Chairman Thomas Zug convened the April 23, 2003 meeting of Warwick Township Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. Present were Commissioners Thomas Zug, Jane Boyce, Kelly Gutshall, John Hohman, Daniel Garrett, and Brian Slinskey. John Gazsi and Craig Kimmel were absent. In attendance were Township Manager Daniel Zimmerman, Township Engineer Grant Hummer, Township Engineer Charles Hess, Kevin Varner, Mike Skelly, Tom Matteson, Jennifer Hafer, Roy W. Zimmerman, Ned Pelger, Craig Bonenberger, Tom O’Conor, Mark Magrecki, Dwight E. Wagner, Greg Wilson, Vicki Wilson, Bob Shreiner, and Jesse Roberts.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Planning Commission unanimously approved the minutes of the March 26, 2003 meeting as submitted.

COMMUNICATIONS: The Commission received a copy of the minutes of the Lititz Borough Planning Commission’s April 1, 2003 meeting.

CONSIDER THE REVISED FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAN FOR EAGLES LANDING, PREPARED BY DIEHM & SONS, DATED 3/14/03: Kevin Varner, representing Diehm & Sons, explained that the development is located along East Newport Road near the village of Rothsville. He stated that the original plan for Eagles Landing proposed 9 single-family lots. The plan this evening proposes to merge several of the lots to create 5 larger single-family lots. The proposed lots range in size from .6 acres to .7 acres; however, revised lot 3 is 3.3 acres. He explained that the Eagles Landing roadway is not dedicated to the Township at this time and added that the roadway is proposed for future dedication as part of this plan. He noted that there is an existing home on lot 3.

Varner reviewed the Township Engineer’s April 16, 2003 comment letter. He explained that they have no objections to the items contained in the comment letter. The Township Manager explained that the property is located within the urban growth boundary and although the size of the lots exceeds the Zoning Ordinance guidelines, there is no requirement to create the minimum lot sizes. He noted that the Lancaster County Planning Commission comments addresses this issue, also. He added that proposed lot 1 should be restricted from accessing directly to East Newport Road. Varner explained that the issue is addressed as a plan note. On a motion by Garrett, seconded by Hohman, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Eagles Landing Revised Final Plan, contingent upon the Township Engineer’s comments being addressed.

CONSIDER THE GARMAN/BOLL LOT ADD-ON PLAN, PREPARED BY DIEHM & SONS, DATED 3/27/03: Kevin Varner, representing Diehm & Sons, explained that the plan proposes to convey an approximate 1.398 acre tract from a 2.341 acre parcel to a 12.4 acre parcel owned by Garman. The Township Engineer provided a copy of the previously approved plan for the tract and a Sketch Plan that illustrates the development potential of the tract for the Commission’s review and information. The Township Manager explained that the previous plan for the tract was approved approximately three years ago. He explained that the larger tract is bisected by a zoning line between the R-1 Residential and Rural Estate zoning districts. The Township Manager explained that lot 3 of the plan is currently connected to public sewer service and added that lot 4 would be required to connect to the public sewer system as part of the plan. Varner explained that the issue is addressed as part of a plan note. He added that it is his understanding that the applicant intends to request public sewer service for lot 4 prior to Final Plan approval.

Garman reviewed the Township Engineer’s April 16, 2003 comment letter. He indicated that they have no objections to the items contained within the comment letter. On a motion by Hohman, seconded by Gutshall, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Garman/Boll Lot Add-on Plan, contingent upon the Township Engineer’s comments being addressed.

CONSIDER THE IVAN AND IRENE ZIMMERMAN SKETCH PLAN, PREPARED BY DERCK & EDSON, DATED 4/9/03: Kevin Varner, representing Diehm & Sons, stated that the parent tract contains approximately 40 acres located along Snavely Mill Road and Firestone Road. He explained that the tract is bisected by Snavely Mill Road and added that 13 acres are situated on the south side of Snavely Mill Road, and 27.6 acres are situated on the north side of the roadway. He explained that Snavely Mill Road is divided by the municipal boundary line between Warwick Township and Elizabeth Township and noted that the Zimmerman’s existing home is located on the north side of the roadway (in Elizabeth Township). He added that the owners wish to retain this tract. In addition, the "southern" portion of the tract (in Warwick Township) is divided by the zoning line between the R-1 Residential and Rural Estate zoning districts.

The Zimmerman’s intend to sell the "southern" portion of the tract to Garman Builders who wish to create 8 single-family lots on the tract. Varner noted that no new improvements are proposed on the "northern" tract. He explained that lot 1 through lot 5, which are located within the Rural Estate zoning district, would be served by on-lot septic systems. He stated that lot 6 through lot 8 would be served by the public sewer system via grinder pumps. He noted that public water is not available to this area; therefore, each of the lots would be served by on-lot wells. Varner explained that they are currently conducting a well study to verify a potable water source to serve the lots. He stated that lot 6 through lot 8 will require approval of a zoning variance for the minimum lot frontage, and the minimum side yard setback. The Township Manager explained that the Township Engineer’s April 16, 2003 comment letter suggests that the variances might be self-imposed since the elimination of one (or two) of the proposed lots could provide for a modification which would meet the zoning requirements. He stated that the well study will determine the hydraulic capacity of the tract which could impact the size of the lots.

The Chairman requested the Commission’s input regarding reducing the number of proposed lots within the R-1 Residential zoning district. Boyce inquired why the number of lots in this area could not be reduced. Varner explained that the applicant proposes to restrict further subdivision of these tracts, and if two larger lots were created, the potential could exist that they could be further subdivided. He added that the lots would be served by public sewer and noted that these lots are larger than other R-1 zoned lots in this area. Garrett stated that he would have no objections to the creation of three lots, provided the well study indicates that there is adequate water to serve these lots. On a motion by Hohman, seconded by Garrett, the Planning Commission voted 5-1 to recommend approval of the Ivan and Irene Zimmerman Sketch Plan, contingent upon the Township Engineer’s comments being addressed. Boyce voted against the motion.

CONSIDER THE VERSATEK FINAL LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN, PREPARED BY DERCK & EDSON, DATED 3/26/03: Jennifer Hafer, representing Derck and Edson, stated that Versatek is proposing to occupy the building previously occupied by Yerger Brothers. She explained that one of the affected lots is bisected by the municipal boundary with Lititz Borough. She explained that the site is currently vacant and the property owner wishes to construct a warehouse on the lot. Hafer added that the portion of the site within Warwick Township was rezoned Industrial by the Board of Supervisors on February 19, 2003, and noted that the portion of the site within Lititz Borough is zoned Industrial. She explained that the proposal also received zoning approval on March 12, 2003 to reduce the front and rear yard setback requirements.

Hafer addressed the Township Engineer’s April 16, 2003 comment letter. She explained that the plan has remained virtually unchanged from the Sketch Plan for the proposal.

The applicant is requesting a Waiver of Section 301.3 pertaining to Preliminary Plan Application. The applicant is requesting a Waiver of the requirement to submit a Preliminary Plan for the development of the site. It is requested that a combined Preliminary/Final Plan submittal be accepted since the plans have been developed in accordance with the Final Plan requirements. The Township Engineer commented that, based purely on the limited portion of the site within Warwick Township, they have no objections to granting the Waiver. On a motion by Boyce, seconded by Gutshall, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Waiver request.

The applicant is requesting a Waiver of Section 405 pertaining to Traffic Impact Study submittal. To address the requirements that a Traffic Impact Study be prepared and submitted for the project, the applicant’s consultant has requested exemption from the requirements citing that "the proposed development will not generate any new traffic, but instead simply displaces it to the opposite side of the street." A Traffic Evaluation was submitted in support of the request.

The Township Engineer commented that the use of the "existing building" should be determined and identified before the justification or argument is made that no additional traffic will be generated because the existing traffic will be displaced to the opposite side of the street. If the warehouse component of the business is being transferred out of the existing building and into the proposed building, what will be the disposition or use of the existing building? Based on the information submitted, a traffic impact study should not be required for the proposed warehouse; however, the use of the existing building in the future should be identified by the applicant to the satisfaction of the Township. Pending that information, the Waiver may be justified for the project conditional upon the Borough’s approval of the same.

Hafer stated that she spoke with the property owner to confirm that the use of the proposed building is not changing, and that no additional employees would be hired as part of the proposal. She added that no increase in truck traffic is anticipated since the building would provide only for storage of materials which are currently located in the production area. On a motion by Gutshall, seconded by Garrett, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Waiver request.

Hafer stated that, in response to the Township Engineer’s comment, if it appears that the flow within Swale 2 would be impeded by the evergreen trees at the southeast corner of the proposed building, several of the trees may need to be removed. The Township Manager explained that although the basin is within Lititz Borough, stormwater would flow through a 12" pipe that extends under the existing "Lititz/Warwick Trailway" rails-to-trails path. The Township Engineer requested the applicant to determine the capacity of the pipe and potential overflow damage if stormwater crests the elevation of the trail, and if necessary, address the issue. The Township Engineer stated that the pipe was originally covered with an 8" orifice plate. The Township Manager stated that the building would be constructed at the same elevation as the pedestrian trail and inquired whether or not the existing vegetation would be adequate to buffer the trailway. Hafer stated that Lititz Borough representatives had indicated that no additional buffer would be needed for the trail. The Commission briefly discussed the issue of buffering the pedestrian trail. Hafer stated that the property owner might be agreeable to planting a buffer for the pedestrian trail. On a motion by Garrett, seconded by Slinskey, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Versatek Final Land Development Plan, contingent upon the Township Engineer’s comments being addressed, and upon planting a buffer at the area south of the building for the pedestrian trail.

CONSIDER THE HIGHLANDS PROFESSIONAL OFFICES FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAN, PREPARED BY RETTEW ASSOCIATES, DATED 2/21/03: Tom Matteson, representing Rettew Associates, explained the location of the site for the benefit of the Commission. Matteson explained that he was present at the Commission’s March 26, 3003 meeting and stated that he will address several of the outstanding issues discussed at the meeting. He stated that the Commission inquired what the property owner intended to do with the existing farmhouse and barn located on the site. Matteson explained that the farmhouse is not located on this site; therefore, he has no input to offer on the future of the structure. He added that the developer indicated that he is unsure of the future plans for the building. He noted that the barn that is located on the property is currently used for storage, and that is the long-term plan for the structure. The Township Manager stated that the farmhouse has been recognized as a historic structure and explained that, for the record, future plans for the area will have to address the issue.

Matteson explained that the infiltration area has been redesigned to create a more natural appearance, in accordance with discussions with the Commission. He noted that the owner of the Shopping Center site has agreed to the proposed changes, since they are responsible for the maintenance of the regional basin in this area. Matteson stated that an arborist examined the existing large trees on the site and has indicated that it appears that they could be saved; although, the arborist will need to further examine the roots to verify the condition of the trees. He stated that if the roots are in good condition, the location of the proposed driveway will be modified slightly in order to eliminate the need to remove the trees. He added that a plan note has been added that indicates that shrubbery will be added around the outlet structures at the detention basin. Matteson stated that the sign for the site will be consistent with the size and shape of the sign for the adjacent Kissel Hill Health Center.

Matteson addressed the Township Engineer’s April 16, 2003 comment letter. He explained that the Commission voted on two Waivers at last month’s meeting and noted that a third Waiver had been withdrawn. He stated that they have no objections to the items contained within the comment letter.

The Township Manager explained that the developer submitted a bid to purchase 10 TDRs from the Township and added that the developer has contacted Lancaster Farmland Trust to purchase an additional 10 TDRs which are needed to accommodate the proposed lot coverage.

The applicant is requesting a Waiver of Section 225.7.G. Matteson explained that the existing emergency spillway from the detention basin currently flows through the middle of this site; however, the plans propose to divert the overflow through the proposed parking lot. He explained that the design modification creates two issues. The first issue is that the flow path is wider than drainage easement. He stated that the drainage easement will be widened to address the issue. He explained that the second issue is that the modified relief route will function as a swale; therefore, the Ordinance requires 2' of freeboard before the finished floor elevation of the building. He stated that the proposal only provides for 7" of freeboard and added that the calculation is based on a 100-year storm with the basin clogged completely shut. He noted that the developer is agreeable to accepting the risk. The Chairman inquired whether or not the stormwater would flow somewhere other than to the building if the issue does occur. Matteson explained that the elevations indicate that the flows would be towards the building; however, only an "Agnes-type" storm event with the basin completely clogged shut would cause the issue to occur. The Township Manager inquired whether or not the developer would agree to a pre-notification of the issue within the deed for the property since it could be sold in the future. Matteson stated that the property owner might be agreeable to the issue. Ned Pelger noted that other plans have been approved without the issue of a clogged pipe being addressed as a stormwater issue. On a motion by Garrett, seconded by Slinskey, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Waiver contingent upon a note being included in the deed advising of the potential flooding issue.

Matteson stated that the Township Engineer had raised an issue regarding streetlighting along Highlands Drive. He explained that he is unaware of what streetlighting will be provided as part of the Community Hospital project and added that the hospital’s Land Development Plan did not illustrate any streetlights along Highlands Drive. He inquired whether or not the Township would be agreeable to a streetscape design agreed upon by the Township, hospital representatives and the developer of this site, and implemented along the roadway, with the developer following the agreed upon design for the frontage of this site. The Township Manager explained that the hospital plan proposes 18' high headlights along the pedestrian trail. He explained that the master plan for Highlands Drive illustrates streetlights along the curb. He added that the headlights would illuminate onto the roadway and if the Commission is satisfied with the design, the issue would be addressed. He noted that typical light standards would be provided at the intersections along Highlands Drive. The Commission inquired whether or not the lights that would be provided along this site would coordinate with the types of lights proposed at the hospital site. The Township Manager explained that the contemporary style lights at the hospital are intended to coordinate with their architecture. Matteson expressed the opinion that the type of lighting that would be provided along this site would not be similar to the lighting provided along the hospital site. He noted that lights would be provided along the trail system on this site, also. Garrett expressed the opinion that the trail lighting would be sufficient to illuminate the trail and roadway. The Commission is agreeable to the trail lighting proposal as discussed. On a motion by Garrett, seconded by Boyce, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Highlands Professional Offices Final Plan contingent upon the Township Engineer’s comments being addressed.

CONSIDER THE WARWICK FARMS PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAN, PREPARED BY MCCARTHY ENGINEERING, DATED 1/10/03: Craig Bonenberger, representing McCarthy Engineering, explained that several waivers are being requested as part of the plan.

The applicant is requesting a Waiver of Section 602.5 pertaining to street provisions for future developments. The applicant has requested a Waiver of the requirement to extend the existing, temporary cul-de-sac of Wade Drive into the project site. The applicant intends to complete all necessary construction to convert the configuration of the cul-de-sac to meet the permanent cul-de-sac requirements. The Township Engineer commented that if the Township determines that the extension of Wade Drive is not prudent for the scope of the project, they have no objections to approval of the Waiver contingent upon the applicant converting the temporary cul-de-sac into a permanent cul-de-sac; upon the applicant obtaining the approval form the adjacent property owners (Heisey and Lenglerth) to convert the existing easement around the bulb of the cul-de-sac into the street right-of-way; and upon the applicant ensuring that any construction disturbance on the adjacent properties is restored and stabilized to the satisfaction of the property owners. On a motion by Hohman, seconded by Garrett, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Waiver request contingent upon the Township Engineer’s comments being addressed.

The applicant is requesting a Waiver of Section 602.13 pertaining to cul-de-sac streets. As a result of the proposed extension of Brian Drive, the length of the cul-de-sac street will be 654.46'; although the Ordinance indicates that the maximum length of a cul-de-sac should not exceed 600'. The Township Engineer commented that if the Township is comfortable with the street layout as presented, they have no objections to granting the Waiver for the relatively minor increase in the cul-de-sac length. On a motion by Garrett, seconded by Boyce, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Waiver request contingent upon the Township Engineer’s comments being addressed.

The applicant is requesting a Waiver of Section 604.4.C pertaining to lot depth to lot width ratio. Considering the proposed "character" of the development and the resulting oversized lots, the configuration of the lots can not meet the criteria of the Ordinance. The Township Engineer commented that if the restriction is imposed on the created lots that no further subdivision, development or creation of additional dwelling units can occur, they would support the Waiver request. On a motion by Slinskey, seconded by Hohman, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Waiver request contingent upon the Township Engineer’s comments being addressed.

The applicant is requesting a Waiver of Section 602.16 pertaining to access drives. The applicant is requesting relief from the Ordinance requirements pertaining to the minimum widths of Access Drives for the shared Access Driveway leading to lot 7, lot 8, and lot 9. The required width of any access drive with two-way traffic is 24'. In consideration of reducing the amount of impervious cover this project, the applicant has proposed a 16' wide paved access drive with 4' wide gravel shoulders to allow for passing vehicles. The Township Engineer commented that considering the use of the Access Driveway for purely residential purposes, the proposed modification of the design criteria seem appropriate. Therefore, they have no objections to granting the Waiver. Gutshall expressed the opinion that a 24' wide access drive is excessive and inquired whether or not the requirement could be reduced to provide only a 16' wide paved access drive. The Commission is in agreement that the Access Drive width could be reduced to 16' since it will be privately owned and would meet spirit of the conservation aspect of the development. On a motion by Boyce, seconded by Garrett, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Waiver request as discussed.

The applicant is requesting a Waiver of Section 404.C pertaining to Plan Information (for Lot Add-on Plans). The applicant is requesting relief from the requirements to survey those existing properties that will receive the indicated Lot Add-On areas (identified as Annexation Parcels, "A", "B", and "C"). The Township Engineer commented that they have no objections to granting the Waiver, subject to the designer providing a deed plot of the existing properties that will receive the Lot Add-On areas. With this information, the necessary resultant deeds can be prepared for recording. Bonenberger explained that a single-description could not be done since the deed plot would not match the bearing datum for each lot. He added that the church property has five deeds and some of the deeds do not contain metes and bounds and only describe by joiners. He stated that the proposal is to provide a legal description for each tract to be conveyed, which could be added into the existing deeds for the individual tracts. The Township Manager explained that the Township generally requires a complete survey of the receiving tract in order to provide for a single deed for the tract. He noted that the issue is required in order to coordinate parcels for the Lancaster County Assessment Office. He noted that the land conveyance could occur without the requirement. Bonenberger stated that they are requesting a Waiver since the land is being conveyed to public entities. On a motion by Boyce, seconded by Garrett, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Waiver request contingent upon a legal description being provided for each of the Lot Add-on areas.

The applicant is requesting a Waiver of Section 608.2 pertaining to floodplain. The applicant is requesting a Waiver of the requirements to prepare a 100-year Floodplain Study for the small tributary that bisects the site and delineate the Floodplain on the Subdivision Plan. There is no building or construction proposed in close proximity to the site. The Township Engineer commented that considering that a "Proposed 70' Wide Riparian Buffer Easement" is shown on the plan encompassing the tributary, they have no objections to granting the Waiver for this particular project. They recommend that the title of the easement be changed to "Proposed 70' Wide Riparian Buffer and Floodplain Easement". Furthermore, a note should be added to the plan indicating that "A 100-year Floodplain study and delineation shall be prepared for the tributary located within the site should any construction or land disturbance be proposed within 100' of the tributary. Such study and delineation shall be subject to the review and approval of Warwick Township prior to the commencement of the construction or land disturbance." On a motion by Gutshall, seconded by Hohman, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Waiver request contingent upon the Township Engineer’s comments being addressed.

Bonenberger addressed the Township Engineer’s April 16, 2003 comment letter. He stated that the Township Engineer commented that the proposed stormwater management facilities will not be designed in accordance with the Ordinance. He explained that the plan proposes to provide stormwater management facilities that will meet the requirements of the Ordinance. He stated that this is addressed by infiltrating stormwater from all of the impervious areas on the site up to a 100-year storm event. He explained the plan proposes a community infiltration system for the extension of Brian Drive and individual on-lot infiltration systems for all of the houses. He added that the two community systems account for 85% of all of the impervious area, with the exception of an area of one of the driveways. Hohman stated that the hydrological calculations for the pre vs. post comparison indicate that the post development runoff rates for the development will be less than the pre-developed condition by virtue of the proposed land cover changes from cropland to meadow grasses. He stated that although the infiltration component is proposed via the BMP Ponds; the issue is not demonstrated by the calculations that were submitted for the plan. He added that stormwater issues do not need to be addressed at length this evening; however, they should be addressed as outlined in the Township Engineer’s comment letter.

Bonenberger explained that the stormwater concept is to infiltrate the entire 100-year storm from the impervious area. He added that they also performed a calculation for the two community systems that shows the entire drainage area to those systems, and a spillway designed to carry the 100-year flow through the spillway. He noted that a larger amount of water will be conveyed to the ponds than they can handle during a large storm event; however it will spill to the areas where the water has always flowed. He explained that Pond 1 will be conveyed to the catch basin on one neighbor’s property, and the other pond will be conveyed to a 35' wide riparian easement on another neighbor’s property. He stated that the ponds are not designed with outlet structures and added that for most of the other storms, the water will be infiltrated through the pond. He noted that the additional flows are proposed to be addressed by changing the ground cover on the site. The Township Manager explained that the applicant will have to substantiate that the intent of the Ordinance will be addressed by the plan. Bonenberger expressed the opinion that the plan meets the 75% release rate specified by the Ordinance and stated that the requirements for the on-lot infiltration systems will be addressed through plan notes. He explained that the plan notes will require that all roof areas must be connected to a facility that will hold the 100-year storm from the area being served. He added that they are providing four options of the types of facilities that property owners could use. He noted that the options include rain gardens, infiltration beds, infiltration tanks, or cisterns. He added that individual property owners might feel differently about the types of stormwater facilities that they wish to use on their property; therefore, the plan requires that each building permit must be submitted with stormwater calculations and the design for whatever facility they intend to use. The Township Manager explained that the proposal would require each property owner to hire an engineer to design their facility. Bonenberger stated that is the intent of the plan. The Township Manager recommended that the applicant provide documentation supporting the size and dimensions for stormwater facilities based on a 4,000-6,000 square foot impervious area. Bonenberger expressed the opinion that the requirement could present an undue burden on an individual that may wish to construct a 2,000 square foot property. Garrett stated that the issue should be addressed by Township staff and the Township Engineer and not debated at this evening’s meeting. He suggested that the Commission table action on the plan until the issue is resolved. The Township Manager stated that the proposal is a Preliminary Plan, and if the Commission is agreeable to the lot layout, the Commission could act on the Preliminary Plan with conditions that address outstanding issues. Bonenberger addressed the remaining outstanding issues contained within the Township Engineer’s comment letter. On a motion by Gutshall, seconded by Slinskey, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Warwick Farms Preliminary Plan contingent upon the Township Engineer’s comments being addressed, and upon the stormwater management issues being addressed to the satisfaction of Township staff.

CONSIDER THE ROTHSVILLE FIRE COMPANY SKETCH PLAN, PREPARED BY ELA GROUP, INC., DATED 4/9/03: Mark Magrecki, representing ELA Group, explained that the proposal will require zoning approval prior to Land Development Plan submittal. He stated that he would like the Commission’s input on the proposal prior to submitting it for zoning approval. He provided the existing layout of the property and the proposed expansion project. He noted that one of the major modifications to the site would be the relocation of the engine bays to the rear of the building in order to provide for egress by emergency vehicles to SR 772 via a one-way travel lane that would be equipped with a warning flashing signal. He stated that the existing 24' wide two-way access drive along this property and the adjoining Clugston property would be maintained to provide primary access to this site. He described the vehicular movement on the site for the benefit of the Commission. Magrecki stated that they wish to provide a third access point on the site to three (or four) parking spaces which would be designated for fire personnel only. He noted that the access point would be one-way only and would be designated by signage on the site. He stated that the parking area has been enlarged to meet the Ordinance requirements.

Magrecki explained that the plan proposes a 6,500 square foot building expansion to the east of the existing structure. He. explained that the building expansion encroaches into the front yard setback due to the lot configuration. He stated that the expansion area will be similar to the existing building with a one-story design along the frontage of the property and extending to a two-story design at the rear of the building, due to the slope of the property. The expansion area will be renovated to provide a training area, bunk area, and office space within the building. Bob Shreiner explained that the banquet area will be modified; however, it will not be enlarged. He noted that they do not anticipate increasing the number of banquets held at the facility each year. He outlined the layout of the existing building. Boyce inquired how close the building will be in proximity to th roadway. Magrecki explained that the expansion will be approximately 15' from the curb. He noted that the building would be no closer to the roadway than the existing homes in the area. He explained that the proposal would require a PennDOT Highway Occupancy Permit and added that several issues will need to be addressed as part of the permit process. He stated that a 75' clear-sight triangle can be provided for the eastern access drive; although the Ordinance requires a 100' clear-sight triangle. He noted that the design of the access drive is impeded by an existing concrete retaining wall on the adjoining property that the property owner does not want removed. The Township Manager inquired how stormwater will be addressed on the site. Magrecki explained that there is an existing 36" pipe that currently extends through the area where the expansion is proposed. He added that the stormwater design would divert stormwater around the building. He stated that a basin will be provided at a low point toward the rear of the property which would require a cross-easement with the neighboring property owner since it would extend to their property. He detailed the proposed stormwater design for the benefit of the Commission. Magrecki stated that the zoning issues include the three access points (rather than two), and the three parking spaces that would be located within the front-yard. He explained that the property is an existing non-conforming use, and the proposed expansion is more than 50% of the size of the existing building. He noted that the site is bisected by a zoning line between the R-1 Residential and Mixed Use zoning districts. The Township Manager indicated that if the Zoning Ordinance does not provide for Emergency Services under permitted uses, the application could be submitted as a Special Exception under "uses not provided for". Magrecki explained that they are not requesting action on the plan this evening. He added that the site is currently comprised of two lots; however, these would be consolidated as part of the plan. The Commission is agreeable to the proposal as submitted.

REVIEW OF THE KELLER PROPERTY: The Township Manager explained that the Keller property indicated on the Sketch Plan submittal is located within Lititz Borough and adjoins property they own at the intersection of Landis Valley Road and SR 501. The Township Manager explained that the plan that was submitted to Lititz Borough illustrates 52 townhouse lots. He explained that the plan proposes the extension of Linden Street to serve the lots, and also the extension of Raspberry Lane which would be used as an alley to access the rear of the lots to the east of the proposed Linden Street extension. He noted that the proposal does provide future access to the adjoining lot. The Commission discussed the proposal at length.

OTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION: The Township Manager stated that Township staff is considering a modification to the Ordinances. Gutshall stated that she drafted several modifications for discussion purposes. She outlined the modifications for the benefit of the Commission and provided a proposed meeting schedule to discuss the modifications. The Commission members agreed to meet on May 13, 2003 and will discuss future meeting dates at that time.

ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Daniel L. Zimmerman
Township Manager