HARRIS TOWNSHIP

Planning Commission

Minutes ‑ November 18, 2002

REGULAR MEETING

7:OOPM

MEMBERS PRESENT: Dan Duffy ‑ Chairman, Bob Potter ‑ Vice Chairman, Paul Weener, Ron Buckalew.

OTHERS PRESENT: Thomas Miller ‑ Township Manager, Todd Shea ‑ Township Zoning Officer, Lori Cahill ‑ Secretary; D.J. Liggett ‑ CRPA; Amy Gerber, Dave Gerber - Loop Road; Shannon Hull, Ken Hull, Maria Capparelli - Boalsburg Village Association; Katie Ombalski - Bailey Lane; Paul Painter, Drew Garban, Elaine Kunze, Don Kunze, Cathy Flood - Academy Street; Van Winter, - Boalsburg Fire Company; Mark Torretti - Penn-Terra Engineering; Greg Snipes, Thomas Songer III, Thomas Songer II, Kelliann Foster- Torron Group.

A. CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Duffy called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.

B. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

Upon a motion made by Paul Weener, seconded by Ron Buckalew, the Harris Township Planning Commission moved to approve the minutes of October 21, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting as amended; Ayes ‑ 4, Nays ‑ 0.

C. CITIZEN COMMENT

No comments

D. PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS

1. SPRINGFIELD COMMONS

Chairman Duffy asked Mr. Shea to review the status of Springfield Commons situation.

Mr. Shea stated that staff received the revised Master Plan on Thursday, November 14th @ 4PM and that did not give him or Ms. Liggett time to review the plan.

Mr. Shea stated that the Board of Supervisors approved ordinance number 225 with variations at their meeting, Monday, November 11th summarizing detail. He stated it was consensus of the Board of Supervisors to continue the Public Hearing on the Master Plan at the December 9th meeting.

Chairman Duffy noted there were design changes in the alignment of the Plan and there was a question in the memos from Mr. Shea and Ms. Liggett about setbacks.

Chairman Duffy asked Ms. Foster and Mr. Songer II to review the changes made to the Master Plan.

Mr. Songer also stated the big issue was that of open space and how it is calculated and turned the discussion over to Ms. Foster.

Ms. Foster reviewed how the open space was calculated and summarized the changes that had been made to the plan.

Ms. Foster stated that Springfield Commons would be a pedestrian-oriented community; would not have fee simple lots but would have designated buildable areas where people can build houses. She also stated that the approval of ordinance 225 allows housing to be within 10 feet of each other.

Ms. Foster said they are treating the tract as one lot with individual building areas.

Mr. Songer stated that natural tree rows would be retained along the perimeter of the development.

Chairman Duffy asked why they did not see the setback line on the plan before.

Mr. Songer stated they added it as staff had requested.

Mr. Songer stated within the PRD Ordinance "the development within the PRD shall be clustered" and that the setbacks could be more than 10 feet but 10 feet would be the minimum.

Mr. Weener stated the issue is that land within setbacks cannot be counted as open space.

Mr. Songer stated the linear park on the other plan should be given credit and it should be considered open space.

Mr. Gerber of Loop Road expressed concern about "brush" and the development having a satisfactory area for children to play.

Mr. Songer II stated there would be a complete landscape plan with the final plan submission. He mentioned Ms. Obleski, a Boalsburg resident, would serve as landscaping consultant. They will be planting vegetation native to the area and removing any vegetation not native or invasive.

Mr. Gerber stated the setback plan was good, but he had concern regarding stormwater management and water running off the development.

Mr. Weener directed discussion back to setback issue.

Mr. Weener stated the interpretation from Mr. Shea wipes out what the development is calling open space and it could be a problem that would result in the developer having to redesign the Master Plan.

Chairman Duffy stated the Planning Commission needed to deal with open space.

Mr. Shea stated the definition of buildable areas would need to be made before open space can be identified.

Mr. Shea stated staff would need to see a plan where buildable areas are shown with appropriate setbacks. Staff needs to see buildable areas because houses could be built in different configuration than those on the plan.

Mr. Shea stated there were two meetings discussing roads, one in March/April where it was proposed roads would be private; and the other at the November 7, 2002 meeting where staff requested to see buildable areas on the plan so they could identify open space.

Mr. Shea stated if staff cannot identify open space they cannot make recommendations regarding open space. It is imperative to show the buildable areas on the plan so open space can be determined.

Mr. Shea stated that what the developer claims to be a setback is not what he, Mr. Shea, considers a setback.

Mr. Songer II stated the final design would include building lines and stormwater management, but that he cannot build the PRD if "green space" is removed.

Mr. Shea stated if the setback lines had been on the plan earlier, this would not be an issue now.

Chairman Duffy advised the Planning Commission would need to propose setbacks and separation distances to the Board of Supervisors.

Ms. Foster asked if there would be another setback once they show the buildable areas.

Mr. Shea stated, "No".

Mr. Snipes expressed concern regarding the setback issue.

Mr. Shea stated buildable areas must be marked on the plan and staked out on the property so he could perform inspections.

Mr. Songer II stated all buildable areas would be staked.

Mr. Snipes stated staking the property would be "tricky" due to the slope of the property.

Ms. Foster asked the Planning Commission to direct them on the setback and buildable areas.

Mr. Songer stated they would need to determine the number of feet for the setback.

Chairman Duffy stated the units could have 15 feet between them, meaning the setback for both houses would be 7-1/2 feet each.

Mr. Weener suggested staff and the developer work together to develop a plan the Planning Commission could recommend to the Board of Supervisors.

Ms. Foster asked the Planning Commission to give the developer a sense of where to start.

Chairman Duffy advised that 10 feet was too close for multiple family units and asked Planning Commission members to comment.

Mr. Shea suggested applying 20-foot setbacks.

Chairman Duffy stated that there would need to be at least 20 feet separating the buildings.

Mr. Shea stated 40 feet is the normal requirement separation between walls and buildings.

Chairman Duffy suggested reviewing setbacks for Eagleview Development in Philadelphia area and the differences for Single-family units and multi family units.

Mr. Weener suggested Mr. Shea and Ms. Liggett research if a setback is needed or not and to work with the developer between meetings to develop an agreement.

Ms. Liggett stated she was in agreement with Mr. Shea. The problem was not having enough time to review the Master Plan. If they had more time they could have worked out issues with the developer before the Planning Commission meeting.

Vice Chairman Potter asked what would the required time be to review the plans.

Mr. Shea stated a week is required and two weeks would be helpful to review and put in recommendations.

Upon a motion by Mr. Weener, seconded by Vice Chairman Potter, the Harris Township Planning Commission moved to direct staff to work out what can be defined and what will be accepted as open space and interpret section 5.A.4 to determine what setback areas include and convey that information to the developer; and to work with the developer to clarify issues for the Planning Commission to resolve and show on the plan; Ayes - 4, Nays - 0.

Chairman Duffy advised developer to give staff adequate time to review plan.

Mr. Songer II expressed concern about the Public Hearing on December 9th, asking if the Planning Commission could meet before then.

Mr. Miller stated the purpose of a Public Hearing is to receive information from the public.

Mr. Painter, resident of Academy Street in Boalsburg, expressed concern about the traffic study. He stated the traffic study stated 5% of traffic would be traveling Loop Road, but according to his calculations it was closer to 60%.

Chairman Duffy stated the improvement to Torrey Lane would help by directing traffic to Rt 322 rather than Loop Road.

Ms. Flood, resident on Academy Street in Boalsburg, asked if the report included recommendation for a traffic light at the intersection of Rt 322 and Loop Road.

Chairman Duffy stated it did not.

Mr. Weener stated the problem with traffic on Loop Road could be resolved by a number of options, including a "no right turn" or making it a one-way street.

Mr. Painter stated he would like to see the traffic report reflect the correct numbers.

Mr. Songer stated according to the consultant and based on accident history a light is not needed at that intersection.

Chairman Duffy stated the Planning Commission would need to discuss acquisition of property for Torrey Lane and Rt 322 connection.

Will Norris said he believed Loop Road needed to be left open to accommodate Memorial Day traffic.

Mr. Gerber, Loop Road resident, expressed concern regarding the lack of linkage of the development with Torrey Lane/ Loop Road/ and Rt 322.

Chairman Duffy agreed that a linkage needs to be made and one needs to support the other.

Mr. Weener asked Mr. Miller about the "gentlemen's agreement" between property owners on the corner of Torrey Lane and Loop Road and that a grant had been applied for to assist with the cost of construction of road improvements.

Mr. Miller stated that there is an agreement between parties in concept.

Mr. Miller stated all the parties need to be open minded to various options and involve the Township Engineer in decisions regarding traffic movement.

Mr. Weener agreed that the Township Engineer would need to agree with what will be done. He suggested a time line with alternatives and dates be developed.

Mr. Miller stated a time line could be developed quickly but staff needs to know what direction the development will take before preparing a time line.

Mr. Miller stated that access to Loop Road needs to be improved, but details of what will happen on the tract needs to be developed before plans can be made.

Chairman Duffy asked if the Township Engineer could put together a timeline of activities for road improvement and a listing of options to the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission.

Mr. Miller stated that currently the property needed to gain access to SR0322 is privately owned and there are issues about whether property will be available. If not, the Township will need to come up with a contingency plan.

Chairman Duffy asked who has been negotiating the property issue with the owners.

Mr. Miller stated Mr. Songer and himself, indicating that the property owner had indicated interest in seeing info about compliance with PennDOT regulations and other engineering data before making a decision.

Chairman Duffy asked Mr. Torretti about discussion of property with the car wash owner.

Mr. Torretti stated they are waiting to hear from PennDOT regarding some issues.

It was the consensus of the Planning Commission for Mr. Painter to submit issues with the traffic study to the developer to review with the traffic consultant.

Mr. Songer stated if necessary, he would bring the consultant back from Pittsburgh to review issues.

Ms. Ombalski asked when the Centre County Stormwater Ordinance would be adopted and how it would apply to this development.

Mr. Miller stated it would be adopted in January or February and would go directly to the Board of Supervisors not the Planning Commission. He indicated compliance would likely be voluntary, unless plan submission followed adoption.

By motion of Mr. Weener, seconded by Mr. Buckalew, Planning Commission members recommended that Township staff develop an agreement about areas of responsibility for the connection of Torrey Lane and Boal Avenue to include a time table so development and construction can occur simultaneously; Ayes - 4, Nays - 0.

2. VILLAGE DISTRICT COMMITTEE REPORT

Upon motion by Mr. Buckalew and seconded by Vice Chairman Potter, the Planning Commission moved unanimously to remove the Village District Committee Report from the table; Ayes - 4, Nays - 0.

Chairman Duffy asked Vice Chairman Potter to review the report.

Vice Chairman Potter summarized the Committee's recommendations: (1) Future study committees should be presented with all previous reports; (2) Review Village District Ordinance to find ways to control number and size of businesses with regard to find ways to both control and provide for adequate parking (what is allowed on the lots) for residents and businesses; (3) Studies be made for traffic volume, speed and patterns on Main Street, to be used as baseline for future consideration to justify and design speed control and traffic "calming" (speed bumps were discussed); (4) Initiate discussion with Boalsburg Fire Company and /or Zion Lutheran Church for public parking on their lots; (5) Township and/or Merchants consider leasing or purchasing land for off-street parking (as it becomes available); (6) Enact a Demolition Ordinance to delay demolition or demolition by neglect (came out of discussion of HARB and 1988/1997 reports. Concern is that someone might knock down an existing building and replace it with something not conforming to the Village).

Mr. Hull of Boalsburg Village Merchants and resident of Main Street suggested to the Planning Commission they look at and prioritize the "simple" things first and solve those issues before moving on to the harder issues.

Mr. Hull expressed concern regarding placing more stop signs as this may reduce the number of parking spaces further.

Mr. Hull used the example of people parking in" no parking" areas because there is no other place to park.

Vice Chairman Potter stated that contributing to the parking problem is the size of businesses being too large for the Village, and there is no mechanism in the ordinance to discourage businesses that are too large from locating here.

Chairman Duffy explained that the Planning Commission is an advisory committee to the Board of Supervisors and encouraged residents to work with the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.

There was consensus of the Harris Township Planning Commission to continue discussion of the Village District Committee Report at the December Planning Commission meeting.

E. REPORTS:

Zoning Permits: Permits for October were circulated.

CRPC: Mr. Buckalew reported that the Stormwater Management Workshop will be in the near future and that CRPC is reviewing the Comprehensive Plan, its action items, and suggesting priorities.

Ag Security Area: Ms. Liggett stated they are working with the County on soil evaluation but have been very occupied with Springfield Commons that they really haven't spent much time on other projects at this time.

F. ADJOURNMENT

Upon motion made by Vice Chairman Potter and seconded by Mr. Buckalew, the Planning Commission moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:26PM.

Respectfully Submitted,

_________________________________

Thomas C. Miller, Secretary/Treasurer