Chairman Thomas Zug convened the August 27, 2003 meeting of Warwick Township Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. Present were Commissioners Thomas Zug, Jane Boyce, Kelly Gutshall, John Hohman, and Daniel Garrett. John Gazsi, Brian Slinskey and Craig Kimmel were absent. In attendance were Township Manager Daniel Zimmerman, Township Engineer Grant Hummer, Craig Bonenberger, Kevin Varner, Joel Snyder, Cary Colon, Alan E. Love, Greg Wilson, Vicki Wilson, Mike Garman, Chris Venarchick, Nancy O’Conor, Tom O’Conor, and David Pusey.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Planning Commission unanimously approved the minutes of the July 23, 2003 meeting as submitted.

COMMUNICATIONS: The Commission received a copy of the Lititz Borough Planning Commission’s August 5, 2003 meeting minutes.

CONSIDER WAIVER REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN SUBMITTAL FOR TAIT TOWERS: The Township Manager explained that the applicant wishes to construct a 20'x60' free-standing deck on their property at 9 Wynfield Drive. He noted that the deck will be positioned immediately adjacent to the existing parking lot at the rear of the site.

The applicant is requesting a Waiver of the requirement to submit a Land Development Plan for the construction of the 1,200 square feet deck. The Township Engineer commented that based on the limited scope of the project; they have no objections to granting the Waiver of the Land Development Plan requirements (Section 301.3 and Section 301.4). They recommended that the proposed use of the deck be disclosed by the owner/applicant prior to the Township taking action on the request. The deck would be located adjacent to the residential properties at the rear of the site. The Township Manager noted that the deck meets the appropriate setback requirements. He added that the Commission should consider whether or not the area should be screened from neighboring properties. In addition, the applicant should indicate whether or not the deck would be used by employees only, or if it would be used for other activities that may be disruptive to the adjacent residents. The Township Manager added that the applicant should also indicate the hours the deck would be used.

On a motion by Garrett, seconded by Boyce, the Commission voted unanimously to table action on the Waiver request until the applicant/owner addresses the use of the proposed deck.

CONSIDER THE WARWICK FARMS FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAN, PREPARED BY MCCARTHY ENGINEERING, DATED 6/11/03 - CONSIDER SEWER MODULE SUBMITTAL: Craig Bonenberger, representing McCarthy Engineering, explained that the tract contains 98 acres of Rural Estate zoned lands and is being developed as a "conservation development". Bonenberger expressed the opinion that most of the outstanding items have been addressed as part of this submittal. The Township Manager explained that a draft of the Conservation Easement Agreement that was submitted does not include a section prohibiting further development of the tract. Bonenberger explained that the draft document is currently being revised to address the issue.

The Township Manager explained that the Municipal Authority’s comments have not been addressed, to date. He explained that the plan proposes to convert the Wade Drive temporary cul-de-sac into a permanent cul-de-sac. He noted that additional right-of-way was acquired to accommodate the proposal. The Township Manager explained that conservation easements will be provided at various locations throughout the site. The plan proposes shared driveways for the lots being created along Ballstown Road. The Township Manager explained that as part of the stormwater management for the individual lots, future property owners will be provided with several options to address stormwater. He added that the applicant has withdrawn the option to allow property owners to install a cistern since the applicant could not ensure adequate capacity of the cistern could be verified. He noted that each option must comply with the Township’s Stormwater Management Ordinance.

Bonenberger addressed the Township Engineer’s August 21, 2003 comment letter.

The Applicant is requesting a Waiver of Section 602.10.C.5 pertaining to roadway frontage improvements. The applicant is requesting consideration of providing a reduced fee in-lieu-of completing the actual construction of required roadway improvements along Ballstown Road. While the entire frontage of the site is required to be improved by the developer, the applicant is requesting the fee amount be based on the actual frontage of Lot 2 through Lot 8 and the minimum required frontage of 150' for Lot1 and Lot 9. The Township Engineer commented that if this approach is determined to be acceptable for this project based on reduction in potential density of the development, the submitted construction cost estimate and reduced fee calculation appears acceptable. Therefore, at the discretion of the Township, action should be rendered on the Waiver request. On a motion by Hohman, seconded by Garrett, the Commission unanimously recommends approval of the Waiver request contingent upon the Township Engineer’s comments being addressed.

The Applicant is requesting a Waiver of Section 603.3.A pertaining to curbs. The plans have been revised to illustrate that the temporary cul-de-sac at the terminus of Wade Drive meets the dimensional requirements for a permanent cul-de-sac. The applicant has indicated that they are discussing the potential of dedicating the easement around the bulb as a permanent part of the right-of-way with the owners of the adjacent property. It is the applicant’s opinion that the function of the existing Wade Drive cul-de-sac will not be enhanced by the addition of curbing around the bulb. The Township Engineer commented that the addition of curbing in this area would, however, disturb additional area outside the right-of-way of Wade Drive as being negotiated with the property owners. Based on the lack of enhanced performance and the additional disturbance, the applicant is requesting the requirement to provide curbing in this area be waived. Based on discussions between the Township and the developer curb may not be required along the permanent cul-de-sac. However, the approval of the Waiver is at the discretion of the Township. On a motion by Garrett, seconded by Boyce, the Commission unanimously recommends approval of the waive request contingent upon the Township Engineer’s comments being addressed.

Bonenberger stated that the Township Engineer commented that the proposed swale along Ballstown Road should be 14' from the center of the roadway to accommodate future road widening. He expressed the opinion that the fee in-lieu-of includes the road widening and additional grading work. He added that as part of the proposal, the bottom of the swale would be 14' from center using a 4' wide swale. The Township Manager explained that the comment would only require the swale to be moved another 4' into the embankment. The Commission briefly discussed the issue.

On a motion by Boyce, seconded by Hohman, the Commission unanimously recommends approval of the Warwick Farms Final Plan contingent upon the Township Engineer’s comments being addressed.

On a motion by Garrett, seconded by Gutshall, the Commission unanimously recommends approval of the Warwick Farms Sewer Module.

CONSIDER THE GARMAN/ZIMMERMAN FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAN, PREPARED BY DIEHM & SONS, DATED 6/26/03: 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 7 through lot 9 would be served by the public sewer system. He noted that public water is not available to this area; therefore, each of the lots would be served by an on-lot well. 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 and Lot 7 received zoning approval for minimum lot frontage and minimum side yard setback. Varner explained that the plan proposes on-lot stormwater management and explained that each lot will infiltrate stormwater from the houses. Varner stated that Lot 3 and Lot 4 will have a shared driveway since the access to Lot 3 would not meet adequate sight distance requirements. The Township Manager explained that the proposal will require submittal of a hydrogeological report in order to verify a potable water source for each of the lots.

On a motion by Hohman, seconded by Boyce, the Commission unanimously recommends approval of the Garman/Zimmerman Final Plan contingent upon the Township Engineer’s comments being addressed.

Varner requested a Waiver of Section 602.10.C.5 pertaining to roadway frontage improvements. The applicant has submitted an Opinion of Probable Cost in support of providing a fee in-lieu-of construction of actual improvements. On a motion by Hohman, seconded by Boyce, the Commission unanimously recommends approval of the Waiver request contingent upon the Township Engineer’s comments being addressed.

CONSIDER THE PUSEY/RAFFENSPERGER TOWNHOUSE PROJECT, PREPARED BY RGS ASSOCIATES, DATED 5/9/03: Chris Venarchick, representing RGS Associates, explained that the plan proposes to modify the Newport Square Plan be replacing 5 single family lots along Balmer Road with 10 townhouse lots. He explained that the proposal was part of the recent Conditional Use hearing for the Newport Square project (the Conditional Use also included modifications to the commercial area). Venarchick explained that the townhouse lots would match the character of the existing townhouse lots located across Balmer Road from this site. He explained that the lots would be accessed via a private alley, owned and maintained by the owner of lot 152 (one of the remaining commercial lots). He noted that lot 152 is only slightly modified as part of the proposal. Venarchick explained that 5 sewer laterals would be added to this area to accommodate the lots.

Venarchick addressed the Township Engineer’s August 13, 2003 comment letter.

The applicant is requesting a Waiver of Section 602.11.B pertaining to intersection separation distances. The Ordinance requires "The distance between the centerline of streets opening onto the opposite sides of existing or proposed streets shall be no less than one hundred fifty feet (150ft)...". This wavier is necessary to allow the creation of Dartmouth Lane as part

of the townhouse design. The intersection of Dartmouth Lane with Chickadee Drive is within ±110 feet of the Balmer Road and Chickadee Drive intersection. As previously indicated within the request, there may be certain physical restraints (existing detention basin and utilities) that prevent locating the Alley intersection with the required separation distance from the Balmer Road and Chickadee Drive intersection. Furthermore, the relatively low traffic volumes associated with the ten (10) residential units does not appear to warrant any concern over the function of the intersection as designed. The Township Engineer commented that since the use/design appears to "mirror" the other alleys within the Village Overlay portion of the site and the anticipated traffic volumes on the alleys should be minor, they recommend approval of the Waiver. On a motion by Garrett, seconded by Hohman, the Commission voted 4-1 to recommend approval of the Waiver request contingent upon the Township Engineer’s comments being addressed. Boyce voted against the motion.

The Applicant is requesting a Waiver of Section 603.3.A pertaining to curbs The applicant's consultant has requested eliminating the requirement to construct concrete curb along Dartmouth Lane (an alley). The reason for this request, as previously identified, is that several other alleys have been created and constructed within Newport Square and they were approved without curb. The Township Engineer commented that the submitted Plans have been revised in accordance with their previous review and suggested conditions. This includes the installation of ''wood bollards" along the edge of the alley where the existing steep slopes lead to the existing detention basin and concrete "curb stops" at each overflow parking space along the alley. Their other suggested conditions have also been incorporated into the revised plans. Therefore, they recommend approval of the Waiver request based on the design provided and indicated on the submitted Plans. On a motion by Hohman, seconded by Garrett, the Commission unanimously recommends approval of the Waiver request contingent upon the Township Engineer’s comments being addressed.

The Applicant is requesting a Waiver of Section 301.3 pertaining to Preliminary Plan application. The applicant's consultant has requested a Waiver of the requirement to submit a Preliminary Plan application based on the "scope of the project"; although the classification of the application and the plan title itself indicates "Preliminary Plan". The Township Engineer commented that this project clearly meets the requirements for processing a Preliminary Plan in that ten (10) new lots are proposed (actually net 5) and a new street (Dartmouth Lane) is proposed as part of the project. Furthermore, utility service will have to be addressed for the new Townhouses, changes to the existing storm water collection/conveyance system are necessary and other changes to the parking/access drives on the adjacent lots are also being proposed. In addition, it does not appear that all the Final Plan requirements (agreements, improvement guarantee, utility notifications, etc.) have been addressed. For these reasons, the Township should further evaluate the merit of the request and take discretionary action accordingly. On a motion by Garrett, seconded by Hohman, the Commission unanimously recommends approval of the Waiver request contingent upon the Township Engineer’s comments being addressed.

The Chairman inquired whether or not the applicant would consider altering the private right-of-way over lot 146 which creates an oddly configured lot. Joel Snyder stated that an easement could be provided instead of the right-of-way in order modify the shape of the lot.

On a motion by Hohman, seconded by Garrett, the Commission voted 4-1 to recommend approval of the Pusey/Raffensperger Townhouse Project contingent upon the Township Engineer’s comments being addressed. Boyce voted against the motion.

DISCUSSION ON THE KELLER REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATES FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAN, PREPARED BY LAKE, ROEDER & ASSOCIATES, DATED 7/7/03: Alan Love, representing Lake, Roeder & Associates, explained that the plan proposes a two lot subdivision. The plan proposes 52 townhouse units on the lot located within Lititz Borough, and illustrates the potential of two commercial office buildings within Warwick Township. He added that the lot within Warwick Township would be retained by the property owner, who does not intend to develop the property at this time.

Love stated that the Lititz Borough Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at their August 5, 2003 meeting. The Lititz Borough Planning Commission inquired how Lot 2 would be developed and recommended the plan be submitted to Warwick Township’s Planning Commission. Love explained that the plan proposes the construction of Keller Drive 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 Keller Drive. He noted that the property within Warwick Township does not have sufficient intersection distance to access Landis Valley Road. The conceptual plan illustrates the extension of Keller Drive to serve the property within Warwick Township. Love explained that Lititz Borough representatives indicated that they would not continue review of the plan until the applicant addresses Lot 2 with Warwick Township representatives. Love explained that the roadway extension could not be constructed without the construction of a retaining wall along the back of the roadway due to the grade of the lot. He expressed the opinion that this option may not be feasible at this time since any future extension of the roadway into the adjoining Gibbel property would require the retaining wall to be removed. Love explained that Keller Drive will be 36' wide when constructed.

Love stated that Raspberry Lane would be extended as an alley to serve the lots. Garrett expressed the opinion that motorists would use Raspberry Lane as a street rather then an alley. Love stated that the applicant is willing to consider alternatives and explained that they have not discussed the issue with Lititz Borough representatives since their representatives wanted the issue discussed with Warwick Township prior to their review of the plan.

Love expressed the opinion that the only way to access Lot 2 is through Keller Drive and requested the Commission’s input on the access to Lot 2 of the proposed plan. The Chairman suggested that the Applicant construct a temporary cul-de-sac bulb (to permanent cul-de-sac standards) at the end of Keller Drive and extend the applicable right-of-way across the Keller property to the Gibbel property in order to provide access in the future, if needed. He explained that the owner of Lot 2 would then be required to submit a Land Development in order to further develop the property. Garrett inquired whether or not the property owner intends to develop Lot 2 without direct access through the Gibbel property to Landis Valley Road. Love stated that he is simply proposing access to Lot 2 through Keller Drive, which could ultimately connect with Landis Valley Road. He noted that Lititz Borough representatives have expressed concern over potential commercial traffic from the Keller property in Warwick Township accessing residential zoned lands in Lititz Borough; however, this tract is currently zoned Community Commercial. He added that the applicant considered extending the townhouse lots into Warwick Township and request a change in zoning; however the small size of the property is not feasible to the construction of townhouse lots. He expressed the opinion that the lot could be developed as a viable commercial office (rather than a retail use) which would not generate a large amount of traffic.

The Township Manager explained that Lititz Borough representatives have requested the Township’s input since the Joint Strategic Plan illustrates the potential extension of a roadway in this area to Landis Valley Road. He noted that the roadway extension could be difficult due to the configuration of the Gibbel property. Gutshall inquired why the cul-de-sac could not terminate at the end of the townhouse units rather than extending it on the adjoining property. Love stated that he will submit a plan illustrating a cul-de-sac at the end of Keller Drive; however, Lititz Borough representatives will not act on any plan until they receive comments from the Warwick Township Planning Commission. He added that the configuration of the cul-de-sac could be further discussed when the formal plan is submitted.

The Township Manager stated that the applicant has cooperated with the Township on the project. The Township Engineer inquired whether or not the applicant attempted to design the potential roadway extension across the Gibbel property to Landis Valley Road. Love stated that since the applicant does not own the property he did not take the Gibbel property into consideration when drafting the conceptual plan. Love explained that he is unable to determine the actual alignment and layout of Lot 2 (which is not proposed for development at this time) to determine the ultimate right-of-way to the Gibbel property.

Gutshall inquired how stormwater will be conveyed. Love outlined the stormwater management facilities that are proposed for the townhouse development.

Love inquired whether not the Commission would be acceptable to a cul-de-sac design that the representatives of Lititz Borough and Warwick Township representatives agree upon at a joint meeting. The Township Manager inquired whether or not commercial properties along South Broad Street (SR 501) could access the proposed roadway extension. Love stated that he would not encourage commercial access to the roadway. He explained that the plan could include a note stating that the owner of Lot 2 would be responsible to construct a right-of-way extension to the Gibbel property that is approved by the Township. The Township Engineer expressed concern that the proposed development will increase traffic problems on Route 501 without providing an alternate means to access other areas. Love stated that he has no control over the Gibbel property. He added that the applicant is agreeable to including a plan note for the Keller property in Warwick Township stating that the developer of Lot 2 would be responsible to provide a roadway extension to the Gibbel property.

The Commission is agreeable to the proposal contingent upon a temporary cul-de-sac being constructed at the end of Keller Drive and upon a plan note stating that the developer of Lot 2 is required to provide a roadway right-of-way in an alignment approved by the Township to the adjoining Gibbel property.

ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Daniel L. Zimmerman
Township Manager