Chairman Thomas Zug convened the October 22, 2003 meeting of Warwick Township Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. Present were Commissioners Thomas Zug, Jane Boyce, John Gazsi, Kelly Gutshall, Daniel Garrett, and Brian Slinskey. John Hohman and Craig Kimmel were absent. In attendance were Township Manager Daniel Zimmerman, Jim Boyer, Mark Johnson, John Schick, Troy Strunk, Kevin Lahn, John Weese, Daryl Weaver, and Heather Larrow.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Planning Commission unanimously approved the minutes of the September 24, 2003 meeting as submitted.

COMMUNICATIONS: The Commission received a copy of the Lititz Planning Commission’s October 7, 2003 meeting minutes.

CONTINUED REVIEW OF THE SHOPPES AT KISSEL VILLAGE REQUEST TO MODIFY CONDITIONAL USE DECISION, PREPARED BY RGS ASSOCIATES, DATED 8/22/03: The Township Manager provided a brief summary on what was discussed at last month’s meeting since only four Commission members were present. He stated that the Public Hearing for the proposal commenced at the Board of Supervisors October 1, 2003 meeting and noted that the public hearing was continued by the Board.

Mark Johnson, representing RGS Associates, provided an overview of the proposal that was presented at last month’s meeting for the benefit of those Commission members that were not present. He explained that the proposal results in a reduction of the overall square footage of the Shopping Center. He stated that a 5,300 "Panera Bread" restaurant is proposed on the remaining outparcel. In addition, a "Starbucks Coffee", "Cold Stone Creamery", and a retail shop would be located within a proposed 6,000 square foot building. He explained that the 6,000 square foot building would be constructed over a portion of the parking area which is rarely used. He noted that the proposal would meet the parking requirements of the Ordinance. Johnson added that traffic was a specific concern expressed by the Commission members at last month’s meeting and noted that the management agency (R.J. Waters & Associates) is in the process of making landscaping changes to improve sight visibility and adding roadway markings and signage to improve traffic patterns.

John Schick, representing RGS Associates, explained that he specifically reviewed traffic patterns at the first entrance from Peters Road (coming from Route 501), and determined that the traffic patterns are not adequately marked for motorists. He stated that the proposal this evening recommends providing additional pavement markings (with arrows) along the length of Peters Road to the entrance, and to modify the striping to clarify traffic lanes. In addition, signage would be installed to provide lane use control. He provided a comparison of the traffic actually generated by the Shopping Center, and the traffic counts that were proposed as part of the original application. He detailed the traffic analysis for the benefit of the Commission and noted that traffic counts are less than originally approved by the Township.

Johnson explained that the 6,000 square foot building is being proposed as part of the shopping center without creating an additional lot. He stated that although an additional lot is not proposed, he is providing a zoning compliance feasibility exhibit illustrating how lot requirements could be addressed. He explained that the building would remain under the ownership of R. J. Waters & Associates. The Township Manager explained that in order to be consistent in review, the applicant has submitted documentation that the proposal could meet zoning requirements. He explained that the "Giant" proposal for gas pumps could not meet zoning requirements due to the proposed layout. In addition, the "Rita’s Italian Ices" proposal, which was approved, provided documentation that the proposal could meet zoning requirements. Johnson explained that the difference between the two proposals is that "Giant" requested a new conditional use and not an amendment to the existing conditional use. In addition, gas pumps were not part of original plan; the plan this evening does not propose any new uses. Johnson explained that the proposed uses would be under the management of R.J. Waters Associates, and the gas pumps would have been under the management of "Giant".

Johnson provided a revised plan that addresses the concerns expressed by the Commission at last month’s meeting. He explained that the revised plan closes off one of the entrances to the Shopping Center in order to direct traffic to the access point across from "McDonald’s". In addition, the drive-through at the "Starbucks" has been redesigned to provide two options for motorists to exit this area of the site. He explained that the exterior seating area in front of the "Starbucks" and ice cream store will be enclosed by a wrought iron fence with flower pots. He noted that the wrought iron fence would have breaks in it so customers can access the stores. Gazsi expressed the opinion that individuals may not want to sit in the seating area since it is so close to parked vehicles. He recommended that four parking spaces be eliminated as part of the proposal in order to improve the seating area. Lahn stated that the parking spaces are provided for convenient access to the stores. Gazsi expressed the opinion that the proposal this evening is an improvement to the previous proposal.

Johnson addressed the Township Engineer’s October 15, 2003 comment letter. The Commission briefly discussed traffic patterns at the site.

DISCUSSION ON THE BUCKHILL FARMS, TROLLEY RUN ROAD SIX (6) LOT SUBDIVISION AND HOSPITALITY BUILDERS, INC. LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN, PREPARED BY RGS ASSOCIATES, DATED 9/1/03: Mark Johnson, representing RGS Associates, explained that the plan proposes a subdivision plan and a land development plan. He noted that he is not requesting action on the plan this evening. He indicated the location of the site for the benefit of the Commission. He explained that the site is identified as lot 3 of a plan that was approved under a previous (1979) Zoning Ordinance. He noted that a Sketch Plan was reviewed for the site approximately 3 years ago which included several Waiver requests. The plan illustrates extending "Trolley Run Road" to Crosswinds Drive. Johnson added that the plan is being presented as part of the previous plan submittal for the site. He noted that a small hotel is proposed on one of the lots. Garrett inquired whether or not the proposed roadway extension was part of the original plan. The Township Manager explained that the roadway extension was not proposed when the original plan was approved. In addition, the Township did not have an official map illustrating the roadway. Subsequently, when Crosswinds, Phase III was approved, the Township met with the property owner (Irel Buckwalter) to advise that the roadway connection was going to be included as part of the Township’s Official Map (which has been adopted by the Township). The Township Manager explained that the property owner maintains that he has vested rights under the 1979 Zoning Ordinance. He stated the Township’s Official Map illustrates a northern extension of Highlands Drive to Spruce Street in Lititz Borough, and the plan being presented eliminates this potential. He suggested that the Commission consider requiring the applicant to provide for this roadway extension. The Commission concurred with the Township Manager’s suggestion. Johnson stated that he will convey the Commission’s comments to the property owner. He added that he will calculate the lot coverage for the proposed land development.

CONSIDER THE DARYL M. WEAVER FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAN, PREPARED BY FISHER ENGINEERING, DATED 7/25/03: John Weese, representing Fisher Engineering, detailed the existing features of the site. He explained that the property owner wishes to subdivide the approximate 6.5 acre tract and create an approximate 3.8 acre flag lot (lot 1 of the plan) and an approximate .5 acre lot which would contain the existing home on the lot. In addition, lands would be added to the existing "Weaver’s Garage" property creating an approximate 2.4 acre lot. The plan proposes an addition to the garage and a proposed access drive extending from Orchard Road. The access drive would also serve the proposed home on lot 1. The proposed access drive to the garage would be created by subdividing a portion of property owned by Norman and Violetta Weaver and conveying it to the garage property. Weese explained that the existing access points along East Newport Road that access the garage would remain as part of this plan. He noted that the existing access to lot 4 has restricted site visibility. He stated that the Applicant received zoning approval to accommodate the proposal on May 14, 2003.

Weese addressed the Township Engineer’s October 15, 2003 comment letter. He stated that several cross-access easement agreements will be required as part of the plan. He added that he is not requesting action by the Commission this evening.

The Applicant is requesting a Waiver of Section 301.3 which states "a preliminary plan is required for all applications which propose new streets, all land development plans... and subdivision plans of ten or more lots." The applicant's consultant has requested a Waiver of the requirement that all land developments or subdivisions that include changes in easements, access drives, right-of-ways or storm water management facilities must submit a preliminary plan. This Waiver request is based on the understanding that a preliminary plan would have to be submitted only due to the proposed access drive and proposed additions to Weaver's Garage. The Township Engineer commented that the applicant indicates that the nature of the proposed additions to an existing building would be minor and the submission of the final subdivision plan would sufficiently address any concerns the Township may have regarding the proposed project, and would include the information required for a preliminary plan. Any action regarding this request to be exempt from the submission of a Preliminary Plan should be based on the Township's discretion. Weese stated that all of the requirements for Preliminary and Final Plans have been incorporated into the plans.

The Applicant is requesting a Waiver of Section 602.10.C, pertaining to improvement of existing streets and intersections. The applicant's consultant has requested a Waiver of the requirement to provide improvements to existing streets and intersections due to the recent improvements completed along Newport Road, Orchard Road and their intersection by the Township. The Township Engineer commented that regardless of the recent improvements made by the Township and the proposed right-of-way, this still does not release the applicant/developer from the requirements set forth by the Ordinance. Although the consultant's response letter did not add any particular information regarding this Waiver, the response to their previous comment B.11 (ELA Group letter dated September 12, 2003) offers construction costs related to the required roadway improvements along the frontage of Lot 2. The estimated cost of $5,600.00 may be offered as fee in-lieu-of actually constructing the required improvements. The Township should evaluate the proposal and the fee amount, which has been based on only the frontage for Lot 2.

The Applicant is requesting a Waiver of Section 602.16.B, pertaining to access drives, cartway width. The applicant's consultant has requested a Waiver of the requirement to provide 24' of width for a two-lane access drive. The Township Engineer commented based on the recommendation of the Township, the applicant proposed a cartway width of 18'. The applicant feels that 18' will provide for adequate travel lanes and will also decrease the amount of impervious surface and reduce the impact of the proposed access drive. Considering the previous recommendation of the Planning Commission, they have no objections to granting the Waiver. Their previous recommendation to provide concrete curb along each return/radius of the access drive at the intersection with Orchard Road has been incorporated into the plans. However, the necessary pavement tapers (at 15:1) from the end of the curb returns to the back to the existing cartway and ending with a one foot wide section (not pointed) has not been provided. The plans should be changed accordingly. The property owner stated that tow truck access would continue from East Newport Road.

The Applicant is requesting a Waiver of Section 602.16.C, pertaining to access drives, setback width. The applicant's consultant has requested a Waiver of the requirement that no structure shall be located within 30' from the cartway edge of an access drive. This request is based on the proposed access drive location being within existing constraints. The Township Engineer commented that the proposed location of the cartway edge will be approximately 5' from the existing garage, however, the applicant will provide macadam curbing along the portion of the access drive adjacent to the garage and bollards at the corners to serve as barriers. Except for the use of macadam curb (Ordinance requires vertical concrete curb), this approach appears acceptable. They have no objections to granting the Waiver considering that the applicant has requested a Waiver of the requirement to provide any curb along the access drive.

The Applicant is requesting a Waiver of Section 602.16.E, 602.11.C, which states "The distance between the centerline of streets intersecting a collector or local street shall be no less than 300' measured along the centerline of the street being intersected." The applicant's consultant has requested a Waiver of this ordinance base on the location being within existing constraints. The proposed access drive is shown 185' from the Newport Road intersection. The applicant's intent of the proposed access drive is to help reduce the amount of traffic from Weaver's Garage directly accessing Newport Road. The Township Engineer commented that they recognize the intent of the proposed access drive to reduce the amount of traffic leaving the existing site access drives entering Newport Road. For this reason, they can support the Waiver request due to the constraints involved in the location of the proposed access drive within the site property limits. As a condition of the Waiver, the Township may want to consider restricting left turns from the access drive to avoid conflicts with vehicles turning off Newport Road (from the western approach) onto Orchard Road at elevated speeds. The Township Manager explained that the property across Orchard Road from the site is currently in the process of being converted to a limited grocery store. He stated that the Commission had previously requested that the developers attempt to align the access points to both of these properties. He stated that due to the depth of the other property, the developers are unable to align these access points; therefore, the access points will be off-set. The Commission briefly discussed the issue.

The Applicant is requesting a Waiver of Section 603.3, which states "curbs shall be provided...along all new parking compounds in land developments." The applicant's consultant has requested this additional Waiver of the requirement to construct vertical concrete curb along the proposed access drive. The Township Engineer commented that while they can acknowledge the intention to allow the sheet flow of drainage, their primary concern is the potential for errant vehicles traveling off the access drive and into the rear of Lot 3 which contains an existing house. The use of curb creates an inherent barrier. There has been no equal or alternative barrier proposed. Furthermore, based on the contour information contained on the plan, it appears that drainage, either sheet flow or the concentrated flow from the end of the proposed macadam curb, will be directed toward the existing house. If the property owners (the applicant and the owner of Lot 3) and the Township can accept these conditions, they have no other concerns related to the elimination of the curb along the access drive.

Weese expressed the opinion that Traffic Impact Study would not be needed as part of the proposal since the addition to the garage would be used for office space and storage (no additional bays). In addition, the proposed dwelling would only add approximately 10 trips per day to the existing traffic.

Weese stated that the Township Engineer commented that the access drive should be clarified in the vicinity of the "proposed additions" to the existing garage. He explained that this area behind the garage would be used to pull vehicles into the garage and added that customers would not use this area. The property owner stated that he intends to place arrows on the ground to direct traffic at the access drive.

Weese stated that the Township Engineer recommended that the Applicant consider eliminating a portion of the driveway for Lot 4 which is located on Lot 1, based on the different uses between the lots (residential and commercial), to aid in the access management efforts along East Newport Road. Weese explained that the Applicant would like to retain the access, and explained that a Shared Access Drive Easement would be provided as part of the plan. The property owner stated that the condition currently exists and customers do not exit the site from this access point.

Weese explained that the issues discussed this evening will be incorporated into the Plan, which will be resubmitted for the Commission’s review.

CONSIDER REQUEST TO MODIFY RETENTION BASIN - FARMINGTON WAY: Jim Boyer, representing David Miller/Associates, provided a brief background on the Farmington Way development. He explained that the 25-lot subdivision received approval in 2001. He stated that the developer would like to modify the bio-retention area which is the main stormwater feature on the site. He explained that the facility was designed for water infiltration for stormwater controls; however, an overflow pipe was provided as part of the design. He explained that due to the increased rainfall this year, more water is held in the basin than originally anticipated. Boyer stated that the developer would like to regulate the permanent water level within the facility. He explained that the plan originally proposed wetlands plantings; however, due to the water levels, the developer is concerned that the area will not grow as intended. He estimated that approximately 6 lots remain to be developed and noted that a full conversion to a bio-retention basin has not occurred since erosion and sedimentation controls remain on the site. The Commission inquired whether or not sedimentation is a problem for the facility. Boyer stated that sedimentation could be an issue; however, they are still unsure how the facility will operate in the future. He explained that they would like to establish a permanent drain that would maintain an elevation 3" above the design invert, which would be controlled by a small-diameter orifice. He explained that the Township Engineer reviewed the proposal and commented that they have no objections to the construction modification. Gutshall inquired whether or not all of the shrubs and trees have been

planted along the perimeter. Boyer explained that final seeding has not occurred, to date. Gutshall expressed the opinion that the developer should wait until the development is completed and monitor the basin before modifying the design. Boyer stated that the property owners have expressed concern over the amount of water within basin since the plan proposed a wetlands area and not a pond. The Township Manager explained that the original capacity of the basin was 18". Boyer explained that the basin was designed to hold water from 2 consecutive 100-year storms. Gazsi stated that if the soil conditions are not appropriate (i.e. sandy soil), the basin will not operate as designed. He expressed the opinion that sedimentation could be a concern in the future since only a 3" level is proposed. He stated that the 3" area could be filled with sedimentation quickly. The Township Manager explained that the Homeowner’s Association was to provide a yearly report on the facility and added that the property owners within the development should have had prior knowledge of the bio-retention facility. He suggested that the developer clarify how the facility will be regulated. He stated that an adjustable intake mechanism be provided as part of the design. On a motion by Garrett, seconded by Gazsi, the Commission voted unanimously to table action on the modification request until the developer submits documentation supported by an expert on the function of the basin. The Commission is in agreement to allow the developer to continue to pump the basin in order to establish the facility.

OTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION: The Township Manager provided an overview of the Market Study that was recently completed for Lititz Borough as part of the Lititz/Warwick Joint Strategic Plan.

ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Daniel L. Zimmerman
Township Manager