HARRIS TOWNSHIP Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 19, 2016 Members in Attendance: Staff in Attendance: Public in Attendance: Bob Igo, Chairman Jeff Duerr, Vice Chairman Ron Buckalew John Wainright Neil Porterfield Bill Wallace Chris Gamble Eric Allen Amy Farkas, Township Manager Todd Shea, Zoning/Ordinance Enforcement Officer Mark Boeckel, Senior Planner Debbie Lang, Administrative Secretary None CALL TO ORDER: Mr. Igo called the September 19, 2016 meeting of the to order at 7:00 PM. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Buckalew moved to approve the minutes of the July 18, 2016 meeting. Mr. Wallace seconded the motion. The minutes were unanimously approved. PUBLIC COMMENT: Mr. Allen said, as a resident and business owner in the Township, he wanted to let the Planning Commission know that they will be seeing a letter from him regarding the unprofessional and uncourteous treatment he received from a Code Officer. He will also be sending the letter to the Board and Ms. Farkas. Ms. Farkas said Bruce Lord is the Township s representative and also the Chairman of the Public Safety Committee and Mr. Allen should talk to him about this matter. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Mr. Buckalew moved to approve the agenda format and times allotted for each item. Mr. Duerr seconded the motion. The agenda was approved unanimously. 5. NEW BUSINESS: There is no new business to come before the Planning Commission. Page 1 of 6
6. OLD BUSINESS: a. CONSERVATION DESIGN SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS: Mr. Boeckel said at the July meeting, the Planning Commission discussed three potential development options for inclusion in the conservation design subdivision ordinance. These options included Neutral lots, which would between 0.5 and 1.5 acres in size, Bonus lots that would be between 0.3 and 1 acre in size, and village lots that would be between 7,500 Square Feet and 0.5 acre in size. Staff provided renderings of these development options to illustrate how properties could theoretically develop. The Planning Commission requested that Staff develop a flexible design option that would allow for a mixture of lot sizes. Following the July meeting, Staff conducted additional research into conservation design development standards and searched for examples of flexible design options. While several conservation design ordinance resources and guides mention the possibility of creating a flexible design option, no model standards were found and Staff was unable to find any existing ordinances that allow for flexibility in lot sizes. Staff set out to draft a flexible design option that would permit a variety of lot sizes while ensuring that the permitted development density would be balanced with that of the other established options. Staff also tried to create regulations that would ensure a diversity of lot sizes. The following table illustrates the draft standards for conservation design development options, with the flex option being in the far right column: Country Estate Neutral Bonus Village Flex Option Minimum Lot Size 10 acres 3 acres 0.5 acre 0.3 7500 sq ft 7500 sq ft* Maximum Lot Size none 4.9 acres 1.5 acres 1 acre 0.5 acre 4.9 acres* % Open Space none 40% 60% 70% 80% 65% Required % Developable 100% 60% 40% 30% 20% 35% Maximum # of 10 20 66 75 100 72 Maximum % yield 15% 30% 100% 115% 150% 110% *Developments utilizing the flex option must contain at least three different lot types (Country, Estate, Neutral, etc.). Lot type will be determined by area and will qualify as the lot option with the lowest overall density. Of the total residential lots proposed, no more than 35 percent of lots can be from any one lot type. In order to determine the effectiveness of the proposed flex option standards, Staff applied these requirements to the Rittenhouse property. The agenda packet includes two illustrations of the Rittenhouse lot that show how these standards could permit a flexible lot size option for development. The Rittenhouse property s yield plan showed a potential of 48 lots. Page 2 of 6
Open Space Lot % Estate Neutral Bonus Village Total # of * Yield % Rittenhouse 1 65% 6 8 6 3 24 50% Rittenhouse 2 65% 4 10 16 16 47 98% *includes the open space lot Mr. Boeckel explained how he came up with this information. Mr. Wallace said this is a really interesting perspective. Mr. Porterfield said this option is a major advancement in conserving design and community spaces and brings this together. Mr. Duerr said he thought this was a good option to use. Mr. Wallace asked if there was any disadvantage from a developer s standpoint on having the various lot sizes. Mr. Boeckel said there currently are developments in the Township that have lots that are various sizes. He said this option would make more sense on a larger parcel. Mr. Duerr said the on-site sewage might be driving some of this due to the cost however the dynamics of this type of development in the future is more likely. Mr. Wainright asked how Staff would write an ordinance to include lots like this. Mr. Boeckel said he hasn t gotten that far yet, but he has some ideas. Mr. Wainright asked how much open space will be required. Mr. Boeckel said 65 percent will be needed. Mr. Shea said in an effort to provide full disclosure, he played the devil s advocate when Mr. Boeckel was working on this option and said Staff discussed what would happen if a developer chose three different lot types and the market changed mid-development since this option locks the developer into lot types. He said this would be a question for our Solicitor. Chairman Igo asked why the houses need to be locked in. Mr. Boeckel said it is not the house type they are locking in, it is the lot type. He said village lots can be added but the developer would need to keep the ratios in place. He said the developer could change the estate lots to village lots but he would lose open space. Mr. Allen said part of the aesthetic value of the Township is the farmland and he wondered if there were any incentives for the land to stay as farmland. Mr. Boeckel said the land could still be a farm but there is no guarantee that it will stay that way. Mr. Farkas said family farms are struggling, however, the Centre County Farmland Trust is one way to preserve farmland.. Mr. Wallace said it is the job of the Planning Commission to keep these developments less aesthetically offensive. Staff and the Planning Commission discussed extension of the regional growth boundary. Mr. Boeckel said it would be nice to have everyone on the sewer system but that would require zoning for a higher density and it would not be an efficient use of a finite resource. Following these discussions, Chairman Igo said Mr. Boeckel did an excellent job on this and the Planning Commission asked Mr. Boeckel to proceed with drafting an ordinance. Mr. Boeckel said this might take a month or two but he will come up with a draft ordinance for the Commission to review. Page 3 of 6
b. DRAFT ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS FOR THE BOAL AVENUE COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR: Mr. Boeckel said at the July meeting, the Planning Commission began discussing a new commercial zoning district for the Boal Avenue Commercial Corridor. Goals for this corridor had been outlined in the Boalsburg Small Area Plan, which was adopted by the Township in June of this year. Since the July meeting, Staff has been working on drafting standards for a new zoning district that could be adopted for properties located along Boal Avenue that are currently zoned General Commercial. Included in the packet is a memo from Staff that outlines the progress that has been made in drafting new standards. Staff will also provide a PowerPoint presentation in which these standards will be illustrated using existing parcels in the corridor. Mr. Boeckel reviewed the memo that was included with the agenda. Mr. Shea said the working title of this district is Village Commercial and the goal is to make this area more user friendly and walkable. The Planning Commission and Staff reviewed the permitted uses in the proposed new zoning district. Chairman Igo noted any uses that are removed will be allowed in another zoning district in the Township. Mr. Porterfield said just because the uses are permitted does not mean they will be there. Mr. Boeckel said the uses that are permitted are uses that are already in the current zoning district. Mr. Allen asked if a brewery and distillery would be encouraged or discouraged as a use. Mr. Shea said we would tell them what is allowed in the district. He said he has asked the Township Solicitor for an opinion as to whether this would be considered an industrial use. Mr. Wainright asked if we would allow brew pubs but not a brewery. Ms. Farkas said this item was discussed at her recent APMM Conference and she can get the information from that conference to share with the Planning Commission. Mr. Allen said Big Springs is a good example by default because sooner or later the food part will come and the business will become an eating and drinking establishment. The members and Staff reviewed the permitted uses. It was agreed that bus passenger stations and taxi and limousine service should not be permitted uses. Mr. Wallace asked if newspaper publishing in the to be removed column meant a printing operation. Mr. Shea said it would and would therefore be considered an industrial use. The Planning Commission also felt ambulance services, animal hospitals and veterinary offices and adult business uses should also not be permitted in this district. Mr. Boeckel showed the Planning Commission slides of setbacks and heights that could potentially be used in this new district. In response to a question from Mr. Wainright, Mr. Boeckel said each building would have to provide on-site parking. Mr. Wallace asked if Mr. Boeckel completed a model with the road diet in mind. Mr. Boeckel said he did not but he could. Mr. Porterfield said he thought it would be wise to attempt to attract people to Boalsburg Village and he did not think 45 feet high buildings would allow that. Mr. Shea said Staff discussed Page 4 of 6
lowering the height limit in this district to 35 feet. He said allowing the 45 feet limit would allow for more green space as the building footprint would not spread out but up instead. The Planning Commission and Staff discussed the canyon feel that 45 feet tall buildings next to each other along this street would create and said it would not feel very pedestrian friendly. Mr. Wainright said he agrees with lowering the height limit but he also felt we should allow parking on the two outside lanes of Boal Avenue. Ms. Farkas said that is a bad idea until something is done with Route 322. Mr. Boeckel said PennDOT would probably have issues allowing that due to the number of trips in this area. He said PennDOT would probably not be supportive of that idea at all. Mr. Shea asked if Mr. Boeckel could ask Mr. Zilla what he thought of this idea. Mr. Boeckel said he could talk to Mr. Zilla but ultimately it would be PennDOT s call. Mr. Allen said he felt there is a need for some type of public parking. Mr. Shea said it is too early to be having this discussion as PennDOT hasn t agreed to the road diet. Chairman Igo asked how much of this ordinance is predicated on the road diet. Mr. Boeckel said none of it is. Chairman Igo said he believed it was and wasn t. He said he thinks the road diet will influence this ordinance. Mr. Boeckel said the road diet might influence the design but not the ordinance. Mr. Shea said he would prefer to write the regulations and not wait for the road diet. He said we should get some things in place to persuade PennDOT to do the road diet. He said the current zoning ordinance has shared parking regulations. He said some of the corridor overlay requirements for landscaping will also be incorporated into this district and into the ordinance. Mr. Duerr asked if sidewalks will be required. Mr. Boeckel said they would be unless they are located in the street right of way. Mr. Shea said he and Mr. Boeckel also plan to sit down with the Township Engineer to discuss the stormwater requirements. Mr. Wallace said he also likes where we are going with the 35 foot height requirement. Mr. Boeckel said he will work on refining his presentation with landscaping, 35 foot high buildings, the road diet and parking. Mr. Duerr asked if there were any design options that could be offered to a developer to ensure nicer looking buildings. He said he is afraid the buildings will be stucco or dryvit and have flat roofs. Mr. Shea said since we don t have design standards that could probably not be done. The ordinance will state however the entire building must be the same material. That is, the front could not be done in a nice material and the sides and back in a lesser material. c. AGENDA FOR OCTOBER: The Planning Commission s October agenda will include the review of the ridge overlay district regulations and continued discussion on the draft zoning district regulations for the Boal Avenue commercial corridor. 7. REPORTS: Zoning permits: A zoning permit report for July was distributed. Page 5 of 6
CRPC: Mr. Hammerstedt was not present to provide a report. 8. RECENT ACTIONS BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Approved the State College Borough Water Authority Minor Land Development Plan. Agreed with the Planning Commission s decision to not revise the home occupancy regulations at this time. Approved the Nittany Grove Revised Final Land Development Plan. Mr. Boeckel and Ms. Farkas made a presentation about the Boalsburg Small Area Plan to the Halfmoon Township Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission. Chairman Igo said before the Commission adjourned he wanted to commend Staff for putting together the great information for the meeting. 9. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Mr. Wallace moved to adjourn. Mr. Porterfield seconded the motion and Chairman Igo declared the meeting adjourned at 8:36 PM. Respectfully submitted, Amy Farkas, Township Secretary Page 6 of 6