HARRIS TOWNSHIP
Planning
Commission
Minutes
‑ September 16, 2002
7:OOPM
REGULAR
MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT: Dan
Duffy ‑ Chairman, Bob Potter ‑ Vice Chairman, Paul Weener, Ed
Benner, Ron Buckalew.
OTHERS PRESENT: Thomas Miller ‑ Township Manager, Todd
Shea ‑ Township Zoning Officer, Lori Cahill ‑ Secretary; D.J.
Liggett ‑ CRPA; Van Winter ‑ Boalsburg Fire Company; Mark Torretti
- Penn-Terra Engineering; Don Murnyack - Murnyack Construction; Kelleann Foster
- VK Group for Torron Group; Greg Snipes - GTW Associates; Thomas Songer III -
Torron Group, Garry McShea - resident.
A. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman
Duffy called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
B. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Upon
a motion made by Ron Buckalew, seconded by Paul Weener and carried unanimously,
the Harris Township Planning Commission moved to approve the minutes of July
15, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting; Ayes ‑ 5, Nays ‑ 0.
C. CITIZEN COMMENT
Ron
Buckalew, speaking as a citizen, mentioned the 140th Anniversary on September
17 of the Civil War battle of Antietam, in which 6,000 Americans were alleged
to have died on that one day, believed to have been the bloodiest day in
American history and frequently cited in the days following 9/11/01, when it
was at firest feared that the 9/11 toll might be higher. Here in the vicinity of the PA Military
Museum, it is appropriate for us to recognize this anniversary, as many
Pennsylvanians were among the fallen.
D. PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS
By
consensus, Planning Commission members agreed to reorder the agenda and
consider the Murnyak Sewage Facilities Planning Module as the first item of
business.
MURNYACK
SEWAGE FACILITIES PLANNING MODULE
Mr. Shea stated an .88-acre triangular lot
on Bailey Lane located between the five properties on Main Street that lie east
of it from its intersection with Bailey Lane and the three north of Blue Spring
Lane from its intersection with Bailey Lane had been purchased. Mr. Murnyack plans to build a house on the
lot, which is located within the Act 537 Sewer Service Area, but would like to
use an on-lot system due to the cost of installing a private sewer main and
pump to Main Street.
Mr. Shea stated in the Agenda, "In
order for Mr. Murnyack to put in an on-lot system, he is required to complete a
planning module form and submit it to the Township. The Planning Commission has to make a recommendation to the Board
who will approve or deny the request, but DEP has the final say."
Mr. Weener asked if all lots on Blue Spring
were on the public sewer.
Mr. Shea stated that Main Street was.
Ms. Liggett stated that not all of Bailey
Lane is served by public sewer, and that Blue Spring Lane is served by on-lot
systems.
Mr. Weener asked if all Blue Spring lots
have on-site sewer.
Mr. Buckalew asked if public sewer becomes
available, does the property owner have an opportunity to opt out? He also asked about the impact of an on-lot
system upon Blue Spring and its flow line as shown on a U.S. Geological Survey
Map for the area.
Ms. Liggett stated that an on-lot system is
workable, but the lot is "tight" and requires a plan that shows where
the house and driveway are going to be and where the sewer system will be,
etc. If a failure of the system occurs,
the owner (Mr. Murnyack) would be required to hook up to public sewer system.
Chairman Duffy asked Ms. Liggett what her
recommendations were.
Ms. Liggett reviewed her recommendations as
stated in the September 13, 2002 memo, referencing the Murnyack Planning Module
Request, the Centre Regional Planning Agency has reviewed the Murnyack planning
module request for on-lot sewage disposal for his property on Bailey Lane, and
provides the following comments:
(1) The subject
property, Tract 3, Parcel B, is located in the R-1 zoning district and is
within the sewer service area defined in the Centre Region's Act 537 Sewage
Facilities Plan. As such, the property
is subject to Harris Township's Subdivision Ordinance, Section 5.1, which
states that all lots within the sewer unless off-site sewer is exempted by the
Township of the Board of Supervisors by revision of the Sewage Facilities
Plan. Revision of the plan can be
accomplished by approval of the planning module by the Board of Supervisors.
(2) The property
owner's request for an exemption from connection to the public sanitary system
is based on a substantial difference in cost between installation of an on-site
system ($6,500) and connection to the public sanitary system ($15,290). Cost estimates have been provided by Stone
Valley Construction and the University Area Joint Authority.
(3) From a regional perspective, a decision to
exempt this single lot from the requirement to connect to the public sanitary
sewer system does not have a negative impact on the regional sewage facilities
plan. CRPA staff recommends approval of
the exemption, providing that the following issues are addressed:
a) The size,
shape, and characteristics of the property will permit the location of an
on-site septic system, although the lot configuration is tight. CRPA staff strongly recommends that a site
plan indicating the location of the proposed residence/garage, driveway,
setbacks, absorption area for the sewage system, and any other proposed
amenities be submitted for review by the Zoning Officer and Sewage Enforcement
Officer prior to development.
b) The property
owner should be advised that in the event of failure of his on-lot system, an
extension of the sewer line to serve this property would be required. Similarly, a failure on an adjacent
property, which would prompt the extension of sewer service on Bailey Lane,
would also require that this property be served by public sewer.
c) The Sewage
Facilities Planning Module Component 1 must be completed as noted: The project narrative should include
information on how and when the lot was created and reference the Deed Book and
Page Number.
In addition, the
project narrative should provide the size and proposed use of the property and
the number of EDUs anticipated; A dual absorption site is not required for this
property if it can be shown that the lot of record was created before December
13, 1993; The plot plan must indicate the slope at each test area, soil types
and boundaries, and a north orientation.
Upon a motion by Vice-Chairman Potter,
seconded by Mr. Buckalew and carried unanimously, the Harris Township Planning
Commission moved to approve the Murnyack Planning Module for on-site septic
system and recommended approval of same by the Harris Township Board of
Supervisors subject to the notation of the memo of September 13, 2002 from D.J.
Liggett entitled "Murnyack Planning Module Request"; Ayes - 5, Nays -
0.
SPRINGFIELD
COMMONS
Kelleann Foster, Associate Landscape
Professor at PSU and consultant to GTW gave a presentation of Springfield
Commons Development to the Planning Commission.
Ms. Foster stated the overall goal was to
reflect existing village qualities while staying within the Township PRD
regulations.
Ms. Foster stated the upper half of the site
would have open space that would be prominent.
All houses have close knit yards, and there would be an overlook with a
view of Mt. Nittany.
Ms. Foster stated the lower half would have
community gardens, a club house, tot lot, and unique riparian meadow and spring
house.
Ms. Foster stated the site would be serviced
with public water and sewer.
Chairman Duffy advised Planning Commission
members to concentrate on open space, the percentage that is being offered vs.
what is recommended, and ordinance change proposals requested.
Mr. Weener expressed concern that the
forested land could not be included in "usable park area" but he
believes the plan is a workable plan in terms of open space.
Ms. Foster stated that the development is 5%
over the 30% requirement for open space.
Ms. Foster explained that the developer has
concerns about the difference between preservation of open space and the
requirement to provide usable open space.
Mr. Shea stated that preservation of open
space is specifically referred to in the ordinance.
Discussion took place between Planning
Commission members and GTW Associates as to what could be done to add
recreational opportunities to the open space.
Some ideas were: a trail to hike, a scenic easement, used as part of
meadowland, or picnic grove.
Ms. Foster stated the developer would take
these ideas into consideration.
Mr. Weener asked Ms. Foster what would keep
someone from designing a house that would not have a porch in front and a
garage in back.
Ms. Foster stated that there will be
covenants and design review.
Mr. Weener asked if a porch is required.
Ms. Foster stated some kind of a covered
access into the house would be required.
Mr. Shea reviewed the amendments to the PRD
Ordinance proposed by the developer as follows: Page 4 - §4 - Density and
Intensity - ¶D - For single-family homes, and two-family and multifamily
dwellings allow the front yard setback to be 10 feet from the public right of
way on local streets, the setback distance on collector and arterial streets
can stay as is (20 feet and 100 ft); Page 8, §7 - Traffic and Pedestrian Access
- Part A - Reclassify Torrey Lane and a portion of Loop Road (from Torrey Land
and 322) as a collector, and that the following sentence be added to part A -
"When a traffic study shows that a proposed PRD will have no negative
impact on a local street, the supervisors may allow the PRD to be served by a
local street." Part C - add
sentences at the end - "The supervisors may allow a 40 ft. public right of
way with a 10 ft. public and utility easement on either side of the public
right of way in lieu of a standard 50 foot public right of way when proper
justification is shown by the developer.
In order to promote traffic calming and neighborhood safety, the
developer may propose to have a local street with a cartway width of 24ft. that
provides for parking on one side of the street." Part D - add sentence - "The supervisors may allow a
sidewalk system consisting of sidewalks on one side of all local streets within
the PRD providing the Homeowner's Association for the development agrees to
take full responsibility for all future maintenance and repairs to the
sidewalks." Part E - add sentence
- "The supervisors may in reviewing the proposed Master Plan for the PRD
allow driveways that serve single family homes to be less than the required
separation distances provided that a traffic study is done that warrants a
lesser separation distance from an intersection."
Mr. Shea stated Parts C and D do not need to
be changed and recommended not to change Part E due to safety issues. For Part A, staff would like to review
PennDOT specs to see what determines a collector road.
Upon motion made by Chairman Duffy, seconded
by Mr. Weener and carried unanimously, the Harris Township Planning Commission
moved follows upon the request in the memo of September 6, 2002 by GTW
Associates, developers of Springfield Commons: request to change, Page 8,
Section 7 - Traffic and Pedestrian Access, Part C is moot, unnecessary and not
recommended for approval at this time; amendment to Page 8, Section 7 - Traffic
and Pedestrian Access, Part D to allow sidewalk on one side of the street
instead to both sides is not recommended; amendment to Page 8, Section 7 -
Traffic and Pedestrian Access, Part E to change separation distance between
driveways is not recommended for approval; Ayes - 5, Nays - 0.
Upon motion made by Mr. Weener, seconded by
Mr. Buckalew and carried unanimously, the Harris Township Planning Commission
moved to delay recommendation on the request to reclassify Torrey Lane from a
local street to a collector street until additional information about whether a
PennDOT highway occupancy permit can be acquired for Torrey Lane, right-of-way
acquisition can occur, and PennDOT criteria for "collector" streets
are known; Ayes - 5, Nays - 0.
Upon motion made by Mr. Buckalew, seconded
by Mr. Weener and carried unanimously, the Harris Township Planning Commission
moved to allow front yard setback for single-family homes, two-family and
multifamily dwellings to be 10 feet from the public right-of-way on local
streets and the setback distance on collector and arterial streets remain at 20
feet and 100 feet respectively; Ayes - 5, Nays - 0.
Mr. Shea stated that the Master Plan will change
resulting from discussion and follow-up and Planning Commission members can
request to see it at the next meeting.
Chairman Duffy stated the Planning
Commission needed more time to review the Master Plan Proposal.
Mr. Weener stated he thought the plan was a
very good one.
Vice-Chairman Potter stated it is important
to develop the private road and have it extended to the Weaver Tract to secure
access to Academy Street in future development.
Upon motion made by Mr. Buckalew, seconded
by Mr. Weener and carried unanimously, the Harris Township Planning Commission
moved to table review of the Master Plan until the October Planning Commission
Meeting; Ayes - 5, Nays - 0.
THE
VILLAGE DISTRICT COMMITTEE REPORT
Staff recommended that Planning Commission
members review the report and not form a recommendation until they have had
enough time to completely evaluate the issues described and recommendations
that are in the report.
Vice-Chairman Potter stated the last report
that identified issues in the Village was in 1988. He added that many of the issues contained in that report are
included in this report.
Vice-President Potter stated the 2002 Report
recommendations are both general in nature, such as traffic issues, and
specific, such as stop signs, etc.
Chairman Duffy asked about and expressed
concern regarding parking and creating space for it.
Mr. Weener asked for a summary of all the
recommendations.
Vice-Chairman Potter stated that he would
have a summary of recommendations at the next Planning Commission meeting in
October.
Mr. Miller commended Vice-Chairman Potter
for his ability to organize and oversee the Village District Study Committee
and its meetings.
Mr. Weener asked staff to prepare
reflections on the recommendations of the report for the October meeting,
adding that some of the recommendations may not be feasible. To streamline discussion, Mr. Weener asked
for staff comment.
By consensus, Planning Commission members
postponed further action until the October meeting.
E. REPORTS:
Zoning
Permits: Permits for
June, July, and August were circulated.
CRPC: Mr. Buckalew reported
that at its September 6th meeting, the CRPC discussed and endorsed a proposal
from the Centre Regional Park and Recreation Commission for the Centre Region
to purchase from Penn State University two parcels of land for parkland. Each would be about 75 acres and a small
portion of each lies in Harris Township.
The bulk of one is in College Township near Oak Hall and the other in
Ferguson Township south of Whitehall Road.
One of the advantages of the latter is that it would provide land that
UAJA could use for the Beneficial Reuse Program with no interference with the
recreational use. Another is that the
land is in the recharge area for the State College Borough Water acquisition
and may partner with COG in the process.
Other topics included the possibility of the Centre Region's
participation in the Smart Commute Program, sponsored by Fannie Mae, which
allows homeowners to get special benefits on mortgages if their home is near a
bus route. Mr. Buckalew also mentioned
that Harris Township's financial contribution to CRPA and the CRMPO would be
less in 2003 than in 2002.
Ag
Security Area: Ms. Liggett
said she would be returning to consideration of the proposed Ag Security Area
in the near future. She also noted that
there had been delays in developing the official zoning map but that this would
also be discussed at an upcoming meeting.
F. ADJOURNMENT
Upon
motion made by Mr. Weener and seconded by Vice-Chairman Potter, the Planning
Commission moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:50PM.
Respectfully
Submitted,
_________________________________
Thomas
C. Miller, Secretary/Treasurer