BOROUGH OF GREEN TREE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 22, 2015

Transcription

1 BOROUGH OF GREEN TREE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 22, 2015 CALL TO ORDER Green Tree Planning Commission met on Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. in the Sycamore Room of the Green Tree Municipal Center, 10 West Manilla Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA ROLL CALL Members Present: Rebecca Chembars, Chair Cheryl Bakin, Vice Chair Paul Kirsch Robert McWillians Ed O'Donnell James Turocy Also Present: Louis A. Casadei. P.E., Borough Engineer Deborah N. Gawryla, Stenographer Absent: Thomas Bean APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES March 25, 2015 Dr. Kirsch made a motion, seconded by Mr. Turocy, to approve the minutes from the March 25, 2015 Planning Commission meeting as presented. April 8, 2015 Dr. Kirsch made a motion, seconded by Mr. O'Donnell, to approve the minutes from the April 8, 2015 Planning Commission meeting as presented. HEARING OF THE CITIZENS There was no one present who wished to be heard. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT Ms. Chembars had nothing to report at this time. She extended her thanks to Mrs. Bakin for stepping in and running the previous meetings in her absence. SP Applicant, Green Tree Partners, LP/Scalo Investments, LP, requesting site plan approval for a proposed office building at 965 Greentree Road.

2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 22, 2015 Page 2 Mr. Pat Cooper from Gateway Engineers was present to represent the applicant. Mr. Cooper said that Planning Commission had approved the plan several years ago with a number of conditions. The plan is for the construction of a 40,000 square foot office building located behind the Olive Garden and the medical building. Following the previous approval, the owners decided to put the plan on hold for a few years, but would now like to build the proposed office building. One of the conditions from the previous review was to obtain PennDOT's approval for some hydraulic calculations in re- routing a storm sewer parallel to the Parkway. As part of the ongoing Parkway construction, PennDOT is considering widening the Parkway ramp adjacent to the property and they rejected the applicant's application for the storm sewer changes. New plans have been drawn up and presented to PennDOT and the applicant is in the process of obtaining approval. Mr. Cooper and the Planning Commission reviewed the drawings of the property and the modifications made to the location of the storm sewer. Mr. Cooper said that Mr. Casadei's engineering review letter, dated 4/22/15, had a number of items to be addressed. Some of the items were carried over from the previous review several years ago and Mr. Cooper said that he would be able to provide all of the information required. Ms. Chembars asked Mr. Casadei if there were any new items that needed to be addressed. Mr. Casadei said that first section of comments in his review letter of 4/22/15 referred to stormwater management, as follows: "Stormwater Management: 1. Chapter 289 of the Codified Ordinances of the Borough of Green Tree (Stormwater Management) requires a Stormwater Best Management Practice (BMP) Maintenance Plan to be drafted and signed by the developer. Sections and list specific items that must be included in the plan. Although the Post Construction Stormwater Management Plan submitted by Gateway Engineers contains a BMP Maintenance section, it does not include all required items. The BMP Maintenance Plan must be drafted as a stand- alone document. 2. Chapter 289, Section of the Codified Ordinances of the Borough of Green Tree requires a maintenance agreement for the stormwater management BMP's to be drafted and recorded with the deed for the property. A sample agreement developed by the PADEP will be given to the developer." Mr. Casadei said he had provided Mr. Cooper with a copy of stormwater management plan. "3. It is not clear on the Site Plan which easements are for PennDOT storm sewers and which are for Borough- owned storm sewers. An Easement Plan should be included to delineate these easements." Mr. Casadei suggested that the easements could be added to the utility plan. "4. The developer will be required to receive a Highway Occupancy Permit (HOP) from PennDOT for the storm sewer pipe from the detention tank that will enter the PennDOT manhole on the east side of the site.

3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 22, 2015 Page 3 5. The PennDOT manhole at the east end of the site is presently in a depression. The sump around the manhole should be preserved and enhanced so that the surrounding area drains toward the manhole, and the solid lid should be replaced with a grated lid to accept runoff." Mr. Casadei said this should not be a big problem, but he wanted it to be noted. "6. The proposed storm sewer between Inlet D and Inlet E and also between Inlet E and Manhole C crosses the existing 36- inch diameter PennDOT storm sewer. The crossings should be checked for conflicts. Any conflicts should be addressed prior to approval." Mr. Cooper said he had checked on this item and the development did not have conflicts. "7. The elevation of the highest point of the proposed building should be included on the plan to verify that it does not exceed the maximum height allowed." Mr. Casadei said this item had been carried over from the previous review several years ago. The height of the building is not indicated on the plans. Mr. Casadei noted that the applicant had recently received a variance for building height to accommodate the HVAC system on top of the building. Discussion continued regarding the height of the building. "Drawing C101 (Latest Revision Date April 15, 2015): 1. The Borough Traffic Engineer should review the site plan to assess the adequacy of the drive aisles and circulation patterns for fire trucks. 2. The access aisle parallel to I- 376 should be dimensioned. 3. The parking on the west side of the site encroaches on the adjacent property. The encroachment must be shown clearly with dimensions, and an easement agreement must be recorded with the deed for the affected parcel. 4. An access easement must be recorded with the deed for the adjoining parcel for the driveway at the northwest corner of the site." Mr. Casadei said the following items were carried over from the previous review: Conformance with Existing Drainage Agreements and Consent Orders: 1. There is a Drainage Agreement in place between PennDOT, Green Tree, the Keystone Oaks School District, McDermitt Land Associates, and Kossman Development for the drainage facilities located on this site and downstream to the point where the runoff flows under the Parkway West toward Banksville Road. Paragraph 17 of the Agreement stipulates that the volume of 163 cubic feet per second and velocity of feet per second cannot be exceeded for the flow onto the property owned by Kossman Development, which is downstream of the Green Tree Detention Pond. The Developer must demonstrate that this threshold is not being exceeded by development on the McDermitt site. 2. The developer should preserve the stormwater detention ponds that are shown on Exhibit A to the Drainage Agreement. 3. There is also a Consent Order with two amendments in place to regulate the development of this site. The revised Paragraph 11 of the Order states that if it is determined that revisions to the traffic signal timing for the intersections along Greentree Road are required, the Developer will provide for them at their sole expense.

4 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 22, 2015 Page 4 4. Paragraph 15 of the Order stipulates that all buffer plantings required by the Order and also Borough Ordinances must be in place before the issuance of any Building Permit for this site. Paragraph 16 of the Order stipulates that no Certificates of Occupancy for the proposed building can be issued until all other plantings and landscaping is installed. 5. The original Court Order, from which the sanitary sewer to serve the site was constructed, limits the total quantity of sanitary sewage from the McDermitt property to 42,000 gallons per day. Prior to approval of the proposed development, the development must demonstrate the total sewage flow from all buildings on the McDermitt property will not exceed this limit." Ms. Chembars said that at the previous review of this plan, Planning Commission had also discussed that a utility easement was necessary along the west side of the property and should be added to drawing C121. Ms. Chembars asked about the topsoil stockpile shown on drawing C131. Mr. Cooper said that is required to be shown during the construction as part of the erosion control plan in the event that topsoil must be removed during grading and construction. However, there does not appear to be any topsoil on the site, but a location for storage must be shown in the event that some is found and moved. It would only exist during the construction phase. Mr. McWilliams asked about the size of the water line coming into the area. Mr. Cooper replied that it was an 8- inch pipe coming into the property and a 6- inch pipe going into the building. Mr. McWilliams said he only saw one fire hydrant on the property. Mr. Cooper showed Mr. McWiliams the location of the existing hydrant and the location of an additional one that would be added. Mrs. Bakin asked if the turning radii along the backside of the building would be sufficient for fire trucks. Mr. Cooper was certain that the radii would be sufficient for fire trucks, but if the Traffic Engineer found they were insufficient they would have to go back to the drawing board. Mrs. Bakin asked if one of the ladder trucks would be able to drive around the entire building. Mr. Casadei said the ladder truck should be able to reach all four sides of the building. The Traffic Engineer will be providing a complete report that will include information on this issue. Mr. McWilliams questioned whether a 6- inch line would be large enough for the fire company. Mr. Cooper said he would check on these numbers. When asked, Mr. Cooper said that the applicant has not yet received approval from PennDOT on the application, but at a recent meeting they seemed to be very positive about it being approved. Discussion continued regarding the pipe that would run through the property and under the Parkway. Mrs. Bakin asked what it meant when it says that the borough is a co- applicant for the pipe plan. Mr. Casadei said it is a new requirement by PennDOT that requires the borough to be part of the application. The borough could possibly be liable in the future if something happened and PennDOT could not get in touch with the developer. Mr. Cooper said that this allows PennDOT to contact the borough if there is a problem and they cannot reach the property owner. Discussion continued regarding the new PennDOT requirement.

5 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 22, 2015 Page 5 Mrs. Bakin asked how to proceed with this site plan that is still awaiting PennDOT approval, traffic reports, etc. Ms. Chembars felt that Planning Commission could possibly approve the site plan with a number of conditions, the first of which would be to address all comments on the Borough Engineer's review letter of 4/22/15. Other items to be completed would be to provide evidence of utility easements on the adjacent property for the electrical and telecommunications facilities servicing the premises, and address comments on the pending review letter from the Borough's Traffic Engineer. Ms. Chembars said if some of these items would require a change in parking or building location, then Planning Commission would require that the applicant submit a revised plan for Planning Commission's review. Mr. Cooper said the developer hopes to break ground on this project in a month. Ms. Chembars commented that there are a lot of conditions that must be met in a month's time. Mr. Cooper felt that most of the conditions were minor and could easily be corrected, and some of those items in the review letter were from the review several years ago and had already been addressed. Mrs. Bakin said she would also like to several additional conditions for approval. She requested that the water line coming into the property be thoroughly investigated to verify that a larger line is not needed. Additionally, anything substantial in the Traffic Engineer's report would require that the plan come back before Planning Commission for additional review. Mr. Casadei asked what would be considered to be substantial. Discussion continued regarding what would constitute a substantial change. Mrs. Bakin asked when the developer anticipate the completion of the building. Mr. Cooper replied that the developer hopes to have it completed in 15 months after breaking ground. Mr. McWilliams requested that when the building is completed, he would like the fire department to have a complete walk- through of the building. Motion: Ms. Chembars made a motion, seconded by Mrs. Bakin, to approve site plan SP-01-15, for applicant Green Tree Partners, LP/Scalo Investments LP, for a proposed office building to be located at 965 Greentree Road in the Highway Commercial District, subject to the following: 1. Address all comments on the Borough Engineer's review letter of 4/22/ Provide evidence of utility easement(s) on the adjacent property for the electrical and telecommunications facilities servicing the subject premises. 3. Address all comments on the Borough Traffic Engineer's review letter (pending). 4. Confirm that water lines are adequate for fire protection services. 5. Should addressing items #1-4 above create substantial changes to the proposed development, applicant must come before Planning Commission again with revised drawings.

6 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 22, 2015 Page 6 Continued review of materials from Mackin Engineering regarding the revised Green Tree Borough Zoning Ordinance Mr. Casadei said he would provide the revised diagrams that were needed for the Appendices. Ms. Chembars noted that some of the changes that Planning Commission had made previously have not yet been made. Mrs. Bakin said that Ms. Rosselli from Mackin has been busy working on ordinances for several other municipalities. Mrs. Bakin asked if Ms. Gawryla could make Planning Commission's requested changes to the ordinance if the document was turned over to her. Ms. Gawryla replied that she would have to obtain approval from her supervisor for the additional hours and the work before she took over such a project. Ms. Chembars said the ordinance did not need new information from Ms. Rosselli, but needed to be polished up a bit. Discussion continued regarding what changes still needed to be done with the ordinance. Ms. Chembars suggested that Planning Commission review Ms. Rosselli's from April 13: "Note about boxed charts I only saw the charts in Article III that had information on separate lines (in the Dimensional Charts), but the note indicates it is throughout the Articles. Could you let me know where else it happens?" Ms. Chembars said this is something that could be easily remedied. Discussion continued regarding adding the section numbers onto the draft Use Chart to better locate information. "Note about Accessory Uses - PC asked that various districts be noted to have no (or none) in terms of Accessory Uses, but the way it is currently written indicates that Accessory Uses incidental to the primary uses are allowed. Do they want me to remove that language and not allow any accessory uses?" Mrs. Bakin said when Planning Commission reviewed the charts in the various zoning districts they had decided that either the accessory uses should be listed or it should be indicated that no accessory use is permitted. The districts that had no accessory uses listed were changed to "None." Mr. Turocy said that all the possible accessory uses could not be included in a list, but by changing the accessory uses to "None," would penalize anyone wanting an accessory use that might be acceptable. Planning Commission agreed that the areas where "None" had been indicated should be removed from the ordinance. "Note about conditional use listed under various districts in the General Regulations needed to show applicable Supplemental Regulations section reference for each use. These are spread throughout the Supplemental Regulations section and vary depending on the use (i.e., for fencing, lighting, parking, etc.), so this would be very cumbersome and not a very useful thing to do. The actual uses in the Use Table and Article III will reference the supplemental regulations, which I think is more helpful." Ms. Chembars said adding these items to the main Use Table should be sufficient and if Council feels that additional references are needed, they can consider them during their review of the ordinance.

7 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 22, 2015 Page 7 "Note about Supplemental Regulations for restaurants. I had pulled all the existing supplemental regulations from the current ordinance. PC was to decide which ones they wanted to keep. I don't understand your note and how these need to be incorporated into the update." Note about Conditional Uses in Current Ordinance (document you sent several weeks ago). I added info about the drive- throughs. The other information was general about the Local Business District (that doesn't exist in the update). I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do with this. Note about Lou's changes to the Appendices. These PDF documents came from the Borough. I can't easily update PDF files." Mr. Casadei said he would provide the drawings that are needed in the Appendices and send them to Ms. Rosselli. Mrs. Bakin said that although the ordinance might not be in color when it is adopted, it is helpful to keep the colors consistent throughout the review process for easier reference. Ms. Chembars said that Ms. Rosselli would be attending the May 6 Planning Commission meeting, and hoped that the final details could be worked out. Ms. Chembars said she would also like to get guidance from Ms. Rosselli regarding what still needs to be done procedurally in moving the ordinance along to Council. Mrs. Bakin said that some of the requirements could be found in the MPC. Discussion continued regarding possible steps that were still needed. Ms. Chembars hoped that Planning Commission could be done with the zoning ordinance by the end of May, and hold a public meeting in June or July. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Mr. Turocy made a motion, seconded by Mr. McWilliams, to adjourn the meeting. Rebecca Chembars, Chairman dng Ed O'Donnell, Secretary