MUNICIPALITY OF MONROEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21, 2007 MINUTES. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Bernard Erb at 8 p.m.

Transcription

1 MUNICIPALITY OF MONROEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21, 2007 MINUTES The meeting was called to order by Chairman Bernard Erb at 8 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND A MOMENT OF SILENCE The Pledge of Allegiance was recited and a moment of silence observed. ROLL CALL The Recording Secretary, Sharon McIndoe, called roll and the following were present: Bernard Erb, Bob Kerr, Jack Murray, Bill Kelmickis, Shelly Kaltenbaugh, Paul Hugus and Shawn Rosensteel. Mr. Bole was absent. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There being no corrections, additions or deletions to the minutes of the Regular Meetings of November 15, 2006, December 20, 2006 and January 17, 2007, a motion was duly made by Mr. Murray to approve them, as submitted, and Mr. Kelmickis seconded it. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS ST LINELL CORPORATION The applicant is requesting site plan approval to construct a restaurant with drivethrough 2,838 square feet in size to include the demolition of the existing building and the upgrade of site amenities. The project is located at 3974 William Penn Highway. The total property area equals 32,389.6 feet. It is zoned C-2, Business/Commercial. Ms. Kaltenbaugh reported this property is commonly known as the Arby s Restaurant. Mr. John Frederick from National Survey and Engineering came forward representing the applicant. He explained the site was developed in the 1960s, Arby s has been at the location since 1975 and the current owner is desirous of upgrading it to a prototype Arby s Restaurant of 2,800 square feet. He stated there would be site

2 Regular Meeting 2 February 21, 2007 amenities, the entire parking lot would be resurfaced, new lighting standards installed, the landscape would be upgraded and there would be three decorative lights along the Route 22 frontage. He asserted the existing two access points would remain and would be just a redoing of the existing conditions. Ms. Kaltenbaugh inquired whether a drive-through would be added and Mr. Frederick answered affirmatively. He stated that was one of the reasons why the owners wanted to upgrade the site to provide a new interior and give it a more modern look. Mr. Erb queried whether the site would be upgraded to include water maintenance and best management practices for the storm water. Mr. Frederick answered affirmatively and explained the current uncontrolled water conditions would be corrected. He stated the proposed conditions include a number of storm inlets which is collected via an underground storm system and the infiltration would be released to the same location as the PennDOT system and the eastbound lanes of Route 22. Ms. Kaltenbaugh inquired whether an elevation drawing was available and Mr. Frederick described it as an all brick building with earth tones, red hues, glass frontage and Arby s logo which will be unchanged. He further explained there is a prototype of this building located on Route 286 in Plum and on Route 48 in White Oak. Ms. Kaltenbaugh questioned whether there would be architectural details on all four sides and Mr. Frederick answered affirmatively. Ms. Kaltenbaugh inquired whether sidewalks and streetlights would be placed across the front and Mr. Frederick answered affirmatively. Ms. Kaltenbaugh requested PennDOT be contacted to confirm that no update is needed for the highway occupancy permit. Mr. Murray was happy to see the traffic patterns would be improved. There being no further discussion, Mr. Kerr duly made a motion to approve Site Plan No ST and Mr. Murray seconded it. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously ST MUSLIM COMMUNITY CENTER The applicant is requesting revised site plan approval for a parking lot expansion to include site preparation for a driveway, 50 parking spaces and related improvements. The property is located at 239 Seaman Lane. Total property area is 3.96 acres. It is zoned R-2, One-Family Residential. The applicant requested tabling and waived all time limits. Ms. Kaltenbaugh explained the applicant is doing some revisions for the storm water and best management practices. Whereupon, Mr. Murray duly made a motion to table Application No ST and Mr. Humenik seconded it. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously.

3 Regular Meeting 3 February 21, 2007 NEW BUSINESS 07-3-SUB CAMBRIDGE SQUARE ASSOCIATES, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP The applicant is requesting final subdivision approval combining five lots to create one of 764,591 square feet. The property is located at 120 Cambridge Square and includes seven multi-family apartment buildings and associated land uses. The property is zoned R-3, Multi-Family Residential. The applicant requested tabling and waived all time limits. Ms. Kaltenbaugh reported the applicant has encountered some difficulties because they are trying to consolidate with an engineering firm from out of state. Whereupon, Mr. Kerr duly made a motion to table Application No SUBand Mr. Murray seconded it. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously C T-MOBILE/MONROEVILLE CHRISTIAN JUDEA FOUNDATION The applicant is requesting conditional use approval as outlined in Section 401, Conditional Approval of the Monroeville Zoning Ordinance No. 1443, as amended, allowing the placement of a commercial communication antennae on an existing utility transmission line and the installation of accessory equipment. The property is located on Block and Lot No. 979-B-286 between McGinley and Saunders Station Roads. Ms. Kaltenbaugh reported this property is zoned S and the applicant received a variance approval from the zoning hearing board for the location of the installation onto the utility lines. Mr. Jeff Jenkins came forward representing the applicant and briefly explained the request. He cited Ordinance No concerning the communication towers requiring all setbacks to be 30 feet from the road and 50 feet from the side yard. He also indicated the communication antennae must be securely anchored in a fixed location and it will be installed to the existing transmission tower. Mr. Erb inquired whether a current photograph of the location was available and Mr. Jenkins answered negatively. He explained it would have the poll coming up through the middle with the antennae on top but the ordinance stipulates that it cannot be extended ten feet above an existing structure. He indicated an annual inspection will be performed and a report will be submitted to the municipality. He requested the submission of an environmental impact statement be made a condition of the building permit issuance because it is required but they do not have it available yet. He reported

4 Regular Meeting 4 February 21, 2007 the communication antennaes would have a finish that reduces visability. He stated the FAA does not require lighting because of the height and it would have a galvanized pole the same color as the existing pole. He added the communication equipment would be enclosed by a ten-foot wood or vinyl fence. He explained the ordinance requires a tenfoot chain-link fence but the zoning hearing board agreed to allow them to use a ten-foot vinyl fence which would be locked and armed with a 24-hour security system. He further explained that the equipment would be removed if it is not used for over a one-year period. Mr. Erb inquired whether there would be any issues concerning environmental impact and Ms. Kaltenbaugh answered negatively. There being no further discussion, Mr. Kelmickis duly made a motion to approve Conditional Use Application No C subject to the submission of the environmental impact study. Mr. Humenik seconded it and upon a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously SUB MARRIOTT RESIDENCE INN/KRATSA PROPERTIES/ ALFRED A. AND BETTY RUFFOLOA/ALFRED J. PUGLIANO, JOHN J. BELLISSIMO, JR. AND JOHN J. PUGLIANO The applicant is requesting final subdivision approval combining three lots to create one of 82,917 square feet. The property is located on the northerly side of William Penn Highway and includes the Penn Monroe Grille, and 3981 and 3985 William Penn Highway. It is zoned C-2, Business/Commercial C MARRIOTT RESIDENCE INN/ KRATSA PROPERTIES The applicant is requesting conditional use approval to construct a hotel, two stories in height and 94 rooms on the northerly side of William Penn Highway. The proposed project is located at 3981 and 3985 William Penn Highway. The total property area is 1.91 acres. It is zoned C-2, Business/Commercial ST MARRIOTT RESIDENCE INN/ KRATSA PROPERTIES The applicant is requesting site plan approval to construct a hotel two stories in height with 94 rooms, 81,600 square feet in area and associated site improvements on the northerly side of William Penn Highway. The proposed project is located at 3981 and 3985 William Penn Highway. The total property area is 1.91 acres. It is zoned C-2, Business/Commercial.

5 Regular Meeting 5 February 21, 2007 Mr. David Cock came forward representing the applicant and pointed out that a two-story building is not being proposed but would be three and a half. Ms. Kaltenbaugh inquired whether it was proposed to be two stories on the Route 22 elevation and Mr. Chris Peters, Director of Development from Kratsa Properties, came forward to answer affirmatively that the Route 22 elevation is two stories. Mr. Cock gave a brief history of their company which is locally owned located in Harmar Township and they currently own 25 hotels in the Pittsburgh and surrounding area. He mentioned the Springhills Suites and the Courtyard Marriott. He explained this proposal was for a 94-room residence inn by Marriott which would provide an extended stay upscale hotel. Mr. Rob Bassett from Lenon Smith Zeroa Engineering came forward to explain the proposal. He stated it would be located at the current Penn Monroe Grill and Hockey House with the current zoning of C-2 which fronts on Route 22. He added there is C-2 on both the east and west sides of the property and R-2 residential in the back or the north base of the property. He stated the property has one access and Trans Associates submitted the highway occupancy permit and is awaiting approval. He indicated the monument sign will be located at the southeast corner and there will be a five-foot concrete sidewalk for pedestrians along the front on William Penn Highway which will include landscaping. He stated the access around the entire hotel meets municipal code and there will be two 24-foot access drives located at the south and east sides; and at the north and west sides, there will be a 20-foot access drive which will be the fire lane. He asserted the site will be brought up to grade by fill with a retaining wall along the west, north and east sides of the property. He stated there will be guide rail and decorative fencing around the perimeter for safety reasons. He added the trash enclosure will be located at the northwest corner of the property screened by a masonry wall and the storm water will have a detention/conveyance facility. He indicated the property currently drains to the Thomas Run Water Shed with a 70 percent release rate and their storm water detention facility meets or exceeds that rate. He stated they have post-construction storm water BMPs with the structural ones that will have two-foot sumps in all the inlets to collect any debris collected in the parking lot. He pointed out the last two inlets before entering the detention facility will have snout devices to collect oils or sediments from the parking lot. He asserted the non-structural BMPs will be street sweeping and they will meet or exceed all the municipal requirements and DEP code. Mr. Bassett explained that at the northeast side of the building, the sanitary line will come out and connect into an existing manhole and the utilities will be connected to the overhead utility pole along Route 22. He stated the telephone pedestal and electric transformer will be located in the front in a landscaped island entering into the front of the building. He added the gas lines will be tied into the gas main lines on Route 22 inside the corner of the building and the water line will tap off 16-inch ductile iron pipe coming into the site and feeding a hydrant in the front of the property then feed the 5-inch water service to the hotel, 4-inch domestic and then be reduced to an 8-inch ductile iron pipe to service the additional fire hydrant.

6 Regular Meeting 6 February 21, 2007 Mr. Bassett reviewed the landscaping plan that was prepared by Kendale O Brien Landscape Architect from Sewickley. He submitted a plan review of the patio and the site. Mr. Chris Peters, Director of Development with Kratsa Properties, came forward to further explain the landscaping plan and the architectural treatment of the building. He stated the plan provided meets or exceeds the municipal requirements for landscaping. He explained the guests will be provided a patio space similar to a backyard with a brick paved patio with outside seating and possibly a barbeque grill. He indicated there may be additional landscaping provided that will be included in the construction of the hotel. He asserted the architectural treatment of the building will be provided and he explained them. He stated the Marriott will be looking for the vinyl siding with a brick façade and standing seamed metal roof similar to the courtyard hotel. Mr. Peters explained the additional handout he provided is showing what will be seen from Route 22 after the trees have had a few years to mature. He stated after maturing, the landscaping provided along the street would buffer the building. He indicated a retaining wall would be provided at the back to bring the site up to grade. He explained that in order to get the facility on the site and meet the municipal ordinance requirements for site circulation, more material had to be brought in. He reported they are sensitive to the neighbors located at the back at the north end of the site and do not want to make it any more imposing than necessary. He stated they would provide landscape treatment at the base and they want to work with material colors that will soften the visual impact. He indicated it would be a tight site and they would be removing a considerable amount of fill at the back and dressing it up. Ms. Kaltenbaugh inquired whether there is a restaurant proposed with this development and Mr. Peters answered negatively. He added a curtsey breakfast area will be provided for the rooms so there will be a small prep kitchen not a full service. He explained there will be juice, bagels, eggs and coffee available specifically for the hotel guests only. Ms. Kaltenbaugh questioned whether the retaining wall would be just a flat surface or whether something would be used to break it up. Mr. Peters explained they would have a wall engineer try to break it up and terrace it because it is a tight site. Ms. Kaltenbaugh inquired about the size of the driveway and Mr. Peters answered the existing driveway covers all three lots or the entire frontage along Route 22. He indicated it would be restricted down to a 25-foot access point. Ms. Kaltenbaugh questioned whether PennDOT would require any turning restrictions in and out of the site and Mr. Peters was uncertain. He asserted it would not be necessary because of the center turning lane and it would be a below volume driveway. Ms. Kaltenbaugh questioned whether this building sits back further than the rest and Mr. Peters answered affirmatively. He stated they are approximately 70 feet back from the street front or right on the building setback line. Ms. Kaltenbaugh asserted the current building it only 20 feet back. Ms. Kaltenbaugh questioned whether there would be a monument sign instead of a pylon sign and Mr. Peters answered they do have a monument sign to direct guests into the access drive but they anticipate a pylon sign would be required by the Marriott. He added they would also have building signage but would have a sign vendor prepare a proposal to meet the municipal requirements. Ms. Kaltenbaugh questioned whether they

7 Regular Meeting 7 February 21, 2007 would request both kinds and Mr. Peters answered affirmatively. Ms. Kaltenbaugh inquired whether these current plans are the final ones and Mr. Peters answered negatively. He explained they are working with Marriott concerning the architectural treatment of the building but he expected additional brick detailing on the façade but a lot of it will be lost when the landscaping is done. Mr. Hugus inquired which access area would have the check in, the upper or lower entrance. Mr. Peters answered coming in off of Route 22, the first set of ADA accessible spaces are in front of the gatehouse or the main entrance for the hotel. He added Marriott requires that accessible parking is provided at all ingress and egress points. Mr. Hugus advised that an eight-foot discharge area is required between two of the four handicapped space and only five feet is shown. Mr. Peters answered that the revised drawings will reflect them. Mr. Hugus verified that the eight-foot discharge area will be located at the upper access and he had no problems with the fire protection system. Mr. Erb questioned whether enough space was available to accommodate the fire trucks and Mr. Hugus answered the applicant provided a schematic showing a 45-foot apparatus being able to go around the building which is the worst-case scenario. He added typically the apparatus used would be smaller and the requirements have been met. Mr. Rosensteel commented that the designs for the retaining walls need to be completed and should be a continued item before the building permit is issued. Mr. Kerr inquired about the number of floors proposed because it was originally two but the picture shows five and the applicant stated three. Mr. Peters explained from the front elevation on Route 22 or the south face of the architectural drawing, it is a 4½ story structure. He indicated originally the development was proposed to have a 102- room hotel but the ordinance restricted the height to 45 feet. He asserted the height elevation from Route 22 is 45 feet as a first floor. Mr. Kerr again questioned whether it would be a five-floor building and Mr. Peter answered there is a lower level basement floor at the back of the building. Mr. Kerr inquired about the number of parking spaces for the 94 rooms and Mr. Peter answered there would be 94. Mr. Kerr questioned where the employees would park and Mr. Peter answered the municipal requirement is one parking space per room and Ms. Kaltenbaugh agreed. Mr. Bassett responded that even if 94 rooms would be occupied it is most likely they would not use all 94 spaces. He felt the people would be driving together or taking a taxi from the airport and they have the same conditions in most of their hotels and never had a problem. Mr. Peters added currently the Courtyard Marriott has 85 percent occupancy and the entire back parking lot is empty. Ms. Kaltenbaugh inquired about the number of employees on staff at 5 p.m. when occupancy would be high and Mr. Kerr added also that would be when the shifts change. Mr. Bassett again stated it would be an extended stay hotel so the number of employees is limited and estimated the maximum number to be eight with most of them taking mass transportation.

8 Regular Meeting 8 February 21, 2007 Mr. Kerr questioned the height of the wall and Mr. Peters approximated 50 feet. Mr. Kerr felt it would be a challenge to soften the visual impact of the wall. Mr. Peters agreed and explained they are proposing terracing if approved by the engineer which could be landscaped. Mr. Erb inquired when engineer s documentation would be available for evaluation and Mr. Peters suggested it could be available in a few weeks. He was hoping to receive approval at this time with conditions. Mr. Erb questioned whether the engineering reports would be done whether or not approval is granted and Mr. Peters answered affirmatively. Mr. Murray felt a 50-foot wall is very substantial and voiced his concerns for a versa-lock or keystone wall. He indicated the major storm sewer line is buried below the ground in the back and he was concerned about settlement, sinkage and the affect it would have on the wall. Mr. Peter responded they would request the engineer design in the appropriate factors of safety. He indicated the building would be placed on deep foundations so they would not be surcharging. He explained there would only be engineered fill, parking and paving. Mr. Murray questioned what would keep the lines from leaking if there is 50 feet of fill and Mr. Peters was uncertain. Mr. Murray explained that any fill over 20 feet in height has a significant settlement factor and he was concerned with the pipe leaking behind the wall. He indicated he could not vote for it without reviewing the engineering design. Mr. Peter asserted the geo-technical report that CEC prepared did recommend a drainage system behind the retaining wall. He indicated that could be taken care of before a building permit is issued. Mr. Kerr was concerned about the turning radius in the parking lot. Mr. Peters answered he was not concerned with the travelers in trailers because this hotel does not encourage it. Mr. Lyn Chris, a resident of Lot 328 behind the Penn Monroe came forward to explain a problem that occurred in his neighborhood with the sewers. He reported there were terrible sewer smells from the back of the property and he contacted the Environmental Protection Agency. He indicated the municipal sewage department installed a 30-inch line at the base of the hill where the 55-foot wall is proposed and added a 6 by 6 drain above that concrete pipe to carry the flow to a creek. He also reported that Penn Monroe had been throwing sewage into that area and then in 2005 accepted landfill from the Courtyard Marriott to extend the parking lot. He indicated when he realized the fill included concrete block as big as one foot which fell into his property, he contacted the municipality who issued a stop work order on the property and quit the operation because they did not have a permit to proceed. He reported the property owner continued to allow fill to be placed on the property which spilled over on his property and to the left and right. Mr. Chris was very concerned with the proposed 50 plus foot concrete wall with all the existing conditions. He requested an opportunity to review the elevation plans of the property. He expressed his concerns that the mess be cleaned up at the rear of his property and stop any erosion that would occur in the future. He reported a similar wall

9 Regular Meeting 9 February 21, 2007 located in the Monroeville has problems. He was also concerned about the runoff of the proposed parking lot and the occupants of those 97 rooms. He reported of problems on his property overflowing just from the current residents in the neighborhood. He stated that he is not against the project and the hotel would be an added improvement to the current buildings but he requested the area be cleaned up. He requested the site be improved and an improved sewer system be installed. He felt his only alternative would be to take legal action if the property is not cleaned up properly. Mr. Erb reported the current problem is not something under the planning commission jurisdiction and Mr. Chris indicated he was mostly concerned with future erosion. He commended Mr. Storey from the municipality for helping him and would attempt to make sure the proposed installation was done properly. Mr. Erb clarified that the Chris were in support of the project but would like to review the information. Mr. Hugus reported after he contacted the municipality, a stop work order was placed but the filling continued. He stated a citation was issued from the district magistrate. He further explained that the Municipal Authority who maintains the sanitary sewer system has supplied the municipality confirmation that there is ample capacity in the system to support this type of development. Mr. Chris questioned the drainage which is a large grill located over the 30-inch line that was covered with the debris. Mr. Hugus answered that a trash rack was put in place to keep the debris out and it needs to be cleaned which the property owner is responsible. Mr. Hugus inquired about the previously mentioned retaining wall that is falling down and Mr. Chris referred to the wall at Kohl s. Mr. Kerr inquired whether the fill that was illegally placed on this property and sewer right-of-way was engineering fill and Mr. Hugus answered negatively. Mr. Kerr questioned the 50-foot wall being placed on top of the fill used for a parking lot. Mr. Hugus indicated it would have to be over excavated with engineered fill to support the system. Mr. Peters asserted the geo-technical report identifies a lot of the materials which have been identified as expansive not to be used under a building or parking lot. Mr. Kerr felt this would be a good opportunity to clean up the site and the resident s backyard. Mr. Peters agreed to take care of any issues necessary. Mr. Murray inquired about the storm water discharge at the northeast corner of the property and questioned which way the flow would go because there was a 15-inch line coming out at one angle and then another existing 15-inch pipe. Mr. Bassett answered the flow is going toward the houses. Mr. Murray questioned why the pipe was not directed into the 15-inch pipe rather than at an angle. Mr. Bassett agreed that is a possibility that a manhole could be placed on the pipe and discharge directly to it. Mr. Peters added the existing drainage pattern is surface drainage and drains back towards that corner of the site. He reported that they have not found any storm sewers on the site

10 Regular Meeting 10 February 21, 2007 that have been collecting and directing any discharge to that specific manhole. Mr. Murray referred to their drawing that shows a discharge from a storm sewer pipe directed off the property and questioned the existing 15-inch pipe over the property because its angle does not make sense. Mr. Peters felt their report had been prepared in good faith to satisfy common standard practice but it would not be objectionable if engineering has any recommendation to tie into the existing storm facility. Mr. Rosensteel agreed they could tie into the 15-inch line so it does not discharge openly into the existing stream but into a drainage swell. He inquired whether the existing 15-inch line could be extended along with the proposed one to come together as one. Mr. Bassett answered affirmatively but a steel ahead wall would have to be provided to collect any runoff from additional property owners. Mr. Murray suggested the existing pipe needs to be extended because all the water would be directed at the toe of a 50-foot wall. Mr. Peter rebutted that the property slopes away from the wall but he understood his point. Mr. Rosensteel inquired whether the applicant would be willing to extend both pipes to one common pipe and discharge it further away from the wall and Mr. Peters agreed. Mr. Erb felt since this is such a large project and review of the wall structure needs to take place, that it be tabled. Mr. Peters inquired whether that would be all three items or only restricted to the conditional use and site plan approval. Ms. Kaltenbaugh asserted that this would not have any impact on the subdivision approval. After a brief discussion, Mr. Murray duly made a motion to approve Subdivision Application No SUB and Mr. Kerr seconded it. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. Further, Mr. Murray duly made a motion to table Conditional Use Application No C and Site Plan Application No ST to allow time for additional information concerning the storm sewer and retaining wall be made available. Mr. Humenick seconded it and upon a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. (A brief break was taken at this time at 9:10 p.m.) PROPOSED ORDINANCE INTERSTATE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, L.P. The applicant is requesting an amendment to the Monroeville Zoning Ordinance No. 1443, as amended, Article Two, District Regulations, Section 2201, Zoning Districts, and Section 202, District Boundaries, Allowing the creation of an Outdoor Advertising Sign (OAS) Special Use/Overlay Zoning District located along certain portions of the interstate Roadway Corridor of the Penn-Lincoln Parkway/Interstate 376. Mr. Rosensteel recused himself from participating in this portion of the meeting. Mr. Ray Hoehler, attorney from Cohen and Grisby, came forward representing applicant and introduced Mr. Jeff Gerber, Chief Operating Officer for Interstate Outdoor, Mr. David Kosick, Chief Project Engineer from Chester Engineers, Mr. Allen Smith, one

11 Regular Meeting 11 February 21, 2007 of the property owners of the site, Ms. Sandy Rice, Executive Director of the Monroeville Convention and Visitors Bureau, and Mr. Chad Amond, President of the Monroeville Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Heohler explained the three proposals before the commission at this time are to amend the zoning ordinance for the interstate along with the property owners of the three specific sites to establish the outdoor advertising special use overlay area along portions of the Penn Lincoln Parkway or Interstate 376. He indicated the amendment would create three independent areas identified for this special use to allow for the typical outdoor advertising that is associated with the advertising for the billboards that would appear along the interstate roads. He reported the zoning ordinance currently allows for billboard advertising in the C-2 and M-1 Zoning Districts but because of the size and other restrictions that the ordinance imposes, it precludes the type of advertising associated with typical outdoor billboard advertising along the interstate highway. He further explained the ordinance does not provide for the use of land within the municipality for this size of advertising along the interstate highways. He stated the purpose of the proposed amendment is to correct the exclusion for this type of use in the appropriate areas along the interstate that would be allowed for the outdoor advertising. The proposed amendment would establish three separate independent areas along the Parkway located in the C-2 and M-1 zoning districts which would be appropriate for this type of outdoor advertising and allowed only in those limited. He stated those areas would be identified as the Smith and the Duquesne Light Properties both located on the north side of the Parkway, and the Union Rail Site which is located at the intersection with Penn Township and the municipality. Mr. Erb questioned whether a picture or diagram was available for the entire proposed overlay area and Mr. Hoehler answered they have three identified site plans for each individual site. He stated they have aerial photographs. He referred to the zoning map that identified the three specific parcels in question. He identified the Smith Tract and the Duquesne Light and Union Rail Sites. Mr. Hoehler explained the proposed amendment would establish regulations that would impose limits for the size, height and spacing between billboard advertising and the setback requirements appropriate for the affective advertising. He stated those limits are based on industry-wide standards accepted for billboard ads along the interstate routes and common within western Pennsylvania along the Parkway. He indicated that Mr. Gerber would speak in more detail about the controls established in the proposed amendment dealing with various issues concerning the content, construction, maintenance and other items. He pointed out that the special use area would allow for the outdoor advertising on the three identified parcels adjacent to the Parkway and not alter the restrictions or controls established under the zoning ordinance for the use of any property within the C-2, M, or M-1 zoning districts. He asserted they were imposing into the Special Use area to allow for the use that would accommodate the type of advertising associated with those along the interstate road.

12 Regular Meeting 12 February 21, 2007 Ms. Kaltenbaugh inquired how this can be exclusionary if Monroeville already allows for billboards within the municipality. Mr. Hoehler agreed the ordinance contains provisions that allows for the billboard but the exclusion concerns the size and type typically associated with billboard advertising along and adjacent to the interstate highway. He recognized the ordinance does provide for a provision allowing for the advertising on the billboards but has restrictions that affectively eliminate the opportunity to have the type associated with the signs along the interstate highways. Mr. Erb asserted the applicant has done everything necessary according to the law but the planning commission has a responsibility to the community to look at the highest and best use of the property. He felt things should be done consistently with the community requirements. He inquired whether this is spot zoning because it would only apply to this applicant and instead of being exclusionary in the ordinance, this proposed amendment would allow for certain things that are specifically interesting to this applicant. After further discussion, Mr. Erb reviewed that this same issue has been presented to the municipality four times over the past two or three years. He reported it started with the denial from the zoning hearing board, it was denied by both planning commission and council, and then there was a veto and the council upheld it. Mr. Erb suggested the burden of proving why this is beneficial and the highest and best use of the property falls on the applicant because the request for a zoning change is not taken lightly. Again, he inquired why this is the highest and best use of the property and why it is beneficial for Monroeville to put it in place. Mr. Hoehler commented that the previously variances presented legal challenges to the ability to obtain such extensive use variances of this type. He indicated the appropriate way to accommodate this type of use is to follow exactly what the municipality has established in its comprehensive plan. He suggested the proposed amendment complies with the intent of the comprehensive plan and he referred to the provisions of the 2005 Comprehensive Plan where it encourages the special use and overlay area as a means for the utilization of underdeveloped real estate like property with steep terrain. Mr. Hoehler explained the proposed amendment compliments the intended purpose of the comprehensive plan to encourage the development of businesses in the municipality. He suggested the billboard advertising for the local businesses would help encourage and improve the business climate in the area. He stated the comprehensive plan also encourages the amendment to the zoning ordinance to allow for the appropriate design of advertising signs. He proposed an amendment to the ordinance to allow for the appropriate type of design characteristics associated with outdoor advertising customarily associated with interstate routes. Mr. Gerber gave an overview of their company stating it is over 20 years old and does business in New Jersey, New York, Eastern Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Indiana, and Illinois. He stated they would like to expand into Western Pennsylvania. He explained

13 Regular Meeting 13 February 21, 2007 their corporate philosophy is based on a long-term business plan of growth by being a good citizen by being civic minded and respectful to the community that they do business. He indicated the proposed ordinance has five sign locations to be placed at the most appropriate spots for outdoor advertising along major highways and industrial or commercial zones. He suggested these areas have the least amount of impact on the residential areas and aesthetics. He stated the first location is on the Union Railroad Property on the south side of Route 376 or the small blue zone on the zoning map. Mr. Erb suggested the applicant finish with the ordinance before explaining the site plans. Mr. Gerber indicated parts of the ordinance deal with the needs and concerns of the community. He explained the western most portion of the overlay zone located on Union Railroad Property is within the railroad right-of-way. He showed a computer rendering of the sign located on the south side of Route 376 and based on their review of the site, it would have minimal impact on the area. He pointed out the residential housing located significantly to the south of the sign structure is elevated above it with substantial vegetation. He asserted the sign would not be visible to any of the residents in the area because it would be directed more toward the traffic on Route 376 and its back would face the residential area. Mr. Gerber explained the next photograph reflected the north side of Route 376 showing the Duquesne Light Property and the power lines that cross the Parkway. Again, he pointed out one of the three signs that would be located on the north side of Route 376 in the M zone would have no impact on the residential properties because of the topography on both sides of the highway and the extensive vegetative growth on the north and south side. He also pointed out the area on Route 376 where the topography slopes down to a commercial use area includes a stone crushing facility, a water filtration plant, a public works facility and an auto-detailing center. He stated these signs are being proposed for a commercial zone located near power lines and significant commercial and industrial activities. Mr. Gerber explained the next photo of the sign that would be located 500 feet further east past the power line but the commercial activity would be on the north side of the structure. Again, he stated there would be no impact to the residential area because of the topography and vegetative growth in the area. He suggested it is also located near a commercial and industrial activity area. Mr. Gerber explained the last location would be in a C-2, Commercial area and he pointed out the Smith Holding Property and the proposed sign would be located west of the building in the corner of the property. He stated residential property is located to the north of the building and an apartment building is on the bluff to the south on the other side of Route 376. He again stated the proposed location would have no impact on the residential housing to the north of the property. He asserted the signs would be directed in a V shape toward Route 376 with no advertising visible to the residents. He stated the vegetation in the area would provide a good barrier in the back of the structure. He pointed out an apartment building across the highway located on a bluff with a vegetation layer will not be impacted by the signs.

14 Regular Meeting 14 February 21, 2007 Mr. Gerber further explained this proposed ordinance was as a result of them reaching out to the community specifically the chamber of commerce to address their concerns and issues. He indicated after several meetings and review of the issues, one concern was the copy content of the advertising. He stated they have a corporate policy of not accepting any type of advertising involving gentlemen clubs, go go bars, inappropriate sexually explicit advertising or any advertising disparaging Monroeville. He referred to Section 214.1(i) no billboard or outdoor advertising sign located in the AOS special use overlay zoning district will contain advertisements for adult sexually oriented entertainment or adult sexually oriented businesses. He stated it is not only in the code but also in the written agreement to the chamber that if the signs were allowed, there would be no such advertising on them for the lifetime of the signs. He asserted that they strive for local advertising because it is an important part of development for the communities they do business. He stated a large number of their advertisers are hotels, restaurants, local car dealers, realtors, insurance agents, and attorneys. He further indicated they have never had any complaints about the copy of their advertising only their signs. He reviewed their landlord s range from municipalities to churches without complaints. Mr. Gerber explained the benefits these signs would provide to Monroeville would include free advertising to the chamber of commerce to promote the business community in general, civic organizations, events or issues. He stated discounts would be provided for Monroeville and would give the local businesses the rights of first refusal on the billboards. He indicated these were issues raised by the chamber of commerce and they have committed to it in writing to them. He asserted if they are given the opportunity to do business in the municipality, they would seek out local contractors to build the signs and maintain them. He suggested they would also open an office in western Pennsylvania if the signs are allowed in Monroeville and again stated they try to give back to the communities where they are located. Mr. Gerber addressed the concerns for the safety of the signs. He reported the 14 advertising signs they built six months prior to Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans had no structural damages. He asserted none of their 800 signs have come down and their patent blue colored pole blends into any background along the highway. Mr. Gerber indicated the code provides for the areas proposed for spacing requirements of 500 feet with a limit of five sign structures. He explained no one could get a variance for more signs because the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation requires 500-foot signs on the same side of the highway have a 500-foot distance between them. He stated the code also provides for the standard highway outdoor sign which is V shaped with two sign faces with the maximum side square footage of 720 square feet. He added the standard is 672 square feet or 14 by 48 feet and the additional square footage is for the temporary cutouts. He indicated the maximum height is 80 feet above the road grade and the reason why this is included in the ordinance is because of the variant property along the interstate. He stated the Union Railroad Property is located substantially below 376 requiring the height of the sign to be higher to meet the height of

15 Regular Meeting 15 February 21, 2007 the road but also to rise the topography to a sufficient height to be visible. He asserted their goal is not to build the highest sign possible but so they can be seen, and they look better if they are located closer to the ground and are less expensive. He reported the sign located on the Duquesne Property requires only 40 feet above the grade of the highway because of that large drop off at the eastern portion of the property. Mr. Gerber explained there is a required five-foot yard setback because it keeps the elevations of the signs low. He indicated the further back from the roadway they are located, the more the topography impacts their visibility. Mr. Gerber gave his assurance there would be no computer graphics or electronic messages or moving or flashing of colored lighting. He stated the lighting would be made from the top down so they would not impact the night sky. He indicated the construction would meet or exceed all the municipal and state requirements. He asserted they would provide landscaping at the base of the structures to screen the foundation and they would not make any bare earthen cuts to make minimum aesthetic impact. He indicated the signs would be inspected for maintenance issues every ten years with a report from a professional engineer. Mr. Murray inquired about the length of a normal lease period with the advertiser and Mr. Gerber answered they range from one month to two years but are usually in for the shorter terms. Mr. Humenick questioned whether this would be the first location in western Pennsylvania and Mr. Gerber answered affirmatively. Mr. Kelmickis inquired whether other states, counties or municipalities ban outdoor advertising and Mr. Gerber answered there are three states in the county that ban them, Vermont, Maine and Hawaii. Mr. Kelmickis was curious why Pennsylvania needs these signs when some states have banned them. Mr. Gerber explained studies have been done showing the lack of advertising causes a reduction of economic growth and the states that ban the signs forego 10 percent of their highway construction funding from the federal government. He stated the highway beautification act actually requires states to make reasonable opportunities for outdoor advertising if they want to receive full funding for their highway construction projects. Ms. Kaltenbaugh requested they consider including some additions to the ordinance as follows: Section 214.1(d), the maximum gross surface area include the verbiage of the maximum dimension of 14 by 48 feet to limit any odd sizes. Mr. Gerber agreed language could be included stating 14 by 48 feet with temporary cutouts not to exceed a total of 700 square feet. She requested Section (e) the limit of five yards, verbiage include five yards from any right-of-way or side or front yard; Mr. Gerber agreed. Mr. Hoehler explained this proposed ordinance is not spot zoning because they would not be changing or altering what the underlying zoning is in the area. He stated

16 Regular Meeting 16 February 21, 2007 they are overlaying on the zoning as encouraged by the comprehensive plan for the right to use the land within that area for this use. He again stated they would not be altering, changing, or amending the zoning, spot zoning or changing the underlying zoning for any of the parcels. He asserted they would be super imposing on the existing zoning the right to use the land for this specific purpose. He indicated the right of the property owner to do that would be that they are in compliance with the comprehensive plan of the municipality and the appropriate controls have been placed on that use in that specific area. He suggested this is not spot zoning and they accomplished that in the proposed ordinance. Mr. Humenick questioned why these particular sites were selected when venturing into western Pennsylvania. Mr. Gerber explained they felt Monroeville would be a good place to start and tried to find areas within town that would have the least amount of impact on the residential areas and the aesthetics. He suggested the most appropriate area for a billboards would be on an interstate because it is most affective, it is a heavy transportation environment, and it is well suited to be placed in a commercial and/or industrial area and has the least impact on the municipality. Mr. Chad Amond, President of the Monroeville Chamber of Commerce, came forward to explain that they represent over 600 businesses in the Monroeville area. He stated the chamber thoroughly reviewed whether or not they should take a stand on this issue of billboards located along Route 376. He further explained some of the members of the government and community affairs committee were skeptical of it. He indicated business leaders, community leaders and residents had a meeting with the members of the outdoor advertising group to ask some very grueling questions addressing their fears and concerns. Mr. Amond felt Mr. Gerber reviewed all the benefits this would have on the community. He suggested the chambers did not feel the property values in the municipality would be impacted by the addition of these billboards on Route 376 because business signage is already located there along with high utility lines. Mr. Amond explained the chamber of commerce through a thought-out process with their government and community affairs committee and board of directors have embraced the notion of billboards for some major reasons that impact the business community. He stated the Interstate Outdoor Advertising has entered into an agreement that they would provide some protection to the Monroeville business community and give Monroeville businesses the first refusal on the advertising on the signs. He asserted there is a benefit from them offering a discount to the chamber members and Monroeville based businesses, particularly small businesses that could not normally afford it. He felt that would give the community an advantage for displaying their business. A brief discussion ensued regarding the small businesses banning together to take advantage of the advertising. Mr. Amond pointed out there is also the protection against sexually explicit advertising which was one of the major concerns raised during their investigative process. He stated those are the reasons why the chamber of commerce is supportive of

17 Regular Meeting 17 February 21, 2007 the change in the ordinance and they were hopeful that the planning commission would vote positively. Mr. Kelmickis questioned whether the chamber took a stand on this issue several years ago when it was first discussed and Mr. Amond answered negatively. He explained no one approached them at that time and when it was brought up again, the chamber members were encouraged to investigate the request further. Mr. Kelmickis inquired why the outdoor advertising is important now but not two years ago and Mr. Amond responded that earlier there was no call from their members to address the issue. Mrs. Marilyn Skolnick, a resident, came forward to express her concerns that she felt this would not be exclusionary because there are other states that exclude billboards all together. She referred to the minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of February 14, 2006 where Mr. Blaha of the Monroeville Chambers of Commerce urged council to look out for the interests of the community and concerns of the public. He requested the veto be sustained and the billboards not be allowed; and suggested the income from the billboards is not worth the results of the construction. She read that Mr. Blaha remarked about people telling him from all over the state about that scenic stretch of the Parkway to the Turnpike. Mrs. Skolnick inquired whether this zoning ordinance overlay proposal would supercede anything that comes after it. She questioned whether Item Nos. 7, 8, and 9 are out of order until council approves the proposed ordinance. Ms. Kaltenbaugh explained that was the way the municipal solicitor advised it should be advertised. Mr. Erb asserted those items are not being discussed at this time, it is only the proposed ordinance. Mrs. Skolnick again questioned whether those items can be requested if the ordinance is not in place. Mr. Erb answered it is a legal question that only the solicitor can explain. Mrs. Skolnick indicated she came forward as a resident and Co-Conservation Chairman of the Sierra Club, Allegheny Group. She reported there are 70 members in Monroeville and over 6,000 in Southwestern Pennsylvania and they have long held the position against the placing of billboards along highways for many reasons. She stated every new billboard constructed despoils our vistas and each new one reinforces the perception that ugliness is the price of progress. She felt this false choice serves only those who benefit from the ugliness and it encourages us to accept the destruction of all scenic and environmental resources except those specifically set aside for protection such as parks or special districts and not places where we work, play or view. She stated municipalities can thrive very well without billboards. She questioned the number of billboards in the municipality and felt they have no connection to the economy. She stated most of the time, they do not advertise local products or service and while these billboards pay little or no local taxes, the owners enjoy a high margin of profit from 15 to 50 percent on each one. She reported recent studies have shown that drivers are subjected to too many distractions such as eating and talking on cell phones. She felt billboards are also distracting because a driver has to take their eyes off the road to read the message. She suggested there are more than enough billboards currently and asked what kind of municipality our leaders want to leave for our children. She requested