be constructed of stone aggregate to minimize the amount of new impervious cover. On a motion by Garrett, seconded by Boyce, the Commission unanimously recommends approval of the Waiver contingent upon the Township Engineer’s August 21, 2002 comment letter being addressed.

CONSIDER THE JACOB AND SARAH KING SEWER MODULE: The Commission reviewed the Sewer Module. On a motion by Garrett, seconded by Boyce, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Jacob and Sarah King Sewer Module.

CONSIDER NEW PETITIONS FOR ADDITIONAL FARMLAND INTO THE WARWICK TOWNSHIP AGRICULTURAL SECURITY AREA: The Commission reviewed the petitions. The Township Manager stated that the Township has received five petitions to include farmland into the Township’s Agricultural Security Area. He explained that these petitions represent 329.9 acres of farmland. The Township’s current Agricultural Security Area contains 3,332.21 acres; these petitions, if approved, would increase the Township’s Agricultural Security Area to 3,662.21 acres. He noted that the Township has settlement scheduled for September 18, 2002 to preserve two farms in the Township. In addition, the potential exists for two additional farms to be preserved prior to the end of the year. On a motion by Boyce, seconded by Garrett, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend acceptance of the petitions for additional farmland into the Agricultural Security Area.

ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:44 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Daniel L. Zimmerman
Township Manager