i'd like to call to order the regular meeting of the peters township planning commission for july 12th two thousand and eighteen ed roll call mr mills will not be here mr magrino will not be here mr kartofilis here mr wylie here mr smith here mr tselepis here mr verlato here can i get a motion to approve the minutes of the june 12th two thousand and eighteen regular meeting all in question to approve those minutes all in favor aye reports and correspondences site planssubdivisions filed we have one subdivision file for review and it's the sarchick i'm not sure if i'm pronouncing that correctly it's sarchick plan of lots it's also a one lot subdivision on bower hill road so we'll be dealing with that tonight any other items to add to the agenda no any items or comments on items not on the agenda good evening gentlemen first of all my name is monica marrow i live at one hundred and five walnut drive i'd like to thank you all for what you do the service you provide as planning commission is invaluable i am a council person as you all know i am here as a council person but i am speaking solely for myself i represent no one but myself i wanted to say a few words about the plans that have been coming up through the planning commission and passed on to council for approval most specifically i wanted to share what may be deemed frustration with many of the plans that come to council with requests for variances and special conditions that deviate from our newly approved zoning ordinances township spent a considerable amount of money and time to do the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinances they've been published yet almost every residential development or any commercial endeavor comes forward seeking some deviation or variance now we all know we live in pennsylvania and there are hills and dales and creeks and challenging topography and we all know that peters has relied on revenue from development both residential and commercial for a long time to support our public infrastructure and our public services we also know that much of the remaining property in peters township that has potential for development also has the probability of difficulty i think we're pushing the envelope every time a development comes forward and two recent issues made me feel compelled to come and talk to you again this is my personal opinion and only my view of how things are and it is not critical to you it is an observation of what i see happening the first example with all due respect to mr hoskins who has developed some wonderful plans in the township the most recent phase for hamlets of springdale to me is pushing the envelope it's a bit of a following it sits on a mound and the developer requested a loop road to make that workable that design was a request to compromise our standards when in fact there were ways that he potentially could compromise on his own fewer lots maybe a different design or maybe not going into that part of the property i wasn't really in favor of the modification i thought it was a creative solution to a problem that he created by himself the second is the waters project both the parking spaces which are too small in the garage and my recent realization that they have a four story frontage on east mcmurray road were very frustrating to me i do have to ask did you all realize that the garage was exposed and that in fact there would be four stories at east mcmurray because i didn't when i looked at the plan and to me that is a direct violation of the intent of what council stated when we talked about the town center plan it's water under the bridge in some respects the design said it's been approved but that is something that i think should really not have been allowed or it should have been brought to our attention when it came to council it was about the variance for the subdivision for the right of way so that they could have a turning lane and oh by the way there were parking space issues i don't agree with them being smaller i don't agree when i realized that the garage was exposed so that's one of the reasons i voted that we approved this subdivision but i am hopeful that the zoning commission will not approve that variance i'm personally ashamed that i missed that because i do try to be very diligent about what i look at and what i read and take into consideration how it affects the residents and how it matches up with the ordinances maybe some people think i'm anal i don't know i think i'm doing my job anyway in conclusion i again want to thank you for what you do i realize it's a lot to look at and a lot of work i just want to express my sentiments that i would really hope that the planning commission would be a little more critical look at plans a little more critically when they present requests for deviation and modifications that maybe could be avoided if the developer would make would not have tried to push the envelope and put as much as they could into a small piece of property if you would like to say anything in response that's fine i just thought that i needed to come and again thank you for what you do and just ask for better scrutiny of what's coming before us i'll let planning commissioners respond first but i need to respond as well i'll let you respond first if you have any response first of all i want to say with respect to hoskins hamlet six it was a deviation from our subdivision ordinance we didn't update that we were deviating from a rule of six hundred feet that's been in our ordinance for thirty years and is outdated there were no variances granted on the conservation residential zoning there have been no variances granted on conservation or mixed residential developments that have come in here that have been recently approved one two the waters it's not four stories it's valley brook road not east i'm sorry you're right i apologize at valley brook road you see two stories the fourth story is set back fifty plus feet it's that whole ordinance working together that you need to consider it's not a four story building because it doesn't meet the definition of a four story building and it's not going to be four stories right on valley brook road it will be two the fourth story is set way back so you didn't miss anything well i think probably what i'm saying to you is that the view of the facade is not what i anticipated it to be i don't think i was alone in realizing that the garage level was exposed it had to be well it's only exposed along valley brook road the ninety of it is not exposed therefore it does not count as a story under the definition of a story that is exactly the idea that we can explain away anything well i'm not explain away anything it's the ordinance you can't make developers do things that are not in the ordinance you make them comply with the ordinance and there they did there's no deviation relative to the height of the building they are requesting the variance for the nine by eighteen versus ten by twenty parking in the garage which in my mind is de minimus we made a recommendation in favor to do a mix and not require all the parking lots to be what is it ten by twenty ten by twenty they could have some of them ten by twenty but where i think it was pillars structures impeding the size of each space because if you make those nine by eighteen about half to balance would be ten by twenty see and it's my understanding the developer was not willing to make that they are requesting the full i think it's eighty plus spaces in that garage to be nine by eighteen because they want a certain ratio of parking for the residents that will be residing there it's even questionable in our zoning ordinance whether that ten by twenty applies to private parking in a garage we don't regulate parking in a multifamily town home we don't regulate parking in a single family home in a garage it's even questionable whether that ten by twenty applies and we took a conservative approach and made them go through the mayor you know mr zuk i appreciate your explanation and i understand that you're defending the fact that waters is following what you perceive as the ordinances my personal comment was just that the side of the building and the way it will appear is not what i read it to be and i did not realize personally that the garage was exposed that's all i'm asking that to me it looks like it will be four stories at valley brook you're right i misstated the perception you do understand that perception is truth to most people so i'm just telling you my perception i don't think there's been a lot of deviation from the rules that you perceive there are there's been very minor deviations that six hundred feet like i said it's been in our ordinances for thirty plus years and i think it's a little outdated we just did the zoning if that was the point so it's in the subdivision ordinance we didn't totally update the subdivision ordinance i'm sorry i don't want to take your meeting to debate you need to make sure that you're hitting these things accurately which i don't think you are my perception is that there are a lot of times that we have plans where there are variances there are modifications one thing and another all i'm saying is they're not there are not a lot of those there have been a couple here in you know recently but there's not a lot of variances being granted on new developments just not happening i respect your perception it's an accurate perception thank you gentlemen i appreciate it again thank you for everything you do no old business on the agenda planning champion capital subdivision on bower hill road champion capital lp they recently purchased the twenty three plus acres at two hundred and sixty nine bower hill road they're asking planning commission and the township tonight for approval to subdivide that twenty three acres into two single family residential lots this is the property where a recent fire occurred and there was a death then champion capital bought and then tore the house down that used to exist on lot one that was done in march of this year we're talking about a modification here tonight for this subdivision the proposed plan is to create one new lot that's lot number two which will have direct driveway access to bower hill road just like the existing residents used to have bower hill road is classified as a collector roadway at peters township and our subdivision ordinance stipulates that except for previously recorded lots of record you're not allowed to create new lots with direct access to bower hill road they're requesting the subdivision to be approved in this modification request this section of bower hill road has a twenty five mile per hour speed limit the required safe sight distance in our subdivision ordinance looking left from the new lot is lot two looking left is two hundred and fifty feet and looking right is one hundred and ninety five feet this stretch of bower hill road as you can see on that subdivision it's a fairly long straightaway so there's good sight distance from the proposed right of way on lot two they would exceed the two hundred and fifty left and the one hundred and ninety five right to meet and exceed our township safe sight distance for the driveway on lot two the driveway on lot one too has the required safe sight distance this property is in our low density residential zoning district the minimum lot size in that district is a half acre both of these lots exceed one acre this area of peters is serviced by the peters creek sanitary authority there is public sanitary sewer access available to both of these lots one and two the plan includes a twenty foot wide sanitary slash utility easement between the fifty foot building line and the property line along valley road there's a twenty foot easement that runs there's a sanitary sewer right here and peters creek has indicated that they will provide that utilities will provide access for both lots one and two to that public sewer there is the requirement that peter's creek sanitary authority approve this plan as well as dep has to approve sewage facility planning modules therefore staff's recommending that the planning commission approve recommend council approve the champion capitol final plan including the modification to our subdivision ordinance section thirty eight thousand five hundred and thirty six blocks lots and parcels be approved subject to those nine conditions that are listed in my report lot two would be subject to a one thousand five hundred traffic impact fee that's one of the conditions on the plan and both plots would be required to at the time of a building permit come in with their building permit application a storm water management plan for each lot as each proposed home is submitted for building permanent location other than that the plan is in pretty good shape and staff's recommending approval subject to these nine conditions is someone here to talk about the plan yes can you come up and maybe answer a couple of questions for me on the plan itself it shows some hightension wires i can't see those on the birds eye view are they pretty predominate or are they real high yes they are high and they are pretty large i mean you see it on the plan and they just cut up right can you just tell us your name first my name's andrew ehrenberg on behalf of champion capital isn't it kind of strange to have won't the driveway be like right under these hightension wires is it going to be tough to put a house there with those hightension wires there any problems with doing that no it shouldn't be a problem the way we subdivided it to optimize both these lots and like ed said with the driveway having to come up the side cannot face bower hill road it will slightly be under that power line but it shouldn't be i wasn't quite clear where would it come on the side yard or on the south side the driveway would be here it's not uncommon to have a power line right of way running through i guess i never went around great meadows has them windermere has them stonehenge has them okay it's not uncommon it's a pretty tight space you're building on lot two though right because there's a pretty significant drop off on the back on that street yes we have intentions to build a larger home on lot one and a significantly smaller one on two i shouldn't say significantly but they won't be two exactly the same hoskin style homes put it that way right if there was not safe sight distance here for lot two you know i wouldn't be sitting here recommending that we approve that modification this is along a fairly straight portion of bower hill road if there was not the required safe sight distance then it would be a different story in this case there is safe sight distance they're creating a one hundred and twenty one acre lot minimum is a half acre so that part of hoskins plan that comes down that's shown on the overhead is that already there that road already built yes i can't i was down there not that long ago when this fire happened and i couldn't recall if that connection was already built so the sewage connections already built it's already there sanitary sewers there any other comments can we get a motion i'll make a motion that the planning commission approve the recommendation based upon the planning commission's memo dated july 6th two thousand and eighteen for the champion capital final subdivision as well as the nine recommendations so stated in the memo all in favor aye thank you gentlemen we'll figure out when this plan is going to council we planning modules and such it'll go probably sometime in august anything for the planning portion ed well the only thing is we let the planning commission know we hired we've hired two new folks this is their first week of work i didn't make them come tonight because it's such a short little meeting at the next meeting i will introduce our new assistant planning director which is seth koons and our new zoning person code enforcement officer which is kristen who will be at our next meeting in august other than that i don't have anything all right meeting adjourned