The Schuylkill Township Planning Commission held their regular meeting on Wednesday, March 19, 2008, at the Township Hall. Members of the Planning Commission present were Mr. James Reading, Mr. William Brennan, Mr. Jack Claffey, Mr. Dan Keogh, and Ms. Jan Potts. Mr. Morris Quigg was not present. Township Manager Mary Bird, John Sartor and MaryLou Lowrie of Gilmore & Associates were also present.
On motion by Mr. Brennan, seconded by Mr. Claffey and passed, the Planning Commission approved the minutes of the February 20, 2008 meeting.
Dr. Piskai Property - Mr. John Diemer appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of Dr. Piskai. Dr. Piskai is seeking a request for waivers of the following Subdivision and Land Development Ordinances:
Section 401.C.2. – Existing features within 400' of the subject property shall be indicated on the plans.
Section 401.D.16.d(1) and 401.D.16.d(2) – Existing sanitary sewers, storm drains, swales and similar features located within 400 feet of the subject property shall be shown on the plans. They are not installing any new sewer/water features, they are using what already exists on the property.
Section 504.A. – Sidewalks shall be provided along all streets except where in the opinion of the Township Supervisors they are unnecessary. The applicant shall ascertain from the Supervisors whether sidewalks will be required along the property frontage.
Section 504.B. – Granite curbing shall be installed along each side of every street constructed in Schuylkill Township.
A waiver is also requested to reduce the cartway width from 25' to 21' over a distance of approximately 15' in order to re-configure the parking lot to save a 36" noteworthy tree, as recommended by the EAC. The new parking plan will have more parking in the back of the property, and more signage to advise drivers of one way in/out of parking area.
On motion made by Mr. Reading and seconded by Mr. Brennan, all approved to recommend the above waivers to the Board of Supervisors, with the exception of the request for waiver of sidewalks. After discussion between Mr. Keogh, Mr. Diemer and Dr. Piskai, it has been agreed that they will install sidewalks along the frontage of the property equivalent to what is pre-existing at the nearby carwash and/or comply with current code. They will not be required to install granite curbing.
Mr. Ray Matis, 1125 W. Bridge Street property owner, addressed the planning commission regarding his concerns of more stormwater being directed onto his property. He stated that he already gets everyone else's stormwater and that once the underground two foot existing drainage pipes are replaced with larger ones he will be inundated with stormwater and his business may suffer. Mr. Deimer responded that they are not installing or replacing any existing drainpipes, that they are installing an underground stormwater basin on their property and using the pre-existing 18" and 36" underground stormwater drainage pipes. Mr. Matis advised that Foresta's, Charlies Barbershop, and the other businesses located directly behind this property still have a water problem. Mr. Deimer advised that based on the stormwater management plans for Dr. Piskai's project, the surrounding properties will actually receive less stormwater run-off, not more, due to the entire property having curbing and proper drainage. Mr. Sartor agreed with Mr. Deimer. Mr. Deimer advised Mr. Matis that he would be open to meeting with him on his property of 1125 W. Bridge Street to discuss the plans more. Mr. Matis was satisfied.
Reeves Property – Mr. John Snyder, attorney for Pohlig Builders, and Mr. Todd Pohlig appeared before the Planning Commission with the review letter dated March 18, 2008, from Gilmore & Associates. There are several items in the review letter that Mr. Snyder does not agree with and feels that it is a difference of interpretation of the ordinances that create a difference in opinions. The following issues in the review letter were discussed.
Section 200 of the Zoning Ordinance, Developable Area – "The total area included within the titled lines of a lot or development, except the following areas:
Mr. Snyder advised that Mr. Pohlig has deducted all easements other than local service. Mr. Snyder feels that it's all "local service" (house to main sewer line), and they do not agree with Gilmore & Associates interpretation that an additional 15' access easement beyond the already deducted 10'-15' access easement needs to be deducted from developable area. If this is the correct interpretation of the ordinance, the plans will have to be re-drawn and developable lots may be lost. Mr. Snyder advised he wrote to the Township Solicitor, Mr. Sugarman, and received a reply saying to work out interpretation with the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The Planning Commission feels this needs a legal interpretation and will defer back to Mr. Sugarman.
"Reforestation US F&W Tree Removal Restriction Line" – Mr. Snyder advised that deeds will be restricted to prohibit tree removal. The reforestation area does not prohibit the installation of sheds. Planning Commission deferred to Mr. Sugarman as to whether the building envelopes should stop at the reforestation line. Yerkes & Associates, the Township Zoning & Building Officer, will also review for proper zoning requirements.
Section 402.III – The plans note that the stormwater management system has been designed for the maximum allowable impervious cover. Mr. Pohlig has adequately addressed this issue, by revising building envelopes on all lots except for Lot 23. Ms. Lowrie of Gilmore advised that Lot 23 rear yard does not appear correct. Mr. Snyder stated that the rear yard "is swallowed by the setback". Mr. Snyder disagrees with Ms. Lowries' definition of "rear" and "side" yard for this lot. Issue deferred to Yerkes & Associates for zoning clarification.
Section 1103.A.3.a – "No structure may be placed less than fifty-feet from the boundary of the Flood Hazard District. A portion of Eagles Point (paving and curbing) is shown within this setback. The plans also show a proposed retaining wall within the 50 foot structure setback." "Therefore, a variance will be required for the structures in the setback". Mr. Snyder asked for a relief of this variance from the Zoning Hearing Board, as AQUA, PA has requested Pohilg Builders to put the above items in those specific locations. Mr. Snyder also stated that retaining walls area required for the roadway within Flood Hazard District and per Section 1103.A.9, the retaining walls area an accessory use and therefore does not even require a variance. In response to the proposed relocation sanitary sewer main being located within the fifty foot setback, Mr. Snyder advised that a piece of the sewer line does run through the easement, however they do not think it's cause for a variance. Further review of the plans by Ms. Lowrie and Mr. Pohlig revealed that this sewer line in question is an existing line, therefore this issue of being within the setback is moot.
Section 1103C.2 and 1103.C.3 – "The removal of topsoil and trees or other flora is a prohibited use or activity in the Flood Hazard District, FHD." The proposed plans show installation of a roadway within the FHS, which will require the removal of topsoil, trees, and other vegetation. Mr. Snyder interprets the ordinance is for "stand alone cases" and that it cannot prohibit the construction of a road within the FHD. The removal of trees and vegetation will be only where the road/bridge will be. The retaining walls will be less of a disturbance than the slopes. Mr. Snyder is before the Zoning Hearing Board regarding this road/bridge issue and the Planning Commission deferred this to ZHB and Yerkes & Associates for zoning clarification.
Section 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 – "The stormwater management plan shall be revised to include applicable clarification to ownership and maintenance per this section. A note (maintenance note) consistent with Section 5.2.2 has been included on Sheet 6 of the PCSWM plans, this note shall be relocated to Sheet 1. This note shall be approved by the Township Supervisor". Mr. Snyder stated that the development will have a Homeowners Association (HOA) and that there is no language in the ordinance that requires a note of maintenance. Ms. Lowrie stated if that is indeed what the ordinance states, then it still needs to be approved by the Township Solicitor. Mr. Sartor stated this could be a final plan issue, about how HOA will maintain property. Will defer to the final plan.
Section 401.C.1.d – "A certified arborist or other qualified individual shall review the existing vegetation information as shown on the plans". Mr. Sartor advised that the plan does not clearly show all the trees that are to be removed from within the culvert. Mr. Snyder disagreed saying that they are not required to show all individual trees, just clusters and noteworthy trees. Trees of 3" diameter are included. Mr. Snyder advised that they will show noteworthy trees and trees 10" more within the cluster. They will show individual trees in the culvert.
Sections 401.D.15, 518.F and 520 – "Removal of existing trees shall be kept to a minimum, and shall conform to the requirements of these sections". Mr. Sartor advised that the plans show a significant number of noteworthy trees and tree masses to be removed. Mr. Sartor strongly recommends that Pohlig revise plans to preserve more existing trees, specifically on Lots 10 through 15, Lots 19 through 25, Lots 27, 28, 33-36, 40-41, 44, 46-52, 54 & 56. Mr. Sartor also recommends the existing brush layer be preserved, regardless of invasive species designation. Mr. Snyder stated that within Ordinance 520 it specifically states to get rid of invasive species and recognizes the importance of non-invasive species. Mr. Snyder says that although it is a recommendation by Gilmore & Associates they are not obligated to preserve the invasive species. Regarding the "significant tree removal", Mr. Pohlig stated that they will try to conform to Gilmore's recommendations regarding the above lots, however they will not commit to it. They will do so on a lot by lot basis. Mr. Pohlig stated "if a homeowner wants a pool, and trees need to be taken down to build the pool, a pool will be built." Mr. Lee Ledbetter, Supervisor and audience member, recommended that the issue of invasive/non invasive plants be deferred to the Environmental Advisory Committee. Andrew Krieder, EAC member, was present and did agree that this is an EAC issue. Mr. Pohlig advised the Vegetation/Tree Preservation plan will be revised to show both trees that are to be removed and trees that will remain. Currently the plan shows existing trees in roadways, driveways and building footprints.
Section 506.a.4 - "Corner lot widths on each front shall be a minimum of 1.5 times the minimum width of the interior lot on the same block. Verify all corner lots meet this requirement". Mr. Snyder has advised that the waiver requested for this section has been withdrawn as the Planning Commission has found the layout of the corner lots to be acceptable (5/16/07 meeting).
Section 508.B.2 – "Nothing shall be permitted to be within the area of an easement; the area shall remain as lawn". Mr. Sartor advised the plans show an emergency access within an existing water main and sanitary easement. Mr. Sartor advised that it can not be overtop of water lines. Mr. Sartor advised they will need a waiver. Mr. Snyder does not want a waiver, as that can be denied. Mr. Snyder advised that emergency access is not required, as per the Township Fire Marshall. Mr. Claffey wants Yerkes & Associates to review if a property this size should have emergency access, and if so, can it be pavers, grass, stone, etc. Mr. Snyder stated there is no requirement in the Ordinance. Mr. Claffey and Mr. Brennan agree that questions pertaining to emergency access only be deferred to Yerkes & Associates and Mr. Sugarman.
Sections 200 and 520.F – Tree protection fencing. Gilmore recommends that tree protection fencing be extended to preserve an additional 12 noteworthy trees. Mr. Snyder agreed to comply with the recommendation.
Mr. Sartor pointed out that the plans show construction within AQUA PA's easement, and per AQUA in letter dated 4/24/06, no construction will be permitted within their easements. Mr. Snyder advised that AQUA is going to mark where the water mains are, there are two, to make sure the easements are correct. Mr. Snyder advised they have shown and will show written evidence between Pohilg Builders and AQUA. Mr. Sartor also recommended moving SWM Area B, as it is adjacent (15') from a sanitary sewer. Mr. Snyder advised there is no distance required, or setbacks, for a water and sewer line to be adjacent. Mr. Sartor advised Mr. Snyder should check with Valley Forge Sewer Authority.
Mr. Snyder and Mr. Pohlig agreed to revise the plans to meet the other requirements in Gilmore & Associates review letter. Mr. Ledbetter questioned the addition of walking trails on the east side of the property. Trails on the west side were not permitted by AQUA. Mr. Pohlig advised that he will look more into the east side walking trails.
Magic Memories Daycare, 897 & 903 Valley Forge Rd. - Kristen Camp, attorney, appeared before the Planning Commission along with Neydary Zambrano, the owner of the daycare to present plans for expanding the daycare. Both lots are in the APO 1 District which does permit a daycare. The prior owner, Mrs. Kreider, had applied for special exceptions/zoning approval however preliminary land development plans were never approved due to Mrs. Kreider not continuing with the project. Both 897 & 903 are approximately 1 acre lots. Lot 903 is open and used as outdoor play area. Currently there is a one way entrance in & out on lot 897, with the driveway being gated shut during the hours of 10:00am to 4:00pm so the children can play outdoors without the concern of vehicles entering the driveway. The proposed plan allows for this one way in/out access to be completely shut down and a new two way cul-de-sac entrance be installed on lot 903. The proposed 60' by 60' new building will be on lot 903, and will consist of 2 stories, no basement. The daycare is at maximum capacity (65 children) and this additional space will allow them to double the number of children. The addition will add classroom space, indoor play area (they currently do not have an indoor play area), new kitchen and lunchroom for the children, and new space for holding special events for the children and/or parents. The addition will have sprinklers installed, and they will also be installing sprinklers in the existing building to bring it up to code. The new addition will have doors from each classroom to outside, and will be equipped with indoor and outdoor security cameras. Ms. Camp advised they area seeking a special exception from the Zoning Hearing Board to allow the vacant lot to have a daycare building exist on it. They are also requesting special exception pertaining to setbacks and parking. Lot 903 is an existing non conforming lot. The plans propose the addition to be equal to the setbacks of the existing building, which is 37', the required setback being 40'. Regarding parking, the prior applicant (Mrs. Kreider) had shown 17 spaces. The current proposed plan has 19 parking spaces and a fence does exist in front of the parking area which will meet the screening requirement. Mr. Brennan had concerns about the increased number of cars that this additional space would create and possibly cause backups on Route 23 with parents waiting to get in to drop off their children. Ms. Camp advised that there is such a varied time schedule of pick ups and drop offs that it shouldn't be a problem, and that they are looking to impose a drop off plan where parents will not have to exit their cars, they will pull up through the cul-de-sac and a daycare employee will get the kids from the car and into the daycare. School buses will stop out front of the daycare on Route 23 (as they do now) to pick up and drop off the before and after school care children. Ms. Sandy Momyer, Historical Commission member and audience member, requested that the Historical Commission be provided with a copy of the plans. Ms. Momyer advised that they are located in a historical overlay and requesedt that they keep the new buildings façade looking like it blends in with the area. Ms. Zambrano advised that they are going to have the new building built to look like a home.
Pending - No discussions. EDC Property, 1000 Township Line Rd, Conditional Use Hearing on April 2, 2008. Brackman Property, 210 Country Club Rd., Zoning Hearing Board on April 9, 2008.
There being no further business for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m
Respectfully submitted,
Kimberly Yocom
Township Clerk
Next Meeting April 16, 2008