LANCASTER TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION
1240 Maple Avenue
Lancaster PA 17603

MEETING MINUTES – November 15, 2011

CALL TO ORDER
Melissa Kelly, Chair, called to order the regular meeting of the Lancaster Township Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. on November 15, 2011 in the Lancaster Township Municipal Building. The following members were present: Bob Desmarais, Glenn Ebersole, Richard Hendricks, Gordon Reed and Angela Sowers. Melanie LeFevre was excused. Also present: Tom Daniels, Zoning Officer, Rebecca French, Zoning Assistant, Ben Webber, Rettew Engineer, Gwen Newell, Lancaster County Planning Commission, and Kathy Wasong, Township Board of Supervisors. Bill Swiernik of DMA, Rich Ozimek, Blackford Development, and Mike Leichliter, Superintendent of Penn Manor School District were also present.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 20, 2011
The September 20, 2011 meeting minutes were approved with revisions in the first paragraph.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION/COMMENTS: None

Update: Revised Zoning Ordinance and Revised Zoning Map
Tom Daniels and Bill Laudien completed the revisions per the Planning Commission’s initial feedback and review of the Zoning Ordinance revisions, and Rettew provided new binders. Mr. Daniels asked the LTPC to please review the changes and bring the binders and their comments and feedback to the next LTPC meeting on December 20, 2011.

NEW BUSINESS
Comet Field Development:
Keith Heigel of LHA Inc presented an informal overview of revisions to the proposed commercial triangle development area located in the southwest corner of Lancaster Township between Wabank Rd, Millersville Rd and Barbara St.

• Municipal boundaries – A portion to the north is in Lancaster Twp and the portion to the south is in Millersville Borough
• The net development is planned for 5.9 acres
• The tract is currently zoned Campus/Open Space
• Depending on the outcome of the revisions to the Zoning Ordinance, they are requesting that the Twp consider rezoning 1.6 acres of land south on the tract to Local Commercial
• What is the compelling reason for requesting the rezoning?
o Uses not allowed in the current zoning O/P

Comments from the LTPC
• There is a safety issue with the number of student pedestrians going to and coming from Comet Field and Martin Elementary School
• The cut off road heading south on Millersville Rd into the gas station could be problematic;
o There needs to be a four way controlled intersection in this area without a cut around
• The potential of the school district to possibly sell lots south of the new right-of-way
o While not proposing to rezone that area, Lancaster Township constrains itself with its own zoning
• The Township does not get anything out of the proposed development except maintenance costs.
o Why should the Township absorb costs with a limited tax base and a high tax base in our school district and not receive any benefits?
• Consider rezoning a larger section of some other lots
o It would benefit the Twp now instead of going through a rezoning later
o It would also promote a faster sale of those lots
o The Twp could amass the benefit of revenue sooner

Comments from the Public:
Jerry and Barbara Keen of Wabank Rd, Millersville PA, both expressed concerns about the extension of Wabank Road;
The Keen’s foresee that this will cause more vehicular traffic, cars exceeding the speed limit, and more trash accumulating along the roadside. The Keen’s conveyed that they found it difficult to determine what part of Wabank Rd is in Lancaster Township and what part of Wabank Rd is in Millersville Borough. They also have concerns about student pedestrians walking along Wabank Rd and Barbara St.

Mr. Webber stated that the traffic impact study is not complete. He stated that a meeting with Penn Dot is scheduled for November 23rd with the developers, traffic engineer, and representatives from the Township. This meeting is being held to identify all the different intersections, roads, basic counts and projection of traffic that is expected to be generated by the proposed use and the overall growth in the area. The final analysis, which will be based on the input submitted to Penn Dot at this meeting, has not been completed

There were no further comments and Ms. Kelly thanked the attendees for their time.

OLD BUSINESS

Southern Village: Modification Request to Side Yard Setbacks
Bill Swiernik, of DMA, reviewed the lot configurations along the extension of Waypoint Drive. The layouts of the single family (SF) units are basically the same as the townhomes across the street; both SF units and the townhome units are essentially 1726 square feet. Southern Village is zoned Open Space development which provides for more flexibility and innovative design opportunities.

The applicant is requesting a modification of the requirement under 1804.4.C.1 to separate all principal structures by a minimum distance of 20’, reducing that distance to only 12’. This request is being made for all the twenty-two (22) lots (210-227, 229-237, 239-241) in Phase IIIA on which single family dwellings are proposed.

The justification for this request would; a.) Provide greater variety of design for the single family dwellings; b.) The builder would have the ability to situate the master bedroom on the first floor of these dwelling units; c.) Units will be more consistent with the unit type requested by prospective buyers.

The builder would like to increase the interior width within the SF units from thirty-two feet (32’) wide to a forty feet (40’) wide unit. This increase of interior width would not only add to the amount of living space, but it would provide some flexibility to each units design variation. This would also change the property setback line to six feet (6’) between each SF dwelling on each side of the dwelling; with that being twelve feet (12’) between dwellings.

The following discussion ensued:
• Will the SF units be too close to each other?
• What about sound and noise levels?
• What other alternatives are there for the builder?
• Offset windows for privacy issues?
• Would like to see a unique variety of character to each unit
• Encourage diversity
• How many different design plans for the SF units does the builder offer?

When the discussion concluded, Ms. Kelly asked if there was a motion to recommend approval of the modification request. Bob Desmarais moved to recommend approval of modification 1804.4.C.1 for Southern Village, Phase IIIA of the Final Subdivision Plan, which reduces the minimum distance between all principal single family structures from twenty feet (20’) to twelve feet (12’) with the following stipulations:

Conditions of Approval
1. Require at least four different designed unit types
2. All four of the unit types must be present on any given block where possible in the three sections
3. This requirement includes a variety of color, textures, roof lines, styles, etc. The intent of conditions 1, 2, and 3 is to promote diversity of streetscape.
4. Developer must consider offsetting buildings on the lots; moving the buildings to one side of the lot to gain a larger side yard where possible.

Gordon Reed seconded the motion. The LTPC recommended agreement of the modification subject to the conditions of approval that were set forth.

TREE COMMITTEE:
Melissa Kelly requested that Tom Daniels discuss a tree planting program for Lancaster Township with the Township Manager, Bill Laudien. She stated that she would like to have a response to this request at the next LTPC meeting.

ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. The next scheduled LTPC meeting will be on December 20, 2011 at 7 p.m.

Sincerely,

Bob Desmarais
LTPC Secretary

LANCASTER TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION
1240 Maple Avenue
Lancaster PA 17603

MEETING MINUTES – September 20, 2011

CALL TO ORDER
Melissa Kelly, Chair, called to order the regular meeting of the Lancaster Township Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. on September 20, 2011 in the Lancaster Township Municipal Building. The following members were present: Bob Desmarais, Glenn Ebersole, Melanie LeFevre, and Angela Sowers. Richard Hendricks and Gordon Reed were excused. Also present: Tom Daniels, Zoning Officer, Rebecca French, Zoning Assistant, Ben Webber, Rettew Engineer and Kathy Wasong, Township Board of Supervisors. Erin Hoffman of RLPS, Harry N Snavely of SDOL, and Steve Gergely of Harbor Engineering were also present.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 16, 2011
The August 16, 2011 meeting minutes were approved as submitted.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION/COMMENTS: None

SUBDIVISION/LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN:
LTPC 239: Sketch Plan Submission for applicant School District of Lancaster (SDL) for Martin Elementary School, 1900 Wabank Rd. SDL intends to construct a new facility to accommodate students for grades Kindergarten through 8th grade. The existing school will remain in operation until the new school is completed. Steve Gergely, of Harbor Engineering Inc presented the project sketch plan, which showed an overview of the proposed school and the newly designed parking lot. He stated that Martin Elementary School currently enrolls students in Kindergarten through the 5th grade and the new school will enroll students in Kindergarten through the 8th grade.

Mr. Gergely reviewed the concept plan with the LTPC and the following discussion ensued:
• The new school will also be ADA compliant.
• The driveway currently on Millersville Pike will be eliminated per Penn Dot
• The parking lot for the new school will be accessed via Wabank Rd
• Schultz Transportation buses will enter the school parking lot from Wabank Road and will have a designated drop off area and parking lot
• The ‘parent-student’ drop off area will not go through the bus drop off area
• The concept plan has traffic exiting the parking lot only being allowed to turn right onto Wabank Rd

• The concept plan for the parking lot has a lot of internal circulation areas with multiple landscaped areas
• Concerns about the parking lot were expressed:
o Parking lot seems to be inefficient
o Parking lot may be difficult to pave for snow plows
o Could be difficult to see around landscaped areas?
o Why can’t the cars exiting the school parking lot turn left onto Wabank Rd?
o Traffic may become a problem with cars waiting to turn right onto Wabank Rd.
• Could an emergency lane off of Rt. 741 be accessed for emergency vehicles only?
• What about delivery trucks?
• How will traffic be managed during the construction? Parking during construction?
• Was a storm water management plan developed?

Mr. Gergely stated that the Martin school is not in a FEMA flood area
Mr. Webber requested that a sketch plan be presented to the emergency medical transportation department for their feedback.

The Martin Elementary School review process is informal at this phase.

OLD BUSINESS

Zoning Ordinance Update:
Rettew completed the revision process of the Zoning Ordinance and provided binders for each of the LTPC to review and edit.

ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. The next scheduled LTPC meeting will be on October 18 canceled November 22, 2011 at 7 p.m.

Sincerely,

Bob Desmarais
LTPC Secretary

LANCASTER TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION
1240 Maple Avenue
Lancaster PA 17603

MEETING MINUTES – AUGUST 16, 2011

CALL TO ORDER
Melissa Kelly, Chair, called to order the regular meeting of the Lancaster Township Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. on August 16, 2011 in the Lancaster Township Municipal Building. The following members were present: Glenn Ebersole, Richard Hendricks, Melanie LeFevre, and Gordon Reed. Bob Desmarais and Angela Sowers were excused. Also present: Tom Daniels, Zoning Officer, Rebecca French, Zoning Assistant, Gwen Newell, Lancaster Country Planning Commission, Jim Caldwell, Rettew Engineer and Kathy Wasong, Township Board of Supervisors. Mark Stanley of Hartman Underhill & Brubaker, Mark Hackenburg of RGS Associates and Bill Swiernik of David Miller Associates were also present.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 19, 2011
The July 19, 2011 meeting minutes were approved as submitted.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION/COMMENTS: None

SUBDIVISION/LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN:

Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Revision for Wheatland Presbyterian Church
Mark Stanley stated that based on the response to comments and feedback offered at the July 19, 2011 LTPC meeting, revisions have been made to the proposed text amendment to the Township’s Zoning Ordinance, Article V, Section 504 Conditional Uses amended by adding the following to the list of Conditional Uses:

The Intent of Exhibit A of the proposed amendment:
An Ordinance to amend the Lancaster Township Zoning Ordinance, as amended, by increasing the lot coverage for certain uses in the R-1 District, permitting increased lot coverage for certain uses by Conditional Use in the R-1 District and adding specific criteria for increasing lot coverage by Conditional Use.

Mr. Stanley introduced Mark Hackenburg who handed out a summarized version of the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Revisions for Wheatland Presbyterian Church. Mr. Hackenburg stated the main reason for the Church’s request to amend Section 1823 Maximum Impervious Lot Coverage is to be able to add more parking lot surface for their congregation; the intent section of the amendment requests reads:
• Where permitted by Conditional Use, maximum lot coverage may be increased up to 45% provided that a combination of innovative stormwater and landscape measures are implemented subject to the following conditions of the revised amendment request:

o Applicability to All Other Uses has been updated to only allow an increase in coverage where public utilities exist.
o The criteria for increases in Lot Coverage have been modified to require the implementation of innovative stormwater controls and allow the selection of at least two of the three additional performance criteria (wider planting strips, increased interior landscaped areas or increases in tree cover within parking lots.)
o Descriptors for increases in coverage have been modified to represent the magnitude of the increase rather than just representing the percentage of increase. (IE: “from 35% – 40%” rather than “an additional 5%” as originally stated.)
o Language has been added to respect the “appropriateness of site conditions” for the implementation of innovative stormwater controls.
o Section 1823.3 has been modified to amend the heading to acknowledge that the implementation of innovative stormwater shall be in accordance with the design criteria of accepted guidelines and standards.
o Street ponding has been deleted from the text as an accepted method of innovative stormwater control.

On behalf of Wheatland Presbyterian Church, Mr. Hackenburg offered insight on several topics which were discussed at the July 25th Lancaster County Planning Commission meeting regarding: Applicability of the Text Amendment to “All Other Uses” within the R-1 District:
• The revised amendment has not been amended to limit the provision of the proposed amendment to “Churches, Synagogues, or Other Places of Worship.”
• In evaluating the other Permitted (and Special Exception) Uses within the R-1 District, many are coverage and parking intensive uses such as:
o Municipal buildings and firehouses
o Public swimming pools
o Elementary and secondary schools
o Non-profit museums and public libraries
• If it is the LTPC’s desire for these provisions to apply only to Churches, Synagogues, or Other Places of Worship, they are not opposed to modifying and adjusting the text.
• Rely upon the PA Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual and Township Stormwater Management Ordinance to provide the performance and design criteria necessary to assure functionality and implementation of each applicable system.
o The continually-evolving design standards for stormwater control methods proposed will continue to be adequately addressed by the PA Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual to assure the Township’s functional, technically sound outcomes.

Mr. Caldwell of Rettew stated that the standards for stormwater management (SWM) need to be objective to each specific project site, depending on the set of circumstances, to consider each individual lot site;
• Keep LTPC control for future problematic sites;
o If criteria is met for Conditional Use the LTPC may review and make recommendations
• Another site may cause concern for a more rigid SWM management
• A specific site may not permit additional impervious coverage
• Need a measurable standard for SWM criteria

Public Comment:
• Jim Gerhart, a resident of Wheatland Avenue stated that he is concerned about permitting a larger percentage of impervious land coverage and he feels that it is a step in the wrong direction.
• Mark O’Neil, also a resident of Wheatland Ave expressed his concerns about decreasing property values in the Township. Mr. O’Neil also stated that the Wheatland Presbyterian Church fits nicely into the neighborhood, but he does not think it needs to be developed into a mega church. There were no further public comments.

Ms. Kelly asked the LTPC if there was a motion to recommend the revised petition to amend the text to the Zoning Ordinance to the Board of Supervisors for their upcoming meeting on Monday, September 12, 2011. Mr. Hendricks stated that since their concerns have been addressed in the revised petition proposal, and the LTPC still has the opportunity through the Conditional Use request and the Land Development Plan, that if there are any future concerns on impacts in the other areas – that those concerns can be addressed on a case by case basis. Mr. Hendricks made a motion to forward the revised petition to the BOS with the recommendation for approval. Ms. LeFevre seconded the motion. Motion carried.

NEW BUSINESS:
SOUTHERN VILLAGE: REDUCTION OF SIDE YARD SETBACKS
The LTPC continued a previous discussion about Phase IIIA Final Subdivision Plan for Southern Village; Bill Swiernik of DMA representing EG Stoltzfus Homes, the builders of Southern Village stated that this would be an informal discussion based on the side yard setbacks relative to the single family dwellings.

This project is an Open Space development permitted by right within R-3 district. Specific criteria were followed for the building placement within the open space development option; twenty (20’) feet is required between buildings; the buildings do not need to be centered within the lot space; there is no minimum lot area, and no minimum lot width, which gives flexibility to the design layout.

Mr. Swiernik stated that the semi-detached units and single family units are essentially the same. Therefore the builders cannot add to the living space within the single family units, which is what the potential buyers are interested in.

• The living space is limited and the builders are not able to put in a first floor master bedroom or add more amenity space to first floor living

Mr. Swiernik handed out Exhibit A of Phase 3A to the LTPC, which show the 10’ setbacks between each of the buildings. He stated that what the builders would like the LTPC to consider is to allow a six ft (6’) side yard setback be applied to this phase of the project (vs. 10’.) This would result in an increase of the unit size of around 200 sq ft.

• With a 6’ side yard setback there would be 12’ between each single family unit.
• Builders do not want to increase the density of the lots, only to increase the living space within the single family units.

Mr. Swiernik referred to Ordinance Section 1910 – Reductions to Required Yards
1910.1 Side Yard – In order to provide for additions to existing single family detached dwellings…in those cases where a lot, on which there was an existing dwelling unit, existed at the time of enactment of this Ordinance, which has less than the required minimum lot width in the District in which it is located, the side yard requirement my be reduced by six (6) inches for each one (1) foot of lot width deficiency to a minimum side yard…

D. Residential District R-3 – Six (6) feet

The intent of this provision is to permit additional living space in existing dwelling units and is not to be applicable when the expansion is for the purposes of adding or creating additional dwelling units or change in use classification.

Mr. Swiernik requested that the LTPC take this opportunity to reevaluate this section of the ordinance and to provide insight and feedback in order to establish a 6’ side yard setback on the remaining single-family homes to increase the living space. He stated that even with the addition of expanded living space in the SF home, they would still be below 50% lot coverage.

Discussion ensued:
• Options: Builders apply for a variance with the ZHB
• LTPC consider and revise this section of the ordinance
• Question of 12’ between houses has not been asked of potential buyers
• Explore other neighborhood communities with SF homes
• How would this consideration affect building codes?
• Challenge the builders to increase the size of living space within the land space
• Builders come up with an alternative plan without restricting side yard setbacks
o Change the design to accommodate buyers.

The consideration of minimizing side yard setbacks in the Southern Village development to maximize additional living space within the newly constructed single family homes will be considered at future LTPC meeting.

OLD BUSINESS

Zoning Ordinance Update:
Rettew is editing and formatting the revised Zoning Ordinances. When the revisions are completed Rettew will print the zoning ordinances and compile into notebooks so that each LTPC member has a hard copy to read, review, and edit as he or she deems necessary. Tom Daniels will deliver the revised version to each LTPC members home.

ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. The next scheduled LTPC meeting will be on September 20, 2011 at 7 p.m.

Sincerely,

Bob Desmarais
LTPC Secretary