HARRIS TOWNSHIP
Planning Commission
Minutes – January 14, 2002
7:00PM
REGULAR MEETING
Others Present: Tom Miller -
Township Manager; Todd Shea - Township Zoning & Ordinance Officer; Lori
Cahill - Secretary; Bob Crum, D.J. Liggett - CRPA.
A. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Weener called the meeting to order
at 7:03 p.m.
B. APPROVAL
OF THE MINUTES
Vice-Chairman
Buckalew moved to approve the minutes with corrections. Mr. Duffy seconded the motion: Ayes - 7,
Nays - 0.
Chairman
Weener asked Mr. Crum to introduce D.J. Liggett who will be serving as the new
Harris Township Planner. She will be replacing Mr. Crum due to the change in
personnel at CRPA and Mr. Crum's promotion of Interim Director for CRPA.
Chairman
Weener, Mr. Potter and Ms. Kresen acknowledged appreciation for Mr. Crum's
dedication and professionalism with the Planning Commission.
1. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Chairman
Weener opened by stating that a nominating committee was appointed at the last
meeting.
Ms.
Kresen stated that she wishes not to serve on the nominating committee again.
Ms.
Kresen stated that Mr. Duffy and Mr. Potter have agreed to accept the
responsibilities of Chairman and Vice‑ Chairman.
Chairman
Weener stated that he did not want to be chair this year. He added that he
planned to spend a lot of time working to make sure the Township does not end
up with new super highway in their backyard.
Chairman
Weener stated he was pleased to have Mr. Duffy and Mr. Potter take over the
leadership on the Planning Commission.
Chairman
Weener stated that tradition was that the Vice‑Chairman went to Centre
Region for meetings but the Supervisors appointed Mr. Buckalew at the last
meeting and he will be continuing in that appointment.
Chairman
Weener asked if there were any other nominations for Chair and Vice‑Chair;
with there being none, Chairman Weener closed nominations.
Upon
a motion made by Ms. Kresen, seconded by Mr. Benner and carried unanimously,
the Planning Commission moved to elect Mr. Duffy as Chairman and Mr. Potter as
Vice‑Chairman. Ayes ‑ 7; Nays ‑ 0.
Chairman
Weener exchanged seats and relinquished position of the Chair to Mr. Duffy.
Ms.
Kresen moved to end meetings no later than 10:15 PM and that time sensitive
issues are placed in the earlier part of the meeting.
Chairman
Duffy acknowledged the motion as a reasonable request adding that it is
important for everyone to work in a "collaborative agreement" in
reviewing issues.
Upon
a motion made by Vice‑Chairman Potter, seconded by Chairman Duffy and
carried unanimously, the Planning Commission moved to place special
appreciation to Mr. Weener in the minutes for acting as Chairman for the past
10 years. Ayes ‑ 7; Nays ‑ 0.
Upon
a motion made by Vice-Chairman Potter, seconded by Chairman Duffy and carried
unanimously, the Planning Commission moved to acknowledge the contribution of
Paul Weener and Ron Buckalew to Harris Township and the Harris Township
Planning Commission. Ayes ‑ 7; Nays ‑ 0.
2. CORRIDOR
OVERLAY DISTRICT ORDINANCE.
Chairman Duffy
stated that there was discussion with Mr. Crum in the past regarding the Corridor
Overlay District Ordinance and asked Mr. Crum to review the changes proposed
for the Ordinance.
Mr. Crum
encouraged the Planning Commission to make recommendation to the Board of
Supervisors regarding consideration of the Ordinance, holding a Public Hearing,
and eventual adoption.
Mr. Crum stated
that the major changes to the Ordinance are:
a. Section 10. Corridor Overlay District.
The following
regulations shall apply to all properties located within 660 feet of the
centerline of the rights-of‑way of SR 0322 and SR 0045 within the
boundaries of Harris Township, as illustrated on the Harris Township Zoning
Map. The Corridor 0verlay District (COD) regulations shall apply to all
development activities that occur within the designated area. All site plans,
subdivision plans, and land development plans submitted to the Township for
review and approval, whether for residential or non‑residential
development, shall be required to address the regulations contained in this
Section.
Mr. Crum said
that currently the Ordinance states the requirements in the Corridor Overlay
District apply to all land development plans submitted to Harris Township. The
development does not arise to the level of the land development plan if only a
site plan is required or a minor sub‑division, those developers are
required to meet the Corridor Overlay District regulations. Mr. Crum used the new Car Wash as an
example, stating they did a good job with architecture but there are no trees
in the front and the Township could not apply the Ordinance to that plan.
b. 10.1 Traffic Impacts.
Mr. Crum pointed
out that currently the Ordinance states the traffic impact study shall be
required for land development plans along the highways. The definition has been
"broadened" to state:
A
traffic impact study shall be submitted for all plans, as described above,
within the COD. Prior to completion of the traffic study, the applicant shall
provide a Copy of the plan to the Centre Regional Planning Agency (CRPA), the
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT), and Township staff to
allow these entities to identify an acceptable scope of work for the study. The
recommendations of CRPA and PennDOT shall be considered prior to plan approval.
c. 10.3.2
Landscape Islands
Mr.
Crum stated the current Ordinance allows landscape islands in off-street
parking lots but it doesn't require anything to be planted. The revision
requires a landscape island after every ten (10) parking spaces and each will
contain two (2) shade canopy trees. The revision states:
Raised
landscape islands shall be installed within all off‑street parking areas
in the COD. One (1) raised island shall be required after every ten (10)
parking spaces. Each landscape island shall be equal to the length and width of
a standard parking space and shall contain two (2) canopy shade trees a minimum
of 2½-inch caliper measured twelve (12) inches above ground level.
d. 10.3.3 Tree Preservation
Mr.
Crum stated all developers in the Corridor Overlay District are required to
inventory all existing trees noting the location and size of any tree larger
than six (6) inch caliper in size measuring twelve (12) inches above ground.
The revised paragraph states:
An
inventory of existing trees shall be provided with all plans for development
within the COD showing the location, size, and type of trees larger than six
(6) inch caliper measured twelve (12) inches above the ground. All such trees
shall be preserved and shall be removed only with the authorization of the
Board of Supervisors. If site characteristics prohibit the preservation of
existing trees, any trees removed above this standard must be replaced with
trees not less than one‑third (1/3) the size of the trees to be removed.
Mr.
Weener stated the Township couldn't prevent someone from removing trees from
their property prior to development.
Mr.
Weener stated the Township could require the developers to keep more trees than
is required under 10.3.1 ‑ Buffer Yards.
10.3.3 ‑ Tree Preservation states nothing can be cut down, which
means the Township requires them to have more trees than in the Buffer Yard.
Mr.
Weener suggested requiring developers preserve at least as many trees as are
required by the Buffer Yard clause.
Mr.
Crum stated the Ordinance requires that the developers identify larger trees
and consider them in their design. If developers cannot design around the
trees, they would need to present their plan to the Supervisors to get
permission to cut tree(s) down.
Mr.
Crum stated that Mr. Weener's suggestion could be included by adding a clause.
Mr.
Weener's suggestion was to add the phrase, "...be required to preserve at
least as many as are required by the Buffer Yard clause (10.3.1).
Ms.
Kresen suggested the wording to say the developers shall be permitted to argue
removal of trees.
Mr.
Shea suggested the wording might say, after the tree inventory of 6-inch
diameter trees is completed, the developer shall find a way to preserve at
least 50% of those trees.
Ms. Berkey stated percentage could vary
depending upon the site.
Ms. Berkey also stated that legally, the
developers could move any trees.
Vice‑Chairman
Potter stated that the tree issue should be a "Supervisor" priority.
Chairman
Duffy suggested that the process of having the Supervisors authorizing removal
of trees would allow the developers to present any concerns regarding site
characteristics to the Board of Supervisors. The application to the Board of
Supervisors could include an opportunity for the developers to discuss the site
characteristics requiring the removal of certain trees.
Ms.
Kresen recommended replacing the words "must be replaced" to
"shall be replaced" to make it mandatory.
Ms.
Berkey stated that the definition should include the word "caliper"
in the sentence "Any trees removed ...not less than one‑third 1/3
the caliper size..." and to add "with a maximum of 3 inches", at
the end of the sentence.
Mr.
Weener moved to the revise statement to, "An inventory of existing trees
shall be provided with all plans for development within the COD showing the
location, size, and type of trees larger than six (6) inch caliper measured
twelve (12) inches above the ground. All such trees shall be preserved, unless
site characteristics prohibit the preservation of existing trees. Any trees
removed above this standard shall be replaced with trees not less than one‑third
(1/3) the caliper size of the trees to be removed with a maximum of three
inches." Seconded by Ms. Kresen, motion passed unanimously, Ayes ‑
7; Nay ‑ 0.
e. 10.4 Design Requirements
Mr.
Crum highlighted the change in the Ordinance to read, "all portions and
sides of building within the COD that have walls visible from the street shall
use the same material as the front of the store".
The
revised paragraph states:
All portions and sides of buildings located
within the COD area that have walls visible from a street within the COD shall
be surfaced with the same and/or compatible materials as are used on the
designated fronts of the buildings. Site plan elevation drawings shall be
required for all visible surfaces and shall include a description of the
exterior surface building materials. All rooftop mechanical systems shall be
screened by fencing or other means.
Consensus
of Planning Commission was to keep definition as is.
f. 10.5.2 under Lighting (10.5)
Mr.
Crum stated that the Board of Supervisors has expressed concern about the use
of canopy signs.
Mr.
Crum proposed the illuminated signs within the COD to be required to be part of
the Townships lighting regulations.
Mr.
Crum also stated that backlit awnings and canopies within the COD that contain
advertisement would he considered signs.
The
revised paragraph states:
Illuminated signs within the COD shall comply
with the Township's lighting regulations contained in Section 6. Backlit
awnings and canopies within the COD that contain any advertisements shall be
considered signs and shall be subject to the requirements of Chapter 12,
Article XIV of the Harris Township Ordinance.
Mr.
Shea stated that 200 square feet of sign area is allowed on the property, but
the biggest size per sign allowed is 50 square feet.
Chairman Duffy raised legality of enforcing
language regarding trademark colors on canopies and awnings.
Mr.
Shea stated that any language changed regarding trademark colors would also
need to be changed in the sign ordinance and also would need to be reviewed by
the Township Solicitor.
Mr.
Shea advised the Township to look into what other municipalities do to enforce
their ordinances regarding this issue.
Mr.
Weener stared he would be in favor of wording the Ordinance as stringently us
possible.
Ms.
Kresen asked if the discussion was about canopies that do not have words.
Mr.
Crum stated yes, using an example of Sheets; if a canopy were backlit with the
trademark orange color, it would regulated as a sign.
Mr.
Shea stated the Township might have to decide what the definition of sign is,
to include trademark colors.
Mr.
Crum stated that businesses could still use backlit signs up to 200 square feet
per property.
Mr.
Weener raised the question, "if they keep to the 200 feet, should the
Township care what the color is?"
Ms.
Berkey stated she feels the issue is the size, not so much the color.
Ms.
Berkey also suggested that to keep a business from using a trademark color in
the Township that they use throughout the company would not be fair.
Ms.
Kresen stated they could use the color in Harris Township, but they could not
put several signs up on the property going over the 200 square feet, because
the trademark color of the business would be considered as signs.
Mr.
Shea stated that it would be a "zoning nightmare" to try to enforce
where a panel would stop or start. The Township will need to clearly define how
much of the panel would be considered a sign.
Mr.
Shea also stated he is not sure how to make that determination.
Chairman
Duffy asked Mr. Shea how he does it now.
Mr.
Shea stated that he would look at the canopy and would take the smallest
rectangle or circle that would encompass the wording, advertisement, or symbol
and that would be the sign. The business could light up the whole canopy
internally, but the only area the Township would consider is the part that
mentioned the business name.
Mr.
Shea also stated that the Township would need to determine the definition of
what backlit is.
Mr.
Weener questioned whether the Township could legally define the backlit canopy
without any writing on it.
Mr.
Crum stated the Borough has a definition of the backlit canopy and would obtain
a copy for the Township to review.
Mr.
Weener moved to change the section on lighting to read, "Backlit awnings
and canopies within the COD shall be considered signs and shall be subject to
the requirements..."
Mr.
Buckalew seconded the motion.
Chairman
Duffy asked for a motion to remove the phrase under 10.5.2 that states,
"...that contain any advertisement..."
The
paragraph would then read:
Illuminated signs within the COD shall comply
with the Township's lighting regulations contained in Section 6. Backlit
awnings and canopies within the COD shall be considered signs and shall be
subject to the requirements of Chapter 12, Article XIV of the Harris Township
Ordinance.
Mr.
Crum advised the Planning Commission to direct Staff to make the change and
provide a definition of Backlit Canopy and Awnings.
Mr.
Weener amended his motion to direct Staff to change clause 10.5.2 to read,
"Illuminated signs within the COD shall comply with the Township's
lighting regulations contained in Section 6. Backlit awnings and canopies
within, the COD shall be considered signs and shall be subject to the
requirements of Chapter 12, Article XIV of the Harris Township Ordinance"
and to provide definitions for Backlit Canopy and Awnings. Seconded by Mr.
Buckalew the motion passed unanimously, Ayes‑7, Nays-0.
10.6
Pedestrian and Bicycle Access
Chairman
Duffy stated he would support a master plan for Pedestrian and Bicycle Access.
Chairman
Duffy also stated that large roads tend to divide communities and that it is
important to connect communities with pedestrian and bike paths to allow
communities to draw together in the Township.
Mr.
Crum said new wording would read:
"The Township shall require
pedestrian/bicycle sidewalks or paths along and through properties within the
COD. Prior to submission of a plan, the applicant shall provide a written
request to the CRPA requesting input on pedestrian/bicycle facilities on‑site.
If access to an adjacent pedestrian way or bikeway is required, the paved
connection shall be not less than ten (10) feet in width. In addition, parking
lots within the COD shall be designed to promote safe separation of pedestrian
and vehicular traffic."
Ms.
Kresen asked if the Township had an ordinance that would not allow bikes on
sidewalks.
Mr.
Shea stated there was no local ordinance that stated such.
Mr.
Weaver suggested not encouraging bike paths next to major highways.
Chairman
Duffy suggested having the pedestrian paths along highways, but making the bike
paths further away from the road.
Chairman
Duffy asked Mr. Crum what state mandate, if any, there is for providing
sufficient shoulder for bike riding along with traffic.
Mr.
Crum stated there is none.
Upon
a motion made by Mr. Weener, seconded by Ms. Berkey and carried unanimously,
the Planning Commission moved to keep the wording as recommended. Ayes ‑
7; Nays ‑ 0.
3. STREET STANDARDS REVISION
Mr.
Shea introduced to the Planning Commission the latest draft of the Township's
Street Standards.
Mr.,
Shea stated that Section 2.22 is being revised to add loop lanes and Centre
Region Fire Protection Committee's sewer and water supply recommendations
regarding cul‑de‑sacs.
Mr.
Crum reviewed parts of the Centre Region Fire Protection Committee Report with
the Planning Commission.
Mr.
Crum stated that the committee recommends the cartway width to be 20 feet for
all public and private streets that are curbed.
Mr.
Crum also stated that the committee recommends non‑curbed cartways can be
a minimum of 18 feet if the adjacent berms are stabilized and mud‑free.
Mr.
Crum reviewed cul-de-sacs with the Planning Commission.
Mr.
Crum stated that the Fire Protection Committee recommends the standard of a cul‑de‑sac
to be a maximum length of 750 feet. He also stated the cul‑de‑sac
length could be extended to 1,500 feet if each home along the cul‑de‑sac
had residential sprinkler systems.
Mr.
Shea stated the Township allowed cul-de‑sacs to be 1,000 feet in length,
but could exceed 1,000 feet in length under certain conditions set in the
ordinance.
Mr.
Shea stated regarding the street width, it would need to be mentioned in the
Fire Report what the width of the stabilizer would be.
Mr.
Crum stated the Fire Protection Committee is recommending public und private
roads have a minimum of 18 foot paved cartway.
Mr.
Weener asked Mr. Crum if, for example, two houses were on a private road that
was 1,500 feet long, the owners would have to pave their own road.
Mr.
Crum stared under this recommendation they would.
Ms.
Kresen stated concern about the financial burden that would be placed upon
homeowners to have to pave their private roads.
Upon
a motion made by Mr. Weener, seconded by Mr. Buckalew and carried unanimously,
the Planning Commission moved to recommend to the Board of Supervisors to pass
the Loop Lane Standards requiring sidewalks and to have the change of lane
width from 16 feet to a minimum of 18 feet added to Street Standards Ordinance
as is in Street Standards Revision 2.24, and hold on fire protection discussion
at this time. Ayes ‑ 7; Nays ‑
0
E. REPORTS:
Zoning Permits:
November Permits were circulated. There were no Permits for December.
CRPC:
Mr.
Buckalew reported that Planning Director Bob Bini would be taking a position in
Washington and Mr. Crum will be the interim CRPA director.
Ed
Poprik, SCASD Director of Physical Plant, did a presentation regarding the
School District's Master Plan, which includes proposals whereby the District
may be selling some schools, such as Boalsburg Elementary, and combining their
students with those of another school, such as Panorama Village Elementary. The
changes, renovations, and upgrades being considered are incorporated in two
main options each of which entails a local investment of about $100,000,000.00. Crucial elements involve
the use and fate of Memorial Field and what may happen with the Nittany Avenue
building and the Fairmount Avenue School for the Delta program and the District
Central Offices.
Two reports dealt
with the Centre Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (CRMPO), which
oversees federal and state highway funding and related planning and on wh.i.ch
Mr. Buckalew serves as the CRPC representative. All funding agreements between
PennDOT and the CRMPO must be approved by the CRPC.
Mr. Zilla
reported on the status of the CRMPO 2001-02 Unified Planning Work Program,
particularly the work being done on preparing a new Transportation Improvement
Program for 2003‑2006.
Mr. Bini reported
on the CRMPO Expansion Proposal, which is currently being considered by the MPO
and all the municipalities of Centre County.
The present MPO has voting members from the six Centre Region municipalities
and the University, plus Bellefonte Borough, and Benner and Spring Townships.
Also represented are PennDOT (2), the County Commissioners, CATA, and the CRPC.
The MPO has been mandated to consider becoming countywide, since the 27 other
county municipalities must become part of our MPO or be attached to the 11‑county
CEDA‑COG based in Lewisburg. Since the MPO has been working with the
Centre Counter Planning Office as a de facto county organization for the last
few years and PennDOT prefers to distribute its funding on a county‑wide
basis, a county‑wide MPO would seem a natural scenario, but how best to
achieve this change, given the disparities in population and needs and
political interests, has become a hot issue, especially with tightening funding
and issues such as the SCCCTS in which Harris Township plays a major role. The
current proposal would add six new voting members to the present fifteen, and
for the time being the County would provide the necessary additional funding
for the parts of the county not already in the MPO. Secretary/Treasurer
Village District Study Committee: Vice‑Chairman
Potter reported that the Committee would reconvene on January 15, 2002 to
discuss traffic and parking, examine a system for review or approval for design
use of scale of properties in the village. There are conflicts involving
parking regarding what is allowed and what is not allowed. The scale of
businesses moving in some areas where not realized when the Village District
was set up, are having difficult with parking for employees and clients. The
committee will also examine the possibility of HARB, Historic Architect Review
Board.
F. ADJOURNMENT.
Vice‑Chairman Potter moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by
Mr. Buckalew. Chairman Duffy adjourned the meeting at 9:34P.M.
Respectfully Submitted,
Thomas C. Miller
Secretary/Treasurer