Marshall Township Planning Commission 525 Pleasant Hill Road Wexford, PA 15090

Transcription

1 Marshall Township Planning Commission 525 Pleasant Hill Road Wexford, PA November 1, :00 PM Present: Absent: Planning Director/ Zoning Officer: Secretary: Solicitor: Others: Ron Baling (arrived at 7:12), Al Tarquinio, Larry Payne, Lise Blackburn, Sally Cunningham, Elaine Hatfield Jeff Davison Nicole Zimsky Marianne Salzman Blaine Lucas, (not present) Ms. Schwerin, Ms. Bachman, Ms. Grant, Mr. Tafel Ms. Hatfield called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MINUTES Approval of the October 4, 2011 Meeting Minutes. Ms Hatfield moved to approve the Minutes as presented. Mr. Tarquinio seconded the motion. Vote in favor was unanimous [5 0]. Mr. Baling did not participate in the vote as he had not yet arrived. PLAN(S) O Connor-Hillman Lot 5; RC11-1; Plaza Lane; plan dated September 12, 2011; deadline: 1/3/2012 Mr. David Takcik, the attorney representing Mr. O Connor, reviewed the application for the reclassification. In summary, the parcel of land in question is a problem parcel. It is zoned Suburban Residential (SR) and it abuts the Pennsylvania Turnpike. It is a unique parcel in that it doesn t have any frontage on a public street. It is accessed by a private road owned by the Turnpike Commission. It doesn t have access to public utilities. It cannot be used for residential development because of the noise and low level vibration created by 31,000 vehicles per day, accelerating and decelerating, through the toll lanes. It also doesn t meet the minimum bulk area requirements for the SR District. The adjacent parcel has a high pressure, L-shaped gas line on it and that is preventing development of the lot. Based on these problems, most importantly the high pressure gas line, the applicant believes that this parcel deserves to be rezoned for commercial use. He highlighted case law which held that a Comprehensive Plan is not rigid and can be changed. It further held that the high pressure gas line rendered the building of dwellings impractical. He went on to add that Marshall Township should consider 1

2 updating its Comprehensive Plan. He believed it would be a productive, tax-paying piece of property if a billboard was installed on it and that it would otherwise sit vacant, generating little tax revenue. Changing the zoning to Highway Commercial (HC) was the least radical change in zoning (as opposed to Planned Industrial Park) and was appropriate because the proposed use is dependent on high traffic and could accommodate the businesses on Route 19 by advertising the Route 19 businesses. He addressed the concerns expressed in the letter from the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, dated October 3, First, the brightness of the billboard could be adjusted or eliminated completely. Second, there is no vegetation that needs to be removed. Third, the previous owner of the parcel had an agreement with the Turnpike Commission to use Plaza Lane to access the parcel and there is no reason to believe that a similar agreement could not be reached between the applicant and the Turnpike Commission. In response to Ms. Blackburn s question, Mr. O Connor said that he just recently bought the property, knowing the challenges it faced and understanding the zoning. He added that he bought it in order to keep somebody else from moving into his backyard. Lastly, the Turnpike Commission, in its letter, indicated that PennDOT prohibits billboards within 500 feet of an interchange. Mr. Takcik argued that the area is a Toll Plaza, not an interchange, where an interchange is defined as the meeting of two roads. In his opinion, because the Warrendale Plaza does not meet the definition of an interchange, a billboard would not be prohibited in that location. Mr. Takcik addressed the comments of the Allegheny County Economic Development. He disagreed with their assertion that the subject parcel is located primarily in a Conservation Area. It is also labeled as infill development on the Future Land Use Plan of Allegheny Places, and if the definition is applied to this parcel, it is clearly underused land and the sign would be positioned on the property to fall within the infill development portion of the parcel. Regarding the A.C.E.D. s concern of Spot Zoning, Mr. Takcik reiterated his position that he has demonstrated that the property is clearly unique, and as such any special treatment would not constitute Spot Zoning. In his opinion, this property does not meet the use and bulk area standards for anything but outdoor advertising. Mr. Payne asked for any elevation information as it relates to the height of the billboard, but the applicant did not have it. In response to Mr. Tarquinio s question, Mr. O Connor indicated that the sign would have a total height of between 50 and 55 feet. Mr. O Connor addressed the Planning Commission. He described the vibration and noise generated by the traffic and the failure of the sound barrier to buffer the residents from the noise. It was his opinion that a billboard is a perfect use on his lot because it would generate no traffic, create no noise and would generate revenue and taxes for the Township. In response to Mr. Tarquinio s question, he indicated that the four billboards situated in Pine Township, near Atria s restaurant, are assessed at over 5 million dollars. Mr. O Connor went on to explain that a single advertisement generates $10,000-$14,000 per month and the electronic billboard is programmed to cycle through twelve ads for ten seconds each in a two minute loop. Mr. Tarquinio asked if they pose a hazard by distracting drivers. Mr. O Connor indicated that, based on his research and his own personal opinion, any accidents are just careless driving. Mr. 2

3 O Connor went on to add that he plans to do a still billboard on one side of the mono-pole and a changeable, electronic sign on the other. Mr. Payne expressed concern that, considering the fact that drivers should be decelerating and merging in this area, an electronic billboard is going to distract the drivers. Ms. Blackburn asked about existing vegetation on the subject property as well as how Mr. O Connor is currently using the property. Mr. O Connor explained that he has mature trees on his property that are dying and need to be removed anyway and that he uses the property to park equipment for his excavation business, which was what the previous owner did. Ms. Helen Schwerin, a neighbor, spoke in opposition of the application. Ms. Schwerin s concern focused on the possible future uses of the property if the request is granted. She felt that a lighted billboard isn t appropriate in a residential neighborhood. Additionally, she pointed out that Mr. O Connor owns several adjoining lots in the area and feared that the applicant may return and use the same arguments to have all of the additional lots rezoned. Ms. Dana Bachman, expressed concern that the light from the billboard will be shining directly into her bedroom window. Furthermore, she believed that the billboard s proximity will devalue her property. Ms. Sue Grant expressed concern that the light from the billboard will be overwhelming. She referred to the billboard on I-279 in Franklin Park, which is the same as what they ve proposed, as an example of a billboard that is too bright to look at and which will be shining into her windows all night long. Ms. Grant also argued that if the Township opens the door and allows commercial rezoning of this property, it will create a domino effect to the neighboring properties. Mr. O Connor argued that the vegetation would buffer most of the billboard from the residents who opposed based on the light from the billboard. To answer Mr. Tarquinio s question, he indicated that the sign is 14 feet by 48 feet (672 square feet) for each side. Mrs. Zimsky reviewed her comment letter: I. (RC #11-1) Thomas G. O Connor Reclassification/Zone Change Application: Thomas G. O Connor is applying for a reclassification/zone change for the property known as Parcel Number 1999-B-3 (accessible via Plaza Lane in Warrendale). The property is currently zoned Suburban Residential (SR); the Applicant is requesting a zone change to Highway Commercial (HC). The area of the proposed rezoning is approximately 22,651 SF. Public sewage and water are in the area and available, but no lines are run to the property. The parcel is bordered by SR on three sides and Plaza Lane (Turnpike) on the fourth side. 3

4 II. Conformance with Township Comprehensive Plan The property proposed for rezoning is shown on the Future Land Use Map of the Township as residential. Highway Commercial zoning on this property is not consistent with the Township s Comprehensive Plan. III. Recommendation The Highway Commercial zoning district is the Township s most intense commercial district in terms of permitted uses, lot coverage, etc. If the property were to be rezoned to HC then ANY use listed as permitted or conditionally permitted would be permissible on this parcel. The parcel is surrounded on three sides not only by residentially zoned property, but developed with single family homes; and currently the only access to the property would be via Plaza Lane (there is a 25 right-of-way that runs from Mt. Pleasant Road through O Connors property, but that is not sufficient to support a public road). Staff believes that the rezoning of this parcel could have a negative impact on the health, safety or welfare of the community. Therefore, the Planning Commission should consider giving a recommendation of denial to the Board of Supervisors. Despite arguments to the contrary, Mrs. Zimsky reiterated that the subject parcel is zoned appropriately for residential use and a residential structure could be built on it. Water and sewer are in the area and could be extended from Warren Road to the parcel. The bulk and area standard for Suburban Residential (SR) is 20,000 sq. feet for lots that have public utilities available. This parcel, if it were to be rezoned Highway Commercial (HC) would have to accommodate ANY use that is permissible in HC. It is situated on Plaza Lane, which is a private road and the only other means of access is a 25 foot right of way from Mt. Pleasant road. It is not wide enough to build a public road to access the parcel. If the Turnpike Commission grants limited use access to Mr. O Connor, as they did to the previous owner, is not within Marshall Township s control. In 2008, there was Zoning Hearing Board meeting in which the previous owner sought a variance in order to sell the property to a person who was interested in erecting a pole building and using the parcel to store heavy equipment. Mr. O Connor attended that meeting and objected to the application for a variance for commercial use as it would devalue his property. Subsequently, Mr. O Connor purchased that same parcel and is here before the Board requesting the same change that he objected to three years ago. Ms. Hatfield motioned to recommend to the Board of Supervisor s that they deny the application to change the zoning on the subject parcel to Highway Commercial. Ms. Blackburn seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously {6-0} 4

5 Chapel Hill Estates; SUB-FIN11-5; Wexford Run Road.; plans dated October 11, 2011; deadline: 1/30/2012 Mr. Steven Victor, of Victor-Wetzel Associates, presented the plan. The primary access to the subdivision is located on Wexford Run Road. The remaining borders are Woodhurst Estates, Tyburn Woods and Soergel s property. It is in the Suburban Residential district. It is comprised of nineteen (19) acres, which were previously three separate parcels. There are three homes on the property and they will be demolished. Mr. Victor reviewed, in detail, the steep slopes, woodlands, open spaces, drainage ways, conservation easements. The stormwater management facility would be at the northwest corner of the site in the Open Space. In regards to steep slopes, they are required to save 1.45 acres, they propose For the 15-25% slopes, they are required to have 1.16 acres; they propose 1.26 acres. They propose 1.25 acres of reforestation and the areas were chosen to provide privacy for specific lots and adjoining properties. The made the conscious choice to take away some of the woodlands but replace it with selective reforestation. He highlighted the areas that they intend to preserve, either through Conservation Easement or Open Space. The site capacity analysis allows twenty eight (28) units. They intend to create twenty (20), 125 foot wide, custom home lots. They have moved the main entrance slightly west to extend the minimum safe sight distance to about 280 feet when looking eastward. Ms. Blackburn suggested that the street be a loop rather than a cul-de-sac. Mr. Victor demonstrated that a loop is not feasible because the slope is 15-25% between lot 13 and lot 18. The Township grade ordinance for streets is 12% grade. A loop would disrupt the privacy that they created by having 19 of the 20 lots abut open space. Mr. Victor explained that they envision the homes to be between four and six thousand square feet. The pads for the homes are 125 feet wide by 80 feet deep. Where the home is constructed within that area is up to the homeowner and builder. Lots 18, 19 and 20 would have constraints regarding backyard amenities such as swimming pools and sport courts due to the stormwater easements. Mrs. Zimsky reviewed her comments: I. Chapel Hill Estates (Preliminary Plan) Subdivision Plan: This plan is a major subdivision of 19.8 acres of property along Wexford Run Road (generally between the Tyburn Woods Development and the Soergel Orchard property). The Developer is proposing a 20 lot subdivision. The property does not meet the threshold for mandatory conservation subdivision design. The developer, per the zoning ordinance, followed Site Capacity Analysis for the subdivision. The proposed subdivision is located in the Suburban Residential (SR) zoning district. The Developer has opted to submit only preliminary plans at this time and will follow-up after preliminary approval with their final plans. 5

6 II. Subdivision Review Comments 1. Section B.2. Name and address of the owner of record. COMMENT: Please add this information to the plans. Please provide documentation giving you permission to file plans impacting the Loscar property. 2. Section B.23. Location, width, bearings and purpose of existing and purposed easements and utility rights of way. COMMENT: Please provide the width and bearings and distance for the easements shown on the plans. 3. Section B.27. A Traffic Impact Study for all residential subdivisions consisting of twenty (20) or more lots or dwelling units in accordance with section B.14. COMMENT: The Developer is seeking a modification from this section. 4. Section B.29. The names of adjacent property owners and uses. COMMENT: Please add this information to the plans. III. Zoning Comments 1. Section D.2. The Developer shall identify, on each conservation easement, all the resources protected in said easement. COMMENT: Please add this information to the plans. 2. Section D.3. The Developer, on the plan, shall provide, in writing on the plan, that the resources protected within the conservation easement shall not be disturbed. COMMENT: Please add this information to the plans. 3. Section D.4. The Developer shall, in writing on the plan, grant and convey the conservation easements to all lot owners of the plan and/or homeowners association properly created. COMMENT: Please add this information to the plans. 6

7 IV. Additional Comments 1. Please show the calculation exempting the development from conservation subdivision. 2. An HOP will be required from PennDOT for the entrance on Wexford Run Road. 3. A Traffic Impact Fee of $35,440 will be due from the development, $1,772 at the time each building permit is issued. 4. There is a question as to whether a house can be built on Lot 7 with the building setbacks and the limit of disturbance shown on the grading plan. V. Recommendation Recommend approval of the plan contingent upon the applicant satisfying staff comments. Mrs. Zimsky reviewed Mr. Robinson s comments: I have reviewed the proposed Chapel Hill Estates Subdivision Plan, a 20-lot conventional subdivision plan located along Wexford Run Road in the SR- Suburban Residential Zoning District. The total lot area is comprised of 19.8 acres and includes Block and Lot # s 1822-L M-16 AND 1822-M The scale of the location plan must be provided on the plan. The minimum scale is one (1) inch equals twelve hundred (1,200) feet. Sec B.1 2. The length of the straight lines and length of curves of the proposed paved cartway, Chapel Hill Drive, has not been provided on the plan. Sect B A description of the proposed systems for waterlines and fire hydrants has not been provided. Sec B The bearings of the proposed easements have not been provided. Sec B A traffic impact study (TIS) for all residential SUBDIVISIONS, consisting of twenty(20) of more LOTS or DWELLING UNITS in accordance with Sec (B).(14) has not been provided. Sec B The names of all adjacent property owners, have not been provided on the plan. Sec b.29 7

8 7. A Post Construction Stormwater Management Plan has been prepared for the site by The Gateway Engineers, Inc. A detention facility has been proposed in the northwest corner of the site to control post-development rates at 80% of the pre-development conditions for the 1,2, 10, 25 and 100 year storms. Permeabilities in inches per hour of the soil types have not been provided. Sec The plan does not address Water quality treatment of stormwater runoff. Sec. C.(1).(a) & Sec, A.(1)(b) No details of the outlet structure have been provided to verify that the structure has been designed to allow for infiltration of the increase in volume for the 2- year storm. Explain how the Extended Detention requirements have been met. Provisions shall be made so that the 1-year storm takes a minimum of 24 hours to drain from the facility form a point where the maximum volume of water from the 1- year storm is captured. Sec A.(1)(a) How is stormwater from roof tops conveyed to the detention facility? Connected to the public stormsewer system? If connected to the public stormsewers, storm laterals should be provided on the plan. 8. A grading permit will be required prior to any earth disturbance on the site. Ord. 324 The proposed cut and fill slopes are predominately 2 horizontal to 1 vertical. For slopes greater than 3 to 1, requires a written statement from a registered professional engineer experienced in geological sciences and erosion control stating that the steeper slope will not result in increased risk or injury to persons or damage to adjacent property or receiving streams from erosion and sedimentation. Is the cut and fill balanced on the site? 9. A Chapter 102 PADEP permit for stormwater discharges associate with construction activity is required for clearing, grading and excavation activities that disturb more than one acre. 10. An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan has been prepared for the site. The plan requires approval by the Allegheny County Conservation District. 11. A gravity public sewer system has been designed for the collection and conveyance of sewage the existing sanitary sewer serving the Woodhurst Plan. A PADEP Planning Module Exemption including a capacity letter from Cranberry Township will be required. The proposed sewer extension must be in accordance the MTMSAS Specifications for Construction of Sanitary Sewers and MTMSA Rules and Regulations. More specific details including but not limited to profiles and wye locations will be required. 8

9 12. This review is based on this submission as a preliminary subdivision plan. Additional comments may be necessary when final subdivision plans are submitted and reviewed. Mr. Ralph Tafel, a resident on Woodhurst Drive whose property abuts lots 7 & 8, asked to see how much of a buffer will be preserved between those lots and his property. Mr. Victor indicated that the distance between his home and the new home would be approximately 150 feet. Mr. Tarquinio moved to recommend approval of the preliminary plan, based on staff comments and recommendations. Ms. Cunningham seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous [6-0]. ADJOURN Since there was no further business to come before the Commission at 9:00 p.m., Mr. Tarquinio moved to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Cunningham seconded the motion. Vote in favor of the motion was unanimous. (6-0) Respectfully submitted, Marianne Salzman Planning Commission Secretary 9