Chairman Thomas Zug convened the March 24, 2010 meeting of the Warwick Township Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. Present were Commissioners Thomas Zug, Jane Boyce, John Gazsi, Craig Kimmel, John Hohman, and Brian Slinskey. Daniel Garrett was absent. In attendance were Township Manager Daniel Zimmerman, Christine Wilson, A. Richard Erisman, Tennille Ault, Mike Glass, Ned Pelger, Bruce D. Weinsteiger, Matt Harlow, Ronald C. Achey, Robert Grove, Art & Jane Myers, Joe Minjock and Dave Bosis.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Commission unanimously approved the minutes of the February 24, 2010 meeting as written.

RE-CONSIDER ORDINANCE #244 TO ESTABLISH THE LOCAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT (LC), SPECIFIC TO THE THREE TRACTS BEING RE-CLASSIFIED FROM R-1 RESIDENTIAL TO THE NEW LC: The Township Manager explained that the Commission reviewed the proposed Ordinance on several occasions, and provided recommendations to the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on February 24, 2010. He stated that the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on the proposed Ordinance #244 establishing the Local Commercial District (LC) on Wednesday, March 17, 2010. During the hearing, the Board heard a number of comments pertaining to the changing of three tracts from R-1 Residential (R-1) to LC. The tracts in question are the Barbara Walter property, Samuel High property and the Ronald Achey property. Several adjacent property owners expressed concern about the need to expand the commercial zoning district. The Township Manager explained that the Board tabled action on the Ordinance and requested that the Warwick Township Planning Commission and Lancaster County Planning Commission review the action to change the zoning of the three identified tracts. He detailed the location of the three tracts for the benefit of those present. The Township Manager explained that residents in the area did not want additional commercially zoned property encroaching into the residential areas (due to increased truck traffic, outdoor lighting, etc.). He noted that residents did not have many comments regarding the actual text of the LC zoning district. He explained that the Commission has several options to address the issues raised by the potential rezoning. The first option is to drop the proposed properties being rezoned from R-1 to LC. The affected property owners would still have the right to petition to rezone their respective properties if they wish. The Township Manager stated that none of the residential properties proposed for LC zoning have specific commercial uses proposed for consideration. He explained that the second option is for the Commission to provide the same recommendation that would include these residentially zoned properties. He noted that a third option would be to recommend consideration for one or two of the affected residential properties to be rezoned as originally proposed.

Ronald Achey, 927 Lititz Pike, explained that he owns several commercially zoned tracts along SR 501 that are proposed for rezoning to LC. In addition, his approximate 1.9 acre property, which is zoned R-1, is one of those proposed to be rezoned to LC. He noted that the residential tract has no roadway frontage. He explained that he owns two residentially zoned properties along East Woods Drive (12 & 14 E. Woods Dr.) that adjoin this tract. He explained that some of his tracts along SR 501 are nonconforming due to their small size. The Chairman explained that Achey could add the tract to his existing residentially zoned tracts in order to provide roadway frontage. The Township Manager explained that the proposal would require removal of one of the existing homes.

The Chairman inquired whether anyone present wishes to comment on the proposal.

Richard Erisman, 17 East Woods Drive, expressed the opinion that certain uses allowed within the proposed LC zone do not belong in a residential area. He added that the proposal causes the commercially zoned area to encroach farther into the residential zone.

Christine Wilson, 19 East Woods Drive, stated that she is also concerned about the commercial zone increasing closer to the residential properties in this area. She expressed the opinion that this commercial area will change the character of the neighborhood and adversely affect their property values.

Wilson stated that they are aware of the existing commercially zoned properties and that the intent of the Ordinance is to minimize uses in this area; however, the proposed rezoning of residential properties would place commercial uses in close proximity to their back yard. She added that the proposed uses would still allow the noise, lights and traffic that are associated with these commercial uses.

Art Myers, 18 Owl Hill Road, stated that his property accesses Owl Hill Road. He explained that his property is across from the access at Stauffer’s of Kissel Hill (SKH). He explained that there are several accesses along Owl Hill Road, including the gas station, Burger King, and several homes, in addition to the access at SKH where18-wheel trucks leave the property 24-hours per day. He stated that it is getting difficult for him to pull out of his driveway due to traffic. He stated that the addition of more commercially zoned properties will create even more traffic along the roadway. He expressed concern over noise and light pollution that could be created by additional commercial uses in this area. He stated that the area behind him has wildlife and wetlands, and he is concerned about the impact of commercial uses in this area.

Joe Minjock, 103 New Haven Drive, stated that wetlands exist in the area referenced by Myers. He stated that stormwater does not runoff adequately due, in part, to the inlet being covered by snow in the winter, and leaves in autumn. He stated that he has had 8" of water in his basement during heavy rains when stormwater does not flow properly. He added that he is concerned about the potential rezoning of the High tract behind his property. He explained that although it is not proposed to be rezoned at this time, the property owner has stated that he would like the Township to consider rezoning the tract to R-2. Minjock stated that this zoning would provide for a townhouse development that would add more traffic to Owl Hill Road. In addition, high density townhouses exist on SR 501 (in Manheim Township) that includes low-income housing and the area experiences break-ins.

The Township Manager stated that the concerns expressed this evening support the elimination of the residentially zoned tracts from the LC zone proposal. He added that this would require the specific property owners to submit independent rezoning petitions for their respective tracts. At that time, Township staff could request more information about specific proposals for commercial uses on the properties (such as wetlands delineation, floodplain study, traffic study, etc.).

Achey stated that he would simply add his land-locked property to the existing commercially zoned properties along SR 501. He added that he is aware of the wildlife on the land and he does not intend to develop the property.

On a motion by Hohman, seconded by Kimmel, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the residentially zoned properties that were proposed as part of the LC zone retain their residential zoning, and the respective property owners could submit a rezoning petition with additional information if they want the Township to further consider the issue.

BRIEF DISCUSSION ON SOLAR INITIATIVE AT NEWPORT SQUARE: Matt Harlow, ELA Group (State College, PA), stated that he is present this evening to represent the solar initiative. He provided a background on the solar energy process for the benefit of those present. He provided several designs of carport structures that incorporate solar panels. He explained that the Newport Square initiative would involve removing the existing garage structures and replacing them with the solar carport structures. He added that the proposal also includes placing arrays in the detention basin. He explained that solar panels would also be installed on the roof of the office where the developer (Mike Glass) has his office, and a play structure within the development. Harlow explained that the solar panels on the carports would be approximately 40"x60" with a 1" gap between each of the panels. He noted that the carport would still provide protection from sun and rain. A Commission member stated that the 1" gap would allow roof water to sheetflow from the roof and into the carports and possibly on someone’s vehicle. Ned Pelger stated that in his review of the literature on carports, he has not heard of anyone complaining about the issue. Harlow stated that the carports would have a flat roof.

Boyce inquired how the electricity generated by the solar panels will be used. Glass stated that the electricity will go to the distribution lines along Newport Road. Pelger stated that the proposal would result in 2 mega watts of energy, and noted that the development is near an electric substation. Glass explained that they would be required to maintain the solar panel structures. A Commission member inquired what is the benefit to the tenants that live in the development. Glass responded that they would have covered parking in areas where it might not otherwise be provided. In addition, tenants would not have to pay a monthly fee to park under the carports. A Commission member noted that the tenants would not benefit directly from the solar panels and inquired whether they are aware of the proposal. Glass stated that the proposal will require a Conditional Use hearing.

The Township Manager explained that Township staff reviewed the initial proposal since it proposes a hybrid of uses. He explained that if Glass wanted to construct carports within the development, it would require submittal of a minor land development plan. He added that the proposal is combined with solar panels that create the roof structure for the carports, and noted that the proposal has a commercial element since electricity would be produced by these solar panels. He explained that the development received approval as a Village Overlay, which permits commercial uses. He stated that the proposal would require a modification to the Conditional Use approval and would require the property to be posted, and a public hearing to be held. Glass explained that the information would also be posted on their website; however, he wanted to present the information to the Commission first.

The Commission members briefly discussed the aesthetics of the solar panels. They encouraged the developer to consider the view from the upper levels of the rental units in addition to the view from the roadway. Gazsi inquired how snow affects the panels, since the roofs would be flat. Pelger explained that another business in the Township has solar panels on their roof, and acknowledged that during a heavy snowstorm like the area experienced in February, the panels generate less electricity until the snow melts from the roof. He noted that the number of panels that were originally proposed was much greater and incorporated the area of the walking trail. He explained that Glass did not want the panels in these other areas since they would affect the overall aesthetics of the development. He explained that the only area affected other then the parking / carport area, is the play area, where children might appreciate the shade, and the detention basin.

A Commission member inquired how the energy converters would be incorporated into the design. Pelger explained that each individual array connects to a small converter, and the area near the PPL pole would have a larger converter. Gazsi stated that he would like to see the overall plan for aesthetic purposes, since it would affect the location of trees, which would create shade over the panels. Harlow explained that most of the landscaped areas within the parking lots would be retained. Pelger explained that the panels would be 14' high in order to accommodate emergency vehicles. He noted that he would prefer to have the panels only 10' high which would reduce the cost. He requested the Commission’s opinion on the height, since the travel lanes would still be sufficiently wide to accommodate emergency vehicles. The Commission members agreed that the aesthetics would improve if the carports were lowered to 10' high, and the proposal does not appear to hinder emergency vehicles by the carports. They noted that pavement markings could be added to ensure that the travel lanes are not impeded by the cantilevered panels.

ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Daniel L. Zimmerman
Township Manager