WARWICK TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 26, 2003

Chairman Thomas Zug convened the February 26, 2003 meeting of Warwick Township Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. Present were Commissioners Thomas Zug, Jane Boyce, John Gazsi, Kelly Gutshall, John Hohman, Daniel Garrett, Brian Slinskey and Craig Kimmel. In attendance were Township Manager Daniel Zimmerman, Kevin Varner, Chris Venarchick, Greg Wilson, Vicki Wilson, Mark Johnson, Jeff Tennis, Craig Bonenberger, Nancy O’Conor, and Tom O’Conor.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Planning Commission unanimously approved the minutes of the January 22, 2003 meeting with a correction noting that John Gazsi was present at the meeting.

COMMUNICATIONS: The Commission received a copy of an e-mail from David Zerbe inquiring whether Warwick Township could provide an individual to serve on the Warwick School District’s site selection committee. The committee would meet 2-3 times per year to discuss future needs (15-20 years) of the school district. John Gazsi volunteered to serve on the committee, Gutshall stated that she would serve as alternate in Gazsi’s absence.

The Commission received a copy of the results of the pubic open house on the PA Route 72 Needs Study which was held on January 23, 3003. The Township Manager explained that he serves on the PA Route 72 Task Force and added that he attended the meeting.

CONTINUE REVIEW OF THE NEWPORT SQUARE PROJECT REQUEST TO MODIFY THE CONDITIONAL USE DECISION: The Township Manager explained that the applicant is present this evening to summarize their previous discussions with the Planning Commission, and to address the Township Engineer’s February 19, 2003 comment letter.

Chris Venarchick, representing RGS Associates, indicated the location of the proposed modifications for the benefit of the Commission. He noted that the plan being presented this evening is the same plan that was reviewed at last month’s meeting. He explained that the plan proposes 20 residential units which would replace the originally approved apartment building and commercial space in this area. The plan also proposes 10 townhouse units which would replace five single-family lots that were originally approved. He noted that the net gain of the proposed modifications is 13 residential units. Venarchick stated that the plan also proposes an expansion to the existing barn to accommodate its use as a restaurant. The modified plan also illustrates the relocation of the proposed maintenance building and community center. Venarchick explained that the proposal would require the modification of 4 conditions contained within the original Conditional Use decision for Newport Square. Venarchick stated that condition 4 would need to be modified since the original plan required a vehicular barrier along Newport Road. The barrier would no longer be needed since the plan proposes to relocate the building that was originally proposed in this area. Venarchick stated that the wording of condition 13 would need to be modified to allow the revised plan to comply with the original Conditional Use plan. He stated that condition 18 would need to be modified to increase the density of the plan from 5.6 to 5.7 units per acre. He explained that condition 27 would need to be amended to address the 13 proposed dwelling units and the need for the applicant to construct or complete any improvements deemed necessary as part of addressing any traffic impacts. The original decision indicated that the traffic impact should be considered upon the issuance of 200 certificates of occupancy. He explained that the modified proposal is to review the traffic impact of the project upon the issuance of 250 certificates of occupancy. Mark Johnson, representing RGS Associates, explained that although the modification proposes an increase in residential density, the plan proposes replacing a commercial area.

The Township Manager explained that the applicant provided a rendering of the parking spaces that are assigned to the proposed restaurant. He added that 8" vertical curb will be provided at the frontage of the site along Newport Road. The Township Manager explained that original modification plan proposed to eliminate all of the commercial area; however, following discussions with the Planning Commission, the applicant agreed to maintain 15,000 sq. ft. of commercial space as part of the modified plan. He stated that the Commission had recommended that the applicant establish a market plan for the commercial area and inquired whether or not the Commission wished to include the issue as part of any recommended approval.

The Township Manager added that the applicant may reconsider maintaining the commercial area if the market plan is implemented and they do not have success marketing the space. Zug stated that the applicant should be required to prove that they have actively tried to market the commercial area. Boyce recommended that a marketing time-table also be established. The Township Manager explained that the scheduled build-out of the development is fall, 2007. Boyce reiterated her displeasure over the proposed modifications to the commercial area. The Commission briefly discussed the proposed modifications to the commercial area.

Garrett requested that the applicant address several of the comments stated in the Township Solicitor’s memorandum dated December 18, 2002. Venarchick clarified that the plan being presented this evening proposes 68 single-family units, 41 fee-simple townhomes, and 304 rental units (413 total dwelling units) within Warwick Township. The Township Manager explained that the Ordinance permits townhouse buildings with no more than four units per building; however, the original plan was presented, and approved, with six unit townhouses. Gutshall expressed concern over the proximity of the proposed townhouses to Newport Road and recommended that an additional buffer be provided between the roadway and the townhouses. Johnson explained that the homes meet the setback requirement from the roadway. Gutshall suggested that a berm be installed between townhouses and the roadway. Johnson stated that additional landscaping could be provided between the townhomes and Newport Road. On a motion by Hohman, seconded by Kimmel, the Commission voted 7-1 to recommend approval of the request to modify for the Conditional Use decision for Newport Square contingent upon the applicant addressing Township staffs comments, upon the applicant actively marketing the commercial area prior to the build-out of the development, and upon a landscape buffer being provided to the rear of the townhouses along Newport Road. Boyce voted against the motion. Garrett noted that the contractor needs to clean up the construction debris that has blown along the pedestrian trail behind the development.

CONSIDER THE WAIVER REQUEST BY SECHAN ELECTRONICS, PREPARED BY DIEHM & SONS, DATED 1/31/03: Kevin Varner, representing Diehm & Sons, stated that the site contains 8 acres of Industrial zoned lands located on the east side of Route 501 behind the Hess’ gas station. The plan proposes an additional parking area and the creation of 38 parking spaces. He noted that the additional parking is needed for employees only and not for any expansion of the operation. He added that five other parking spaces would be removed as part of the project in order to accommodate truck movement around the building. Varner explained that a portion of the proposed parking area would be located within the 100-year floodplain. He explained that the Zoning Hearing Board granted a Special Exception to allow the expansion of the parking lot in a flood plain zone at their January 8, 2003 meeting. Varner added that the height of the flood plain zone would not be altered as part of the proposal.

Varner addressed the Township Engineer’s February 19, 2003 comment letter. The plan proposes a 50' wide riparian buffer easement along the Santo Domingo creek that flows along the southern border. Zug inquired whether or not the site contains an existing storm water basin. Varner explained that the site does not contain a storm water basin. The plan proposes an underground storm water facility to address storm water from the site. The Township Manager explained that the riparian buffer could be used as part of the best management requirements for the site. Varner noted that storm water from the site currently flows to the existing creek on the property. He explained that a permit is not required for the project since the grade within the floodplain would not be raised. Gutshall suggested that the applicant consider a pervious asphalt surface for the proposed parking area since it is located within the floodplain. Varner explained that he considered infiltration trenches; however, the gas line depth impacts the design of any storm water facility. Varner stated that appropriate plants and trees would be provided within the riparian buffer. He noted that the grade of the site is relatively flat. The Township Manager explained that the design of the proposed parking area needed to address the potential of this area to heave in the winter since it is located within a floodplain. The Commission briefly discussed storm water controls for the site.

The applicant is requesting a Waiver of Section 301 pertaining to plan processing requirements. The applicant’s consultant has requested a Waiver of the requirement to submit a "formal" Land Development Plan for the project. A "Site Plan" has been submitted for review and consideration as a substitute for the formal Land Development Plan. The Township Engineer commented that it should be recognized that the Township Ordinances does not recognize or provide a procedure for processing a "Site Plan". By Ordinance requirements, the proposed parking lot is clearly a Land Development Plan. However, since the project is relatively minor in nature but does contain storm water management improvements, they can support the Waiver request conditional on the submitted plan being changed and processed as a Storm Water Management Plan. On a motion by Garrett, seconded by Kimmel, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of a Waiver of Section 301.

On a motion by Kimmel, seconded by Gazsi, the Commission voted unanimously to approve the Storm Water Management plan contingent upon the Township Engineer’s comments being addressed, and upon modification to the riparian buffer as discussed.

DISCUSS THE PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR WARWICK FARMS, PREPARED BY MCCARTHY ENGINEERING, DATED 1/10/03: Craig Bonenberger, representing McCarthy Engineering, explained that developers (O’Conors and Wilsons) purchased two farms in early 2002, and the intent of the project is to develop the tracts on a limited basis to provide funding to perform restoration on the land. He noted that although the property would be taken out of farming, 31 acres are enrolled in CREP (Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program), and conservation planting would be provided on the remaining lands. He added that over 1,000 trees and wetland shrubs have been planted on the property to date, and additional planting of warm season grasses in proposed. Bonenberger explained that the property owners are reforesting a portion of the property. He stated that the project originally proposed 7 lots, and the plan this evening proposes 14 building lots. The plan proposes the extension of Brian Drive into the project site to provide access. Bonenberger explained that the lots on the west side of the site (lot 8, lot 9, and lot 14) would be retained by the O’Conors and lot 1, lot 7 and lot 13 would be retained by the Wilsons. He noted that lot 9 is the proposed future home site for the O’Conors. Bonenberger explained that the plan includes three lot add-ons that are identified as annexations on the plan. Annexation parcel A would be sold to the adjoining Jerusalem Evangelical Lutheran Church and Annexation Parcel B and Annexation Parcel C would be conveyed to the Township as part of the Forney Field. Garrett expressed concern that the Parcel B is unuseable. The Township Manager explained that the area could be graded in order to square-off this portion of the property. He added that Parcel C provides for scenic contours on the property. He noted that the Recreation Advisory Committee recommended that instead of the scenic contour area, the Parcel could be extended 50' along lot 11 to enlarge the proposed practice field in this area. He noted that this redesign would also address the recreation requirement for the tract. The Township Manager explained that since the property is zoned Rural Estate, the current plan would provide for the future subdivision of some of the proposed lots. He recommended that a conservation easement be provided that would restrict further development of the property. Wilson stated that all of the open space on the property that was eligible for the CREP program has been enrolled for a 10-year period. He added that he would be agreeable to creating conservation easements on the larger lots. Bonenberger explained that the plan does not currently illustrate any conservation easements since the applicant wanted to ensure that the Township would be agreeable to the proposal and that adequate facilities can be provided for the lots before restrictions are placed on the plan. The property owners indicated their willingness to apply conservation easements on the larger lots to restrict further subdivision. The Township Manager inquired why some of the lots have an odd configuration. Bonenberger explained that the property owners requested the lot lines. Wilson explained that the lots have steep slope areas that could not be developed; therefore, these areas were added to the lots. He noted that he would be agreeable to establishing steep slope easements on the lots. Gutshall suggested that the developer consider reducing the size of lot 11 and lot 12 in order to increase the area to be preserved and to improve the configuration of the lots. Zug inquired what is the status of Wade Drive. Wilson explained that a driveway would be connected to the existing roadway to provide access to the lot. Zug suggested that the applicant consider extending the cul-de-sac bulb to create a permanent cul-de-sac in accordance with the Township Engineer’s recommendation. The Township Manager explained that the issue should be discussed with the adjoining property owner (Heisey). Bonenberger stated that they will modify the plan in accordance with Township staff’s recommendations. The Commission commended the developer for their intent with the tract.

CONTINUED REVIEW OF ACT 167 STUDY FOR THE COCALICO CREEK WATERSHED AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE: The Township Manager stated that the Township is within five different watersheds (Lititz Run, Hammer Creek, Little Conestoga Creek, Cocalico Creek, and Conestoga River). He explained that two years ago an Act 167 Study was completed for the Little Conestoga Creek Watershed which 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 drafted an 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 Township Manager stated that he anticipates that each of the watersheds within the Township would require a 50% decrease in stormwater flows. He noted that the other Act 167 studies that have been prepared by the County have had this requirement. The Township Manager explained that the Township currently implements five of the six NPDES requirements. He added that the Township would have five years to implement the requirements, although the Township is required to complete a permit application to implement a DEP approved stormwater management program by March 10, 2003. He noted that the Township is currently in the process of completing the application. The Township Manager explained that a final draft Ordinance will be submitted for the Planning Commission’s review next month.

ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:01 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Daniel L. Zimmerman
Township Manager