Acting Chairman Thomas Zug convened the January 22, 2003 meeting of Warwick Township Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. Present were Commissioners Thomas Zug, Jane Boyce, Kelly Gutshall, Daniel Garrett, Brian Slinskey, John Gazsi and Craig Kimmel. John Hohman was absent. In attendance were Township Manager Daniel Zimmerman, Township Engineer Chuck Hess, Joel Snyder, Kevin Varner, Todd Stumpf, Mike Glass, Allen W. Martin, Tom Matteson, Ned Pelger, Roy Martin, Mike Skelly, and David Pusey.

REORGANIZATION: Acting Chairman Thomas Zug opened the floor to nominations for Chairman of the Planning Commission. On a motion by Garrett, seconded by Boyce, the Commission voted unanimously to close the nominations and re-elected Thomas Zug as Chairman of the Planning Commission. The Chairman opened the floor to nominations for Vice-Chairman of the Planning Commission. On a motion by Gutshall, seconded by Garrett, the Commission voted unanimously to close the nominations and re-elected Jane Boyce as Vice-Chairwoman of the Planning Commission. The Chairman opened the floor to nominations for Secretary of the Planning Commission. On a motion by Garrett, seconded by Slinskey, the Commission voted unanimously to close the nominations and re-elected John Gazsi as Secretary of the Planning Commission.

Chairman Zug convened the meeting for the remainder of the evening.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Planning Commission unanimously approved the minutes of the November 26, 2002 meeting and the minutes of the December 19, 2002 meeting as submitted.

COMMUNICATIONS: The Commission received a copy of the Growth Tracking Report which was prepared by the Lancaster County Planning Commission for the period 1994-2001.

The Commission received a copy of the Status Report of the Lititz/Warwick Joint Strategic Plan Objectives for 2003 The Township Manager stated that the Lititz/Warwick Coordinating Committee met on Thursday, January 16, 2003 to discuss the status of the objectives.

The Commission received a copy of the Lititz Borough Planning Commission’s December 3, 2002 meeting minutes.

CONTINUE REVIEW OF THE NEWPORT SQUARE REQUEST TO MODIFY THE CONDITIONAL USE DECISION: Joel Snyder, representing RGS Associates, explained that he was present at last month’s meeting to discuss the proposal. He provided an outline of the proposed modifications for the benefit of the Commission. He explained that a request to modify the Conditional Use decision was submitted in November, 2002. He explained that the original request was to convert 5 single-family lots to 10 townhome lots. The proposal discussed last month was to eliminate all "commercial space" on lot 153 and lot 173 plus the convenience store on lot 153. The only remaining commercial space would be the existing barn that would be converted to a restaurant facility. The plan also proposed to construct 10 fee-simple townhomes on the five (5) current single-family lots (lots 146 through 151), 30 fee-simple townhomes on current commercial lots 152 and 153, and 21 rental townhomes on the current commercial lot 173 and a 1,430 square feet addition to the existing barn structure.

Snyder stated that the plan has been modified in accordance with last month’s meeting to maintain the commercial area on the west side of Oak Street and to modify the lot on the east side of the roadway to create townhomes. Snyder explained that currently, commercial area is not marketable; in addition, since Lititz Borough is currently revitalizing its downtown economic district, they do not want to detract from this area in the Borough. He explained that the current real estate market in this area is townhomes.

Snyder explained that the applicant is not requesting any approvals at this evening’s meeting. He explained the plan being presented this evening proposes construction of 10 fee-simple townhomes on the five (5) current single-family lots (lots 146 through 151). The townhomes would be accessed to the rear via a private alley. He stated that a parking area would be provided along the alley to serve the homes. He added that the plan also proposes an access to the Evangelical Christian Church property which adjoins the site to the west. He explained that the proposal would allow motorists to exit the church property to a signalized intersection. The plan also proposes 20 condominium townhouses on the east side of North Oak Street. He noted that this area would be private and separate from the rental community. Snyder explained that garages would be provided to the rear of the homes, and added that the proposal would provide a streetscape along Newport Road. He provided a rendering of the proposed layout which includes the proposed signage at the entrance to the development along East Newport Road.

Snyder explained that the existing barn would be converted into a restaurant; however, the barn would not meet building code requirements for a kitchen, therefore the plan proposes an addition to the barn. The parking area around the proposed restaurant has been expanded to accommodate additional vehicles.

Snyder explained that the plan will be presented at next month’s meeting to address the review comments. He inquired whether or not the proposal addresses the Commission’s previous recommendations. Slinskey requested clarification of whether or not the proposed condominiums would be available for purchase. Snyder explained that they would be offered for sale. The Township Manager provided a copy of the rendering presented at last month’s meeting to clarify the modifications to the proposal for the benefit of the Commission.

Garrett expressed concern that he was not present at last month’s meeting. Boyce stated that she is opposed to the proposal, and expressed the opinion that the Commission owes it the individuals who purchased property within the development to complete the project as it was originally presented, and accepted, by the Commission. Gutshall inquired whether or not a copy of the original plan is available this evening. The Township Manager explained the layout of the original plan. The Commission members briefly discussed the proposal.

Garrett inquired which phase would be affected by the proposal. Snyder responded that the proposal would affect Phase 2 through Phase 6 of the plan.

The Township Manager explained that members of the Evangelical Christian Church approached the Township about providing an access within the development during the center-turn lane improvements to East Newport Road. He added that one of the church’s access points along East Newport Road was eliminated during the improvements.

Snyder explained that the developer has not been able to market the type of commercial space originally proposed and is concerned about the appearance of the development since the commercial area is at the entrance to the site along East Newport Road. Gutshall inquired what type of commercial uses are permitted at this location. The Township Manager explained that the use is limited since the proposal follows a Village Overlay concept. He explained that banks would not be permitted to have drive-up windows within the Village Overlay zone in order to reduce motor vehicle traffic. Snyder explained that the Village Overlay zone also limits that area for a commercial use. The Township Manager stated that the Village Overlay zone does not specify a minimum commercial area requirement and added that the zone only specifies a 5% maximum commercial area coverage. Slinskey expressed concern that the applicant will request that the remaining proposed commercial space be converted to residential if the space is not leased in a couple of years. He added that he has not seen any advertisements for the commercial lease space. The Township Manager stated that if the Commission is concerned that the land would be converted, a condition could be placed on any approval of the modifications that specifies the type of marketing approach that must be used for the commercial area. Boyce stated that if the applicant is concerned over the appearance of the entrance to the site, the proposed signage and trees could be installed now. Snyder stated that this area of the site is still a construction zone. He added that the appearance to the site is not the only issue that was considered for the modifications.

The commercial area concept was discussed at length. The developer stated that when the project was originally presented, the Village Overlay zone concept was new. He stated that they had many work sessions with Township staff to discuss the Village Overlay zone and the Ordinance was amended. He added that at that time, the Commission members and Board members understood that the project would need to evolve since the concept was never used before. Boyce expressed the opinion that although she was opposed to the project from the start, she was agreeable to the proposal since the Commission came to a consensus that the original plan represented a Village Overlay concept. She stated that the development is only 10% complete and it is early in the project to determine whether or not the commercial area is marketable.

Boyce stated that uses such as a dry cleaner and gift shop could be provided. The Township Manager explained that the area is not intended to be used for general commercial purposes. The Commission discussed the commercial modifications at length.

Garrett stated that during the discussions on the original plan, the Commission was favorable to a commercial area within the development, and due to site constraints, the commercial area was located along East Newport Road, and the Commission was not as agreeable to this location for the commercial area. He stated that he would be agreeable to the compromise proposed this evening rather than require a commercial area that may remain vacant an extended period. Kimmel stated that he agrees that the plan proposed this evening is a realistic compromise, and recommended that conditions be placed on the remaining commercial area. Glass stated that he understands the Commission’s concerns and requested to meet with Township staff prior to next month’s meeting in order to discuss commercial concepts for the development.

CONSIDER THE ROY ZIMMERMAN SUBDIVISION PLAN, PREPARED BY DIEHM & SONS, DATED 9/12/02: Kevin Varner, representing Diehm & Sons, stated that the Commission reviewed the Sketch Plan for the project and also the Conditional Use application for the agricultural lot. He explained that the tract is located along Clay Road, south of the Orchard Road intersection. He explained that the site contains approximately 10.3 acres of land; the portion on the west side of Clay Road is zoned R-1 and the portion on the east side of Clay Road is zoned Agricultural. The plan proposes to subdivide the tract to create one approximate 3-acre Agricultural zoned lot on the east side of Clay Road, and to create 4 single-family lots on the west side of Clay Road ranging in size from approximately 1.6 acres to 1.9 acres. Varner explained that the single-family lots would be accessed via a 28' wide public roadway. He noted that sidewalks would be provided to serve the lots. Varner explained that the existing home and barn on the property would be removed as part of the project. The Commission inquired what is the slope on the upper side of the development. Varner explained that the bank has a 2:1 slope. The Commission inquired who would maintain the area. Varner explained that low maintenance vegetation would be planted since the area would be located within the road right-of-way. The Township Manager explained that since the roadway would be dedicated to the Township, he would prefer that specific consideration be given to providing low maintenance vegetation.

The applicant is requesting a Waiver of Section 301.3 pertaining to Preliminary Plan Application. The applicant has requested a Waiver of the requirement to submit a Preliminary Land Development Plan fo the project and has submitted a "Final" Plan as presented. The Township Engineer commented that they do not have any specific concerns or recommendations for granting the Waiver of the Preliminary Plan requirements. The Township Manager stated that Township staff recommends denial of the request since the plan has been modified twice since its original submittal. In addition, since the plan proposes a new street, the Ordinance requires submittal of a Preliminary Plan. He noted that the extension of the proposed street to the adjoining property may not be feasible as proposed. On a motion by Garrett, seconded by Gutshall, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of the Waiver request.

The Township Manager explained that the plan proposes large underground concrete storage vaults for stormwater since the applicant did not want surface basins. He added that the plan does provide for stormwater infiltration; however, ongoing maintenance of the underground facilities should be considered. He explained that maintenance of the stormwater facilities would be required to be included with the deed for the lots.

The Applicant is requesting a Waiver of Section 603.2 pertaining to sidewalks. The applicant is requesting a Waiver of the requirement to construct sidewalks on the north side of the proposed street. Sidewalks will be provided on the south side along the frontage of the proposed lots/homes. The Township Engineer commented that with sidewalks provided along the frontage of the proposed lots, it would appear that adequate pedestrian accommodations will be provided as part of the site development; therefore, they could support the Waiver request conditional upon providing sidewalks on the south of the proposed street as shown on the current plans. On a motion by Garrett, seconded by Gutshall, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Waiver request.

Zug inquired whether or not the Applicant is agreeable to the recommendations in the Township Engineer’s January 15, 2003 comment letter. Zug inquired why the driveway location on the agricultural lot does not align with the proposed access of the new street on the opposite side of the roadway. Varner explained that the developer prefers the proposed driveway location for the lot.

The Commission members expressed the opinion that either the driveway should be aligned with the proposed new street, or the plan should provide a greater separation in order to eliminate traffic conflicts. On a motion by Kimmel, seconded by Gutshall, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend Preliminary Plan approval contingent upon the Township Engineer’s January 15, 2003 comment letter being addressed and upon the applicant addressing the Commission’s comments regarding the driveway location and right-of-way.

CONSIDER THE CHUKKAR ESTATES LOT NUMBER 6 FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAN, PREPARED BY DIEHM & SONS, DATED 12/12/02: Kevin Varner, Diehm and Sons, explained that the site is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Rothsville Road (SR 772) and Edgewood Drive. The plan proposes to subdivide lot 6 of the Thoroughbred Terrace/Chukkar Estates plan into two single-family building lots. He explained that the lots would be served by public sewer and public water. He explained that the plan has received erosion control approval from the Conservation District. He noted that the plan has been revised in accordance with the Township Engineer’s January 9, 2003 comment letter. On a motion by Garrett, seconded by Kimmel, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Final Plan contingent upon the Township Engineer’s January 9, 2003 comment letter being addressed.

CONSIDER THE BUCKHILL FARMS OFFICE BUILDING SKETCH PLAN, PREPARED BY RETTEW ASSOCIATES, DATED 1/8/03: Tom Matteson, Rettew Associates, explained that the site is located at the intersection of Peters Road and Highlands Drive, which is part of the original Shoppes at Kissel Village plan. The plan proposes an approximate 41,000 square foot 2-story office building. He explained that the building would provide general office space. He explained that the lot currently contains 23 acres; however, the plan proposes to subdivide an approximate 3.5 acre tract for the office building site. He stated that the plan proposes a shared access along Highlands Drive with the remaining lands. He added that the access would align with the access for the Community Hospital.

Matteson addressed the Township Engineer’s January 15, 2003 comment letter. He stated that the plan proposes a trail system that would coordinate with the trail system on the Community Hospital site and a 20' wide area along Highlands Drive to create a streetscape at the front of the site. Matteson stated that the regional basin in this area would need to be excavated in order to accommodate this proposal. He stated that an abbreviated traffic impact study would be prepared for the proposal since the site would create more traffic than what was originally designated for the site. Ned Pelger provided an architectural rendering of the proposed building. He explained that the building would have a stone facade on both the front and the back of the building. The plan proposes 163 parking spaces. Slinskey inquired whether or not the parking area could be modified in order to provide a more aesthetic appearance rather than creating a "ring" of parking around the building. He suggested that landscaping be incorporated around the perimeter of the parking area to subdue the sharp contrast of the parking lot. Pelger expressed the opinion that depending upon where a vehicle is parked, a modified parking area would require individuals to walk farther to the building. A pull-off area would be provided for deliveries (UPS, Federal Express, etc.). The Township Manager inquired whether or not the parking area could be improved. Matteson explained that the parking requirements in the Ordinance require specific setback requirements. He explained that traditional lighting could be provided to improve the aesthetics. Pelger explained that downward lights are proposed in order to eliminate light shining on other properties. He noted that he will discuss the issue with the developer. Matteson expressed the opinion that if the building were moved closer to the road it would be against the proposed berm and would eliminate the front yard. He stated that water quality inlets might be provided onsite in order to meet Best Management Practice (BMP) requirements. Matteson stated that since the site was included as part of a Master Plan and inquired whether or not the Commission would be agreeable to considering a Waiver of Preliminary Plan submittal for the proposal. The Commission members indicated that they would be agreeable to considering a Waiver request. Kimmel inquired how stormwater would be addressed on the remaining undeveloped acreage since the plan proposes expansion of the regional basin to serve this site. The Township Manager stated that when the basin was constructed the area was zoned residential and was designed to serve residential development. He explained that the area was subsequently rezoned to Community Commercial by the Township. He added that he anticipates only one additional basin to serve the remaining lands.

CONSIDER THE RITA’S ITALIAN ICE CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION, PREPARED BY RETTEW ASSOCIATES, DATED 1/8/03: Tom Matteson explained that the plan proposes to co-locate a fast food restaurant (Rita’s Italian Ice) on the same lot containing the recently constructed Wendy’s restaurant on lot 4 of the Shoppes at Kissel Village. The proposal is to construct an additional fast food restaurant, 21 parking spaces and to relocate the existing dumpster and enclosure within the Wendy’s parking lot. The restaurant will have walk-up service with outside seating. He explained that the building would be less than 1,000 square feet in size. He stated that the restaurant is a seasonal business; therefore, all of the existing restaurants are closed and traffic counts are unavailable. Matteson explained that the existing basin would accommodate the proposal. The site would be served by public water and public water. He noted that the public water connection will be discussed with Township staff in order to determine the best location for the connection. Matteson explained that in accordance with the Ordinance, the restaurant would be permitted to have a 56 square feet sign. He stated that the developer would like to use 3 approximate 14 square feet "dome" signs that would total only 42 square feet rather than one large sign. He noted that Rita’s peak operating hours are 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. which is different than Wendy’s peak hours which are generally 5:00p.m. to 7:00 p.m.

Matteson addressed the Township Engineer’s January 15, 2003 comment letter. He explained that the proposal would require modification to the original Conditional Use decision for the Wendy’s restaurant. The Township Manager explained that the proposal would require Conditional Use approval for the use, in addition to modifying the Conditional Use decision for Wendy’s. The Township Manager recommended that the applicant be permitted to address both Conditional Use issues concurrently. Garrett stated that the Commission was not favorable to the gasoline facility that was proposed at the Giant store since it did not comply with the original plan for the Shopping Center and inquired why the Commission should consider an additional use at the Wendy’s site. The Township Manager explained that Section 308 of the Ordinance permits two principal uses on a site provided that they meet the zoning criteria. He stated that the gasoline facility was proposed in the middle of the parking lot for the Shopping Center. He noted that the zoning criteria requires that each use meet the zoning requirements as if they were on separate lots. Garrett inquired whether or not separate parking could be provided on the site for the Rita’s store. Matteson stated that the parking areas would be independently designated and added that although the plan proposes 21 parking spaces for Rita’s, the Ordinance only requires 13 parking spaces for the use. He stated that three sides of the Rita’s facility would have masonry brick extending up approximately 3 feet to a stucco finish, and the front of the store would have a "traditional" Rita’s appearance. The hours of operation during the Spring and Fall would be noon until 9:00 p.m. and the hours of operation during the Summer would be 11:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. The proposal would provide outdoor seating via 5 benches (no tables). The facility would employ a maximum of 5 individuals per shift. The Township Manager inquired whether or not the front of the facility could be modified to match the architectural style of the Shopping Center. Garrett expressed concern that any deviation from the original Conditional Use approval would set a precedent for the architectural style of future uses within the Shopping Center. He requested that the applicant submit an architectural rendering of the proposed facility for the Commission’s review. Matteson stated that the free standing sign would meet the architectural style as required by the Conditional Use decision. Matteson noted that consideration will be given to modifying the Peters Road extension at this location from a one-way access to a two-way access.

CONSIDER THE SKETCH PLAN FOR GREEN HILLS FARM DISCOUNT GROCER, PREPARED BY RGS ASSOCIATES, DATED 1/7/03: Roy Martin, representing Green Hills Farm Discount Grocer, explained that the property is located at the intersection of East Newport Road and Orchard Road. He explained that the property currently contains an aluminum foundry (W.A. Miller & Son) which is a non-conforming use. He noted that the proposal would require approval of a zoning hearing for replacement of a non-conforming use. He provided photographs of the existing property. He explained that the property has access to the site from both Orchard Road and East Newport Road. He explained that they currently operate a discount grocer at 937 East Newport Road, across from the Lititz Area Mennonite School. The plan proposes to retain the existing approximate 12,000 square feet building which would provide 6,000 square feet of retail space and 6,000 square feet of storage space. The Township Manager explained that the property was rezoned to Rural Estate, although the foundry was operated as an industrial use. Martin explained that their existing property contains a farmette which would not provide an adequate living; therefore, they requested, and received zoning approval, to operate the discount grocer on the property. He stated that he prefers to revitalize the building on the proposed site, rather than constructing a new building elsewhere in the Township.

Martin stated that the access along East Newport Road would be designated as access-only and used primarily for deliveries. Garrett inquired how the site would restrict access by customers. Martin responded that access could not be restricted; however, signage would be designating the entrance for deliveries. The Township Manager stated that the turning lane along East Newport Road could be extended to provide for left-turn access into the site. Martin stated that the front of the store would face toward Orchard Road. He explained that screening is proposed for the back of the store along East Newport Road. He stated that the small office building on the site would be removed and a portion of the existing building would be removed to accommodate additional parking. Martin stated that the aluminum siding would be removed from the building and a brick facade would be added. The Township Manager explained that Township staff recommended that the applicant contact a consultant to review the type of land development plan that would be required to convert the site from an industrial use to a commercial use. He added that the plan proposes curbing that would be viable to address stormwater concerns in this area. He noted that the plan currently proposes sidewalk along the frontage of the site. The plan also proposes two detention basins on the site to accommodate stormwater.

Martin provided a rendering of the site that eliminates a portion of the sidewalk. The plan proposes 40 parking spaces. Martin stated that the facility would employ a maximum of 5 employees during one shift. He added that the proposed hours of operation are Monday through Saturday 8:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m.

Martin stated that he is agreeable to the comments contained in the Township Engineer’s January 15, 2003 comment letter. Garrett stated that any improvements to the property would be an asset, and the proposed impact on the existing infrastructure is minimal. Martin inquired whether or not the Commission would be agreeable to eliminating a portion of the sidewalk, and reduce the number of proposed trees on the site in order to improve the visibility of the building from East Newport Road. The Commission members are agreeable to eliminating the sidewalk along Orchard Road, and providing a sidewalk or a macadam path along East Newport Road to accommodate the potential of pedestrian traffic from the Newport Square development. The Township Manager explained that the proposed access drive along Orchard Road does not meet the required access drive separation from East Newport Road.

Martin noted that the plan proposes an alignment with the proposed access across the site to the Weaver’s Garage property. He added that moving the access farther from the intersection creates a conflict with the existing steep slopes on the property. The Commission members indicated that the proposed access points to the Weaver’s Garage property and this proposed facility should align along Orchard Road. The Commission members indicated that they would be favorable to the plan with the modifications as discussed this evening.

CONSIDER THE ACT 167 STUDY FOR THE COCALICO CREEK WATERSHED: The Township Manager stated that the Township is within four different watersheds (Lititz Run, Hammer Creek, Little Conestoga Creek, and Cocalico Creek). He explained that two years ago the Act 167 Study was completed for the Little Conestoga Creek Watershed that required a 50% decrease in stormwater flows. The Township Manager explained that the Act 167 Study addresses sediment load reduction, discharge of stormwater facilities, and recharge capacity for stormwater management. He outlined the requirements of the study for the benefit of the Commission. He noted that the study provides strict BMP and NPDS requirements and added that smaller projects would require hydrogeological studies. The Commission members discussed the study at length. The Township Manager explained that the Township Solicitor will provide a draft Ordinance to modify the Township’s Storm Water Management Ordinance to address the requirements of the Act 167 study for the Cocalico Creek Watershed in accordance with the Township Engineer’s comments. The Commission members suggested that the Ordinance be modified to provide continuity of the Act 167 watershed studies within the Ordinance.

ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:07 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Daniel L. Zimmerman
Township Manager