HARRIS TOWNSHIP

Planning Commission

Minutes ‑ October 21, 2002

REGULAR MEETING

7:OOPM

MEMBERS PRESENT: Dan Duffy ‑ Chairman, Bob Potter ‑ Vice Chairman, Paul Weener, Ed Benner, Ron Buckalew, Mary Ann Kresen, Lisa Berkey.

OTHERS PRESENT: Thomas Miller ‑ Township Manager, Todd Shea ‑ Township Zoning Officer, Lori Cahill ‑ Secretary; D.J. Liggett ‑ CRPA; Van Winter, Chris Dry ‑ Boalsburg Fire Company; Mark Torretti - Penn-Terra Engineering; Greg Snipe, Thomas Songer III - GTW Associates; Ken and Shannon Hull, M. Capparelli, Chuck Hacker - Boalsburg Village Merchants.

A. CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Duffy called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.

B. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

Upon a motion made by Ron Buckalew, seconded by Paul Weener, the Harris Township Planning Commission moved to approve the minutes of September 16, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting as amended; Ayes ‑ 6, Nays ‑ 0.

C. CITIZEN COMMENT

No comments

D. PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS

1. SPRINGFIELD COMMONS

Chairman Duffy asked Mr. Miller for a review of the Springfield Commons situation.

Mr. Miller stated that at September's meeting there were requests to the Planning Commission for changes to the PRD Ordinance. Mr. Songer met with Mr. Miller and Mr. Shea and decided to change some of his requests, which went before the Board of Supervisors at the October 14th meeting. The Board of Supervisors reviewed Mr. Songer's memo of October 2nd and referred it back to the Planning Commission for comment and directed staff to prepare an Ordinance for consideration at the November 11th Board of Supervisors meeting. The Board indicated they did not have specific opposition to the proposal as a request for change.

Mr. Miller stated that the request, which is different than what the Planning Commission reviewed at the September meeting, has been put before them at this meeting for review.

Chairman Duffy asked Mr. Shea if he had anything to add.

Mr. Shea stated that at the September Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the Master Plan and the memo Mr. Shea provided stating the "deficiencies" of the Plan.

Mr. Shea stated he and Ms. Liggett met with Mr. Toretti of Penn-Terra on Monday, October 21st, to review the revised version of the Master Plan.

Mr. Shea stated most comments in his memo were addressed and changes had been made to the Master Plan.

Chairman Duffy stated there were questions at September's meeting regarding open space and whether woodlands could count as part of the percentage of usable open space.

Mr. Shea stated there was no objection to allowing woodlands for usable open space, but after speaking to Ms. Liggett and members of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee, it was decided that parameters should be used in what could be usable parkland. There should be a cap on the amount of woodlands to be considered for usable parkland or the woodlands would need to be improved in some way with trails, etc., to count as usable area.

Chairman Duffy stated this is the first PRD proposed in the Township and it would be "natural" for the Planning Commission to make changes to make it workable for a development close to the Village.

Mr. Shea cautioned the Planning Commission not to make changes just for the sake of changing.

Ms. Liggett stated that when the developer makes a request for amendments in the PRD, he is looking at his particular development.

Mr. Toretti gave a presentation of changes made to the Master Plan Map. He highlighted items such as putting a temporary turnaround on the Weaver property and changes made to the "Look-Out" area.

Mr. Toretti stated the plan is divided into two (2) sections and two (2) phases in each section. The first section, phase one (1) includes the development of the upper bike path - .74 acres; Valley View Community Garden - .20 acres; Mt. Nittany Lookout and Woodland area - .63 acres; and other woodlands - .90 acres. These add up to 2.47 acres of usable open space. Phase one (1) also includes non-usable open space of woodland buffer and steep slopes - 1.27 acres. Section one (1) phase two (2) includes .07 acres of woodland for usable open space and .11 acres of woodland buffer and steep slopes of non-usable open space. Section two (2), phase one (1) includes .83 acres for the lower bike path, .14 acres for community garden and .08 acres for a tot lot, totaling 1.05 acres for usable open space and .52 acres for the stormwater basin area as non-usable open space. Section two (2), phase two (2) includes .06 acres for community garden and .51 acres for woodlands as usable open space and .40 acres of woodland buffer and steep slopes as non-usable open space.

Mr. Toretti mentioned the request for change for the streets. The roads were originally to have 50 foot right-of-way, but one-way turnarounds will have 20 foot cart-way. A 40 foot right-of-way is being proposed, but the right-of-way will be offset to keep the same setbacks on the house building side.

Mr. Shea clarified with Mr. Toretti that the offset would reduce the area inside the cul-de-sac. Mr. Toretti stated that was correct.

Discussion took place regarding woodlands as usable open space.

Chairman Duffy suggested making "mini" pathways made by people as natural pathways between the separate neighborhoods.

Mr. Weener stated that maybe a compromise could be made by putting in a "basic" woodchip path through the larger area to make it usable.

Ms. Liggett pointed out that a problem with the layout is that there is no way to distinguish what woodlands are usable and what are not usable. She asked if we cannot determine what can and cannot be used, how can the residents?

Mr. Weener stated that one definition of usable should be "accessible to anyone who lives there".

Chairman Duffy suggested using the small woodland area next to the tot-lot and clubhouse as a picnic grove.

Mr. Weener suggested that usable woodland could be an area where one could "watch birds".

Ms. Berkey entered the meeting at 7:32 PM.

Mr. Weener questioned how the definition for "usable" could be written to include the words "developed pathway and access point"

Mr. Shea stated that specifying a width for the pathway would most likely be the only way to define those terms.

Mr. Shea stated that if woodlands were removed there would be .68 acres of open space that includes the bike path as well. If woodland is going to be part of open space, it will need to be a defined usable area.

Mr. Weener asked if part of the definition could be as follows: "there needs to be accessible by 10 or 12 feet right-of-way and that within the area, each area is accessed or traversed by a path of at least 10 or 12 feet.

Mr. Buckalew suggested a width of 6 to 8 feet.

Chairman Duffy asked whether to make the definition as to width and length of the path or to determine it by its surroundings, such as a cleared space.

Mr. Shea agreed that restrictions need to be put in place.

Mr. Buckalew agreed with Mr. Shea about placing restrictions on the term "woodlands"

Mr. Snipes from GTW Associates stated PRD is designed so the developer can have flexibility in designing something more creative that would be enjoyed by all.

Mr. Toretti stated it would be a lot simpler to totally clear the land of all brush and trees, but they prefer not to do that. They want to keep it as undisturbed as possible.

Chairman Duffy stated that some value woodlands without being far from home.

Mr. Weener stated the word "accessible" is the key word to the definition, although he was not sure about writing an ordinance for "pathways". He also stated that people and animals will develop natural paths and suggested defining usable as accessible.

Chairman Duffy stated uses such as hiking, picnics and improvement could possibly be in the definition.

Mr. Benner stated concern that accessibility to woodlands could be through a driveway entrance, which would not be "inviting", and that accessibility to the area is more important at this point than the land itself.

Mr. Shea stated concern that accessibility to area between buildings could be problematic due to space between houses that does not allow for accessibility.

Mr. Duffy stated he agrees with Mr. Songer's proposal to remove the term "woodlands" from the definition of non-usable.

Mr. Duffy stated one consideration of definition would be by access and some level of improvement that people could access the woodlands.

Mr. Duffy stated the Planning Commission would need to make a motion to recommend this issue of definition to the Board of Supervisors.

Mr. Weener suggested defining open-space as usable and that the area needs to be accessible by all residences of the development by a public easement or right-of-way.

Mr. Shea stated concern that another development could provide no "usable" flat open space.

Ms. Berkey stated this might be a problem for families with children needing a place to play that is not in the woods.

Chairman Duffy stated concern that other places for children to play need to be taken into consideration such as: soccer fields, basketball courts, playgrounds, places other than woods.

There was discussion as to where children play ball and the concern that most homes have backyards, but this development will not.

Mr. Shea stated he would like to see some of the garden areas become open areas accessible for children to play.

Mr. Shea advised against the Township stating that woodland can be a "usable area as long as it has access".

Ms. Liggett stated concern regarding woodland being "open space as long as it is accessible".

Mr. Shea stated appreciation of work being done in planning of development, but that the Township needs to be careful not to create problems for future plans.

Mr. Shea suggested having "woodlands" included in usable open space area. He suggested deciding on a percentage of no more than 15% as usable.

Mr. Weener stated objection to limiting the amount of woodlands as usable due to the value of the woodlands to people.

Chairman Duffy stated that the value of woodlands is already built into the PRD and that the question is, can the woodland be counted as usable open space such as parkland or recreation areas in every case?

Chairman Duffy also asked, "Where does one draw the line?"

Mr. Shea stated that of usable open space, 15% could be woodland.

Chairman Duffy stated that others must have dealt with this type of situation and asked Ms. Liggett to research how it was handled.

Mr. Benner stated concern regarding changing the ordinance for a situation now and for future situations that may arise.

Mr. Shea stated there is a need to determine how much woodlands can be usable.

Ms. Berkey asked Mr. Shea what the requirements are for open space and how much of it can be woodlands.

Mr. Shea stated the requirement is 30% must be open space and 15% of the tract must be usable; for this plan 15% of 22 acres must be usable for open space.

Mr. Torretti stated the goal is to leave as much woodland undisturbed as possible.

Upon a motion by Ms. Berkey, seconded by Mr. Benner, the Harris Township Planning Commission moved to recommend amending the ordinance, pending further study by Ms. Liggett of Centre Regional Planning Agency, that of the 15% required usable open space, that accessible woodlands would be allowed for 1/3 of the 15% to be used for usable open space; Ayes - 5, Nays - 1 (Mr. Weener), Abstain - 1 (Ms. Kresen).

Mr. Torretti passed out a revised copy of the Springfield Commons PRD Narrative Statement dated October 21, 2002.

Mr. Shea's comments on the Narrative are as such: (1) Page 2, last paragraph - "...A public sidewalk is proposed as a minimum on one side of all local streets..." Should say, "... A public sidewalk is proposed as a minimum on both sides of all local streets..." (2) Page 6, (f) - in the original narrative the paragraph included hike/bike trail. Revised omits hike/bike trail, which needs to be put back into the paragraph.

Mr. Weener stated he attended the last Supervisors' meeting where the Supervisors were "favorably inclined" on the 10 foot separation of the driveway the Planning Commission voted against.

Mr. Shea stated the driveways and the distance of the driveways from intersections is where there might be a problem.

Mr. Shea summarized what was discussed at the last Supervisors' meeting stating: He said he asked the Township Engineer for his input on the issues of the driveways and intersections. The Township Engineer stated what the PennDOT Standards were and recommended those standards be considered at the minimum if the ordinance is to be changed.

Mr. Shea stated he agreed with the Township Engineer on that recommendation.

Mr. Shea also stated that as far as the issue of driveway separation and the distance between driveways, he advised the Supervisors against changing the ordinance due to it affecting only a few driveways in the development.

Mr. Shea also stated in the issue of separation distance of driveways, the PennDOT standard is 30 feet, and that the Township should use that standard, but it may not be acceptable to the developer.

Upon a motion by Vice-Chairman Potter, seconded by Ms. Berkey, the Harris Township Planning Commission moved to recommend to the Board of Supervisors that within the right-of-way, the driveway entrances cannot be closer than 20 feet from each other and within the lot outside of the right-of-way can not be closer than 10 feet; Ayes - 6, Nays - 0, Abstain - 1 (Ms. Kresen).

Upon a motion by Vice-Chairman Potter, seconded by Ms. Berkey, the Harris Township Planning Commission moved to recommend to the Board of Supervisors that the ordinance be modified to provide for a 20 foot separation between two (2) driveways within the first 10 feet of the edge of the cartway, narrowing to 10 feet between the two driveways past the right-of-way; Ayes - 6, Nays - 0, Abstain - 1 (Ms. Kresen).

Mr. Shea corrected Mr. Songer's request in his memo of October 2, 2002, last page, item b) paragraph c - where it states...the supervisors may allow a 40 foot public right of way with a 10 ft utility easement on either side of the public right of way... should state... the supervisors may allow a 40 foot public right of way with a 10 ft utility easement on both sides of the public right of way...

Mr. Shea also recommended to the Planning Commission support other requests by Mr. Songer in memo of October 2, 2002.

Upon a motion by Mr. Buckalew, seconded by Mr. Weener, the Harris Township Planning Commission moved to approve the remaining proposed ordinance changes as subscribed in the Memo from Tom Songer dated October 2, 2002 to the staff, as written, with the exception that section b be revised to state both sides of the right of way rather than either side of the right of way as indicated in earlier statements by Mr. Shea; Ayes - 6, Nays - 0, Abstain - 1 (Ms. Kresen).

Upon a motion by Mr. Weener, seconded by Vice-Chairman Potter, the Harris Township Planning Commission moved to direct staff to advertise the required public hearing on the Master Plan and to recommend approval of the Springfield Commons Master Plan to the Board of Supervisors contingent upon the Master Plan being made to conform to existing ordinances requirements and those changes being proposed, and Torrey Lane being redesigned to meet "collector" specifications and to access Boal Avenue directly; Ayes - 6, Nays - 0, Abstain - 1 (Ms. Kresen).

Vice-Chairman Potter expressed concern regarding traffic and road patterns that will be impacted by the new development.

Mr. Shea stated a traffic study has been done and results of study can be provided to the Planning Commission.

2. VILLAGE DISTRICT COMMITTEE REPORT

Chairman Duffy asked Mr. Hull if he had any concerns to put forth for the next meeting.

Mr. Hull stated he had two items. The first item was the Boalsburg Business and Professional Committee had submitted a three-page draft letter to the Board of Supervisors to pass to the Planning Commission stating concerns of parking and rezoning of parking. It was submitted May 6, 2002, and he has not heard anything back from the Township on it. The second item was the Boalsburg Village Association would like to formally state to the Planning Commission that they support the proposal in the Village District Committee Report.

Upon a motion by Ms. Kresen, seconded by Mr. Buckalew, the Harris Township Planning Commission moved to table Village District Committee Report until November Planning Commission meeting; Ayes - 7, Nays - 0, Abstain - 0.

E. REPORTS:

Zoning Permits: Permits for September were circulated.

CRPC: Mr. Buckalew reported the Spring Creek Watershed Committee is working on a Comprehensive Plan. CRPC will be reviewing the Plan, its action items, and suggesting priorities.

Ag Security Area: Ms. Liggett stated they are working on the evaluation of the properties and have developed a map so everyone will have an idea of where the properties are. The evaluation is on-going.

F. ADJOURNMENT

Upon motion made by Ms. Kresen and seconded by Vice-Chairman Potter, the Planning Commission moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:15PM.

Respectfully Submitted,

_________________________________

Thomas C. Miller, Secretary/Treasurer