The Schuylkill Township Planning Commission held a special meeting on Wednesday, August 20, 2008 at the Township hall. The Planning Commission does not historically meet in August. Members of the Planning Commission present were Mr. Jim Reading, Mr. Jack Claffey, Mr. Morris Quigg and Mr. Dan Keogh. Mrs. Jan Potts was not present. Mr. William Brennan was present at the meeting as Solicitor for the Planning Commission. Also present were Mr. Vutz, Mr. Ledbetter and Mr. Morrisson from the Board of Supervisors and Mr. Sartor, Ms. Lowrie and Mr. Kaufman from Gilmore & Associates. The purpose of the meeting as advertised in The Phoenix was to discuss the Reeves Property.
On motion by Mr. Claffey, seconded by Mr. Quigg, and passed, the Planning Commission approved the minutes of July 16, 2008.
Reeves Property – Waivers discussed: 1)Section 508.B.2 requiring that nothing shall be permitted to be placed, planted, set or put within the area of an easement; the area shall be kept as lawn. The waiver is requested for the paved emergency access lane at the culvert stream crossing and fencing along the access lane and the paved access drive to the proposed sewage pumping station. On motion by Mr. Quigg, seconded by Mr. Claffey, and passed, the Planning Commission recommended to the Board of Supervisors an approval of a wavier of Section 508.B.2 pending approval of matters regarding the Reeves property currently before the Zoning Hearing Board.
2) Section 514.D.4.a(1) and 514.D.4.a(2) requiring that shade trees be installed within the ultimate public right-of-way line but not closer than fifteen feet from the nearest edge of cartway and that trees on one side of the street shall be separated by no more than fifty feet and shall be offset from street trees on the opposite side of the street. Mr. Sartor stated that there is no shoulder to plant street trees next to the culvert crossing. Trees can provide buffering to properties to the east of Sedgley Lane, the access road from Route 23. A waiver would only be granted for the stream crossing area and if all the trees required could not be planted along Sedgley Lane. Pohlig Builders should provide and carefully locate as many trees as possible along Sedgley Lane. The remainder of the trees will be planted in the rest of the development. Pohlig Builders had not asked to reduce the number of trees to be planted. On motion by Mr. Reading, seconded by Mr. Quigg, and passed, the Planning Commission recommended to the Board of Supervisors an approval of a waiver of Section 514.D.4.a(1) and 514.D.4.a(2) pending approval of matters regarding the Reeves property currently before the Zoning Hearing Board.
3) Section 518.D.3 requiring that the top or bottom edge of slopes shall be located at least five feet from property lines or from an ultimate right-of-way line, whichever is more restrictive in order to permit a gradual rounding of the edge without encroaching on the abutting property. The waiver is need for grading within the ultimate right-of-way of Valley Forge Road, the installation of the driveway to the adjacent Makela property and for installation of retaining walls along Sedgley Lane. Mr. Snyder, representing Pohlig Builders, advised that for Sedgley Lane the waiver is only needed on the far southern portion of the road. Mr. Sartor stated that a retaining wall on Sedgley Lane would provide more of a buffer from the lots on Dorchester Way. On motion by Mr. Claffey, seconded by Mr. Keogh, and passed, the Planning Commission recommended to the Board of Supervisors approval of a waiver of Section 518.D.3 pending approval of matters regarding the Reeves property before the Zoning Hearing Board. Mr. Reading asked that Gilmore & Associates give their opinion on any waivers that may be need for the Alternative Plan for the Reeves Property.
The August 20, 2008 review from Gilmore & Associates was discussed. Stormwater Management – Mr. Sartor stated that calculations for the access drive do not show a post-developed 2-year storm rate being reduced to less than 90% of pre-developed rates as required by Ordinance. Additionally, the site-wide post-developed flows are greater than 90% of pre-developed flows. Mr. Snyder stated that the plans met the Zoning Ordinance standards but not the SALDO requirements. He advised that Pohlig Builders and their engineer Chester Valley Engineers have assumed 150% coverage, reduced the perc rate below what they are and agreed to retard recharge on the site. Mr. Sartor stated that taking a conservative approach of 150% takes into account pools, additions, etc. that property owners will ultimately be adding to their properties. Mr. Eder stated that the calculations are also based on a cartway 32’ wide not 28’ wide. Mr. Brennan stated that if there are two provisions such as the conflicting Zoning Ordinance and SALDO the most restrictive would take precedence. Mr. Sartor stated that the SWM has not yet been finalized. Mr. Eder stated that the calculations for the overall tract are in compliance with the Ordinance. However, CVE and Gilmore are still discussing infiltration rates.
Mr. Sartor stated that the developer has proposed a 42” diameter elliptical pipe to connect to the existing 42” pipe in Chapelview Estates. A modified inlet box with open sides will be used to connect the pipes A grate will be placed over the opening of the pipe. He advised that the pipe would convey water from west of Sedgley Lane through the storm drain system in Chapelview Estates that would then ultimately discharge to the Aqua PA property. This conveyance would minimize overland run-off to the rear yards only. Mr. Kunz of the Township EAC stated that recharge rate seems too fast and the water has no time to filter. Mr. Sartor stated that it has also been Gilmore & Associate’s concern as well through the review process. Mr. Eder stated that a layer of sandy loam will be added to the recharge beds to get a slower rate of infiltration. Mr. Eder is evaluating whether a portion of the stormwater run-off from Sedgley Lane can be discharged to the Reeves property..
Traffic – Mr. Eric Kaufman of Gilmore & Associates stated that per SALDO Sections 401.D.25.b.11 and 401.D.25.b.12 a Level of Service (LOS) should not be allowed to be degraded further. The signalized intersection of Route 23 and White Horse Road already operates at a LOS of E or F and the intersection of Valley Forge Road and Dorchester Way/Moorehall Drive adjacent to and across the street from proposed Sedgley Lane will operate at unacceptable LOS under build conditions. Mr. Snyder stated that an LOS of E or F will not be degraded further by the Reeves development and the developer has taken mitigating factors so as not to further degrade the area. Mr. Brennan questioned if a lane expansion at White Horse Road and Route 23 would change the LOS to a D. Mr. Sartor and Mr. Kaufman both stated that a left turn lane could be installed. Mr. Kramer of TPD stated that the intersection does not fall in the PaDOT study requirements for the proposed development. Mr. Kaufman stated that PaDOT could deem the development to have a significant impact at the intersection a priority and require a study. Mr. Snyder stated that the Township can ask the developer to make the intersection better; however, the developer must comply with the ordinances but doesn’t have to make an intersection better. Mr. Snyder advised that the Township cannot tell the developer that he can’t develop due to impact on the roads. He stated that Pohlig has provided mitigation and the Township cannot ask him to re-do an intersection off-site. Mr. Brennan stated that the ordinance is clear that the intersection cannot be degraded further. Mr. Snyder stated that it is an interpretation of the ordinance that is being challenged at the Zoning Hearing Board. He advised that an un-signalized intersection does not have a LOS. He advised that measurements can be taken for volume and capacity but not LOS because cars cannot be stopped at an un-signalized intersection.
Mr. Snyder advised that the present driveway into the Reeves property cannot be degraded further and would have to meet some LOS for 4 homes as it would for 51 homes. Mr. Snyder stated that this issue is before the Zoning Hearing Board. He advised that the HOP is a PaDOT jurisdiction and that PaDOT will decide how to restrict the intersection. He stated that whatever PaDOT decides, they will do. Mr. Brennan questioned what if PaDOT decides that nothing is needed but the Township does. Mr. Snyder stated that should that be the case, then Pohlig Builders would look at the whole traffic situation again including access from East Phillip Drive.
Mr. Claffey asked if TPD had taken into account the Closed Loop System that is being installed from Mowere Road in East Pikeland Township to Country Club Road/Ferry Lane in Schuylkill Township along the Route 23 corridor. Mr. Claffey questioned if the gap analysis had taken into account the flow of vehicles based on the Closed Loop System. Mr. Kaufman stated that PaDOT would have to approve/disapprove the analysis based on the CLS. Mr. Claffey stated that with the CLS in place the gaps would be less. Mr. Kramer stated that a no left turn onto Route 23 and a U-turn on Moorehall Drive would need to be analyzed for the Sedgley Lane intersection. Mr. Sartor stated that Gilmore & Associates has recommended to PaDOT that there be no left turn from Sedgley Lane for the proposed development. Mr. Snyder stated that Pohlig Builders would then make a full service connection on East Phillip Drive.
Mrs. Rockey stated that the East Phillip Drive cul-de-sac cannot be broken through. She questioned how the developer could make that consideration. Mr. Snyder stated that they now own an abutting property on East Phillip Drive. Mrs. Rockey stated that East Phillip Drive has been a dedicated cul-de-sac for 45 years. Mr. Gerstenberger stated that the question is not about right-of-way but the question is about the cul-de-sac. Mr. Gerstenberger cited SALDO Section 502.C.1.d(2). Mr. Claffey questioned who would own the emergency access facility should the East Phillip Drive access be only for emergencies. Mr. Snyder stated that it would be open for discussion. Mr. Claffey stated that it is confusing to push a development through the planning process and then buy a property that could make that plan dramatically different. Mr. Todd Pohlig stated that the Mooney property at the cul-de-sac had been for sale for a long time. He advised that it looked like an opportunity if there was a problem with a no left turn out at Sedgley Lane. He advised that overall it would be a better plan if they could connect through East Phillip Drive. Mr. Claffey questioned if a small traffic study could be done that would encompass East Philip Drive.
Solicitor - Mr. Brennan stated that double frontage lots are generally not permitted so a waiver would not be required. He stated however, that the retaining wall along Sedgley Lane solves this issue. With regard to buffering double frontage lots, the lots in Chapelview Estates that are adjacent to Sedgley Lane should be reasonably buffered. A Homeowners’ Association will maintain the SWM system on the Reeves tract once the development is built. Mr. Brennan stated that the record plan should be modified to show a note to that affect, the lots should be specified as to where the facilities are and deeds for any lots with easements should show those easements.
ALTA Survey - Mr. Brennan stated that resolution of the 50’ access from Route 23 should be a condition of final approval. He advised that the final plan could be denied or delayed if the survey issue is not resolved. Mr. Brennan stated that the Township is not accepting the ALTA survey because of ambiguity. Mr. Brennan stated that the Township is reserving the right to look into the ALTA survey. Mr. Brennan advised that the Township could also challenge the issue. Mr. Vutz stated that should the developer receive a green light to build he could do so at his own risk with this issue still being open. Mr. Vutz stated that there is cause for doubt on the access being 46’ or 50’ feet wide. Mr. Snyder stated that it is a private land owner dispute. If Pohlig does not own it, then the neighbors do and no neighbor has made a claim. Mr. Snyder stated that if a neighbor does make a claim it is not the Township’s concern. Mr. Brennan stated that he believed it was an issue. He advised that they need 50’ for a lot of reasons, one of which is safety. He advised that there is no changing his opinion that they need 50’.
Regulatory Agencies – Mr. Brennan stated that the applicant and the Township need to go through the EAC comments carefully. He advised that the MPC only mandates that the PC give a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. Although the Township values the EAC and Historical Commission input, he cautioned that per the MPC their approval is not required.
Emergency Access – Mrs. Rockey questioned if only 15 homes were built would there be a need for an emergency access. Mr. Snyder stated that two emergency access areas are needed – one at East Phillip Drive and one at the stream culvert crossing. Mr. Claffey stated that the Planning Commission recommended that there be an emergency access last month. He stated that it is morally the right thing to do.
Mr. Sartor stated that the rest of the comments in the August 20, 2008 review letter will be adequately addressed. He advised that there are some unresolved comments that are dotting “i’s” and crossing “t’s” on engineering design and possibility of a second access. After conferring with Mr. Pohlig, Mr. Snyder stated that the they were pleased with the discussion at tonight’s meeting and were willing to grant an extension to the Board of Supervisors to meet after the Planning Commission September 17 meeting. He advised that the Board of Supervisors, except for the extension, is not under the gun to act at its September 3 meeting. Mr. Claffey stated that the Township needs PaDOT to react. Mr. Kramer stated that a PaDOT review letter should be expected in that time frame.
There being no further business for discussion, the Planning Commission adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary R. Bird
Township Manager