1 The North Strabane Township Planning Commission met in regular session on Monday, August 21, 2017 at 5:31 PM at the Municipal Building located at 1929 Route 519, Canonsburg, PA 15317 Attending This Session: Harold Close, Chairperson Diane Balogh, Vice Chairperson Neil Kelly, Secretary Michael Kelly, Commission Member Barry Crumrine, Commission Member Also Attending This Session: Gary Sweat, Township Solicitor Joe Sites, Township Engineer Margaret Householder, Interim Planning Coordinator Colleen Mellor, Stenographer APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 17, 2017 A motion was made by Barry Crumrine and seconded by Neil Kelly to approve the minutes of the July 17, 2017 meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS: OLD BUSINESS: AGE RESTRICTED ORDINANCE IN R 2 and R 3 There were no public comments. Review of proposed ordinance amendment regulating Age Restricted Communities in R 2 and R 3 districts, specifically requirements for open space and requirement for arterial/collector street. Carolyn Yagle of Environmental Planning & Design, was following up with information from July associated with the criteria that were outlined for the age restricted planned community. It was outlined that at least 40% of the minimum required open space shall be suitable for hosting active recreation and shall have a slope of 15% or less. The percentage of open space overall is part of the calculation for developing the net acreage and accordingly, that is 20%. This criterion is in addition to that. Of that 20% that is called out for open space what can be designated within that 20%. The receipt of some suggestions outlined some very specific things about having the construction of private recreation facilities and it would need to include a combination of all of the following: Shall include an indoor community center, an outdoor swimming pool or spa, and an accessory outdoor recreation area. The suggestion that was made between the July meeting and today s meeting was to include those 3 things. If another age restricted development were to come forward in the Township with an application in a permissible district, the requirement of those 3 items seems to be very extensive. The intent of what was being identified is that there will be some specialty recreation facilities that would not necessarily be associated as a specific
2 percentage of space or those types of things. There are two different approaches. It is recognized that the clarity in the 40% suitable for hosting the active recreation probably will need to be discussed. EPD would make a recommendation that type of language be considered; however, they do not see the same benefits that were made as part of that suggestion if an ordinance does not require any amenities (which is a big mistake) secondly identify that another benefit would be in having these 3 criteria, it would prevent small age restricted communities with no amenities. It would set the minimum standard to encourage first class facilities requiring a pool in certain uses lastly would be better and more desirable uses for the residents than bulk ones. We need to weigh that in context with everything else as outlined within the ordinance and what you as a township are asking the development community to provide. These are some other suggestions that are good middle ground points between the July draft outlined and then what has been recommended since, with rewording or adjustments to section 8 of the draft. The first one within the required open space (that 20%) the developer shall construct private recreation facilities for all residents of the development and their guest invitees. At a minimum said facilities shall include an indoor community center, a swimming pool or spa, or instead of and an outdoor recreation area. It is upon the applicant to put in a type of recreation facility within that 20% of open space that they believe is suitable for future for residents of that space. The second way of thinking could be a revision of section 8: at least 40% of the minimum required open space shall have slope of 15% or less. That is not requiring someone to construct one of those 3 things, but it is shaping that for the open space that is reserved as part of the large calculation that a percentage of that open space needs to have slopes less than 15%. This criterion is specifically saying that all of the steep slopes within a reservation of open space cannot make up the open space. There has to be some useable element to that. Useable meaning a lesser grade; something that can be enjoyed by a lot more people than slopes. The third one is identifying keeping the gross acreage requirement which is 20% in R district and eliminate section 8 altogether; which is 40% needs to be reserved and suitable for hosting active recreation and shall have a slope of 15%. In letter C what was outlined as suggestions: 1 st honing what was made as suggestion by the development community, 2 nd was revising the current section 8 text to delete the phrase suitable for active recreation and the 3 rd one is essentially eliminating section 8 altogether. They strongly suggest the use of the word and as it has been submitted to the township, not be utilized in the phrasing if we were to go with something like number 1 or the inclusion of an indoor community center plus an outdoor swimming pool or spa plus an accessory outdoor recreation area. We do not believe that is consistent with the other types of things that are generally required throughout the zoning ordinance as a whole. While the intent of that is to raise the bar, we are trying to look at the parenting between the types of things that are outlined. Carolyn asked if there was discussion or elements of preference anyone may have to the suggestions that were made. Harold asked if anyone from the board had any questions. All responded not at this time.
3 David Biddison, Traditions of America, stated he has been before the Planning Commission several times and expressed gratitude for allowing him to come back to talk about this ordinance. He is in attendance as it relates to a case study on how the ordinance would apply to a specific parcel. The Zaimes and Erdners own 208 acres in North Strabane together. The provision B would show it would essentially take about 16. 6 acres of the best developable area for the property and renders it undevelopable. It has a tremendous adverse impact on the ability to develop the site; whether it is used for active space or just sheer open space. It just takes up all of the buildable area. The North and South Hills of Pittsburgh have so much topography a provision like this just does not work. He stated he feels specifically B does not work, just taking out the active because it takes so much of the property that can be built on. Neil asked Mr. Biddison if we are just talking open space. He responded it is when you add the 40% with a slope of less than 15%. When you look at a site most sites around here you will probably get more than 20% open space but they will be steep slopes where you create big buffers between neighboring property owners. Neil stated he likes the number 1 and he questioned the or part. Carolyn read off the suggestion: the indoor community center plus an outdoor swimming pool or spa, plus an accessory outdoor recreation area would need to be provided. That was letter B. In letter C number 1 it would be an outdoor community center replacing the comma with or a swimming pool or a spa or an outdoor recreation area. You allow for swimming pools in PRD s but you do not necessitate. That is where we are trying to have some element of equivalency. If an application wanted to construct all of those things if you put and/or. You just need to be very thoughtful where the word and was. The other phrase could be Shall at a minimum include. Gary asked David in his experience is an indoor community center the most desirable aspect of recreation for these age restricted communities? David Biddison answered it is one component. They have a community up in Adams that has extensive walking trails and a big open space. His only comment is sometimes you have to be careful you do not end up with a bunch of 5 and 10 unit 55 plus jobs because they just do not work. The comments are good and they are productive to make the ordinance more useable. Gary then asked Carolyn what about the formula that ensures a minimum square footage for a facility. The developer s suggestion was 20 sq. ft. of interior building space or 2000 sq. ft. whichever was greater. We would not want to see a real tiny structure which will meet the requirements of the ordinance, versus something that is very useable. Carolyn stated from a structural standpoint yes. The flip side of this is if someone wanted to come in and put an investment in the outdoor recreation component in terms of constructing a trail system. She does not know why the ordinance needs to identify the specific ratio of square footage per dwelling if the choice were to invest in the outdoor. Without putting a ratio in the question is could it be something marginal, if you are looking at it in terms of what is the occupancy of that structure. There are things in the building code that are going to shape what minimum square footages or maximum occupancies of a facility are. Gary questioned if a developer is willing to give us a guaranteed square footage why not take it. Carolyn said that is a good question. If we were
4 to apply this ratio to the next application coming in Carolyn thinks we would want to identify what is the basis for that. Are we doing it based on a recreation or some bigger standard? By all means constructing that amount of square footage is advantageous to the current situation. How do we want to apply that same ratio? The bullet about preventing small restricted age communities without amenities is an important comment. Number one was allowing the flexibility of what kind of facilities would be provided. Do we really need to get into specific square footage ratios? If we did is there a basis either from a recreation standpoint or from a general planning standpoint in the development of these facilities? The challenge from the township side is the basis for why that square footage was selected. Neil stated there is not square footage for the PRD s. Carolyn replied correct. Harold s thought process or intention when they started working on this ordinance in putting in at least 40% of the minimum required open space, was to make sure we did not end up with an in lieu of payment for recreation. When we start requiring certain things for a recreation center is when you start going down a slippery slope. Harold s intention was to look at it on a case by case basis. If a developer comes with this particular plan that we have in front of us, shows that this requirement would not work, at that point Harold s thought was asking for a variance. Present a plan and we will look at it on a case by case basis. Harold just does not want the ordinance to say it must have a community center, it must have this, it s 20 sq. ft. per resident. He would feel comfortable each time saying this is what we have and we look at it that way. David Biddison stated he understands but in most sites in North Strabane the ordinance will not work. Then you are in a horse trading situation, which completely arbitrary. The other issue is they would not be in a position where they would want to submit approved plans and go through the engineering process to hope the Township will grant a variance. It is a risk that does not work for most sites, it is a risk most will not take, and you just do not want to be in that situation where you are horse trading, when you know a provision does not work for any properties in the area and you want to create a leverage point over developers. That is not good for developers or the Township or residents from a planning standpoint. Carolyn stated there are points to both sides. In the example C 1, the township would be requiring amenities to be provided. That is comparable to what is in the PRD. We have reserved the 20% open space in the overall calculation. From both sides we have looked at things that are comparable and that are identifying there is an amenity and there is a reserved open space. She stated to Gary s point in terms of the ratio she has a little hesitation specifically using something like 20 sq. ft. per dwelling unit only for a community center. How many people can fit in the pool or the spa. An outdoor recreation facility is the one that remains a little nebulous meaning what is that? Is it a comprehensive trail system? The others are sized using architectural design standards and building capacity standards and general safety standards. Carolyn believes C 1 is the point that brings all of these discussions together to a mid point. If Carolyn were to make a recommendation, that one meets in the middle on all of the discussions that happen to date.
5 Margaret stated she likes one because it gives you options. We kicked around some thoughts in the office. Maybe you want an indoor pool. Maybe you do not want an outdoor pool. This way you have that option. Maybe you have a very scenic area and you would do a nice walking trail instead of that. It is not just this. It is any site. Harold stated he is not applying to this one. He realized we are not talking about the in lieu of active recreation. He just does not want to go down the road where these developments have a trail through the woods and it is overgrown and it does not get maintained. That is where his hesitation is. Let s look at it on a case by case because the topography is very different for the most part from site to site. He does not want to get away from the more rural feel of North Strabane. Carolyn addressed the trail system. As part of going through this process, there would be a developer s agreement and in that developer s agreement the issue of common open space and the maintenance of that common open space would be outlined. It is in the applicant and developer s hands, but it is also then something that has been submitted on the end portions of an approved application. Things would need to be held to what was outlined. Does become an enforcement matter. Harold agreed it does. Gary asked are we still talking 40% open space what is the recommendation? Carolyn responded that recommendation has not changed in terms of the percentage of open space. The calculations, as they were drafted for July, were depending upon the district. At that point in time 20% in the R s and 30% in the A district. Those were the percentages that were outlined as part of that draft. It was specifically the Section 8 recommendation saying of the 20 % 40% of that acreage, is showing what would be 42 acres in this situation that were required, 16 acres would need to be less than 15%. Looking at the 20% open space what is the composition for the amenity associated with that open space. Gary asked the developer if that is workable for him. David Biddison stated he understands section 8 is being deleted and section C 1 would be added which makes a lot of sense and David thinks it would be the right thing to do. He thinks this will be a good 55 plus or active adult ordinance. Carolyn stated with raising at a minimum and then doing the list. At a minimum at least one of those needs to be provided. If an applicant wants to provides 2 or 3 or 4, they can there is nothing stopping them. Gary asked if there was anything in the draft for waivers or modifications. Gary stated it goes to what Harold had addressed. That case by case can be dangerous. Gary disagrees with Harold on that point. It creates a legal nightmare. One person makes an argument and maybe has a better lawyer or consultant and convinces us to do it that way. The next guy comes through and wants to use that as precedence. That can blow up. The other thing is a provision that would enable the township to grant waivers. That is the case by case as Gary sees it. That keeps it in front of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Variances are for the Zoning Hearing Board. He thinks those types of issues are better handled by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors rather than the Zoning Hearing Board. Carolyn pulled the July text with it moving to the conditional uses because it is not in PRD anymore. It would be whatever applies to conditional use.
6 Gary stated there is waiver and modification. Carolyn stated it is in that chapter and what is permitted there is what the Township would permit or apply. Diane agrees with Gary with the potential legal nightmare. Mike said he likes C 1. MOTION TO INCORPORATE SECTION C 1 AGE RESTRICTED ORDINANCE AND REPLACE SECTION 8 REQUIREMENT FOR ARTERIAL/COLLECTOR STREET A motion was made by Neil Kelly and seconded by Barry Crumrine to incorporate suggestion section C 1 into the age restricted community ordinance and replacing section 8. Mike Wetzel had a concern with the new ordinance under section 8 item #1 age restricted community shall be located such that the development has direct access to an arterial or collector road within the Township. In July there was an exhibit that identified at that time the A 2, R 2 and the R 3 zoning districts. There were 60 parcels that were permitted. About 53 of those parcels were developable. The A 2 has been removed upon the recommendation of the supervisors within the plan. When we are down to that scenario 27 of those parcels were located in the A 2 zoning district. That brings you down to about 33 overall parcels. When you look at the developable end of the parcels really there are only about 31 that are truly developable within the R 2 and the R 3 zoning district. The one thing the exhibit did not take into account is that several of those properties do not have frontage on an arterial or collector road. Harold asked what the requirement is for an arterial or collector road. Joe stated the arterial is supposed to get you access throughout the township. Arterial is a public street that serves large volumes of high speed and long distance traffic. Streets classified arterial are interstate 79, US Route 19, US Route 136, US Route 519, and US Route 980. Those are all state highways, the arterials. The collector road by definition is a public street that intercepts local streets. It provides for routes for carrying considerable volumes of local traffic to community facilities and arterial roads. The list includes Boone Avenue, Chartiers, Conklin, Galley, Johnson, Latimer, Linden, Linnwood, Linden Creek, Lindley, McClelland, McDowell, Thomas, Thomas 84, Waterdam, Weavertown, and West McMurray. Proposed in the ordinance are Christy Road, The North and South Connector of the South Beltway and Brownlee Road. The collector roads are taking streets to the arterial. Many of these roads are longer roads that go throughout the Township. They are mainly the spine of the Township that the other finger roads feed into. Harold stated short of changing any other street to become a collector then that would be based on the specification of the road being the correct width and what not, correct? Joe stated correct. Mike Wetzel stated they identified the roads that are arterial and collector. An age restricted community really needs to have the club house and amenities. You are going to be over 50 units in size. You have that requirement of 2 access points required for any development with 50 units or more. Really what you come down to in the R 3 zoning district is 3 parcels are available and in R 2 there are about 6 parcels that are available on an arterial and collector road. Where you have frontage on this collector road which has about 50 ft. to 100 ft. of frontage on a
7 collector road you are not going to be able to have two access points. In the R 3 there are none and in the R 2 there are two parcels that have two access points. There are not many parcels available. Conditional use approval may require the applicant to perform improvements. You really kind of protected yourself that any road that you are going to have an age restricted community will need to be brought up to Township standards Harold asked Gary if the township is requiring off site development of the road. Gary stated we get into the issue of whether we force off site improvements. The law is clear we can t. Harold commented that is not a catch all for everything. Gary stated we go from 31 parcels to 9. Mike replied an age restricted community needs to come back with a traffic study. A traffic study will show if there are deficiencies. Harold pointed out Brehm Road was added as a collector street. Harold stated adding a street designation to collector street did not take much. Gary stated that may be a way to solve this case by case. We have the ability to designate a road collector and keep everything the way it is. Harold would be more comfortable doing it that way. Carolyn stated there are a couple of things; one is the size of development in terms of context of the open space. Carolyn stated Harold spoke about whether this is looking at the parcels individually. Could you get 2 driveways because you have a certain frontage? That goes to the evaluation, meaning there is a significant amount of acreage tied to that area in R 2 from a development standpoint in looking more holistically versus one parcel in and of itself. There is a balancing aspect to this. We have also taken out A 2 land where this discussion was rooted. We have a few things to work with in R 2 and R 3. One is the purposes of those districts. Second is the established street network. Third is the vicinity of the available parcels or the adjacency of potential parcels that could be consolidated. Put the puzzle together in a slightly different way. Carolyn stated Gary s recommendation is one we would see in parallel. Harold questioned it is noted may is going to stay that way. Gary commented we are ok with may because he would not recommend that we do it. Gary stated if a developer or an applicant comes in and says we really would like to develop this property but we need you to reclassify this as collector, that is when you can negotiate improvements with a developer. Carolyn said there are specific construction standards associated with those types. Gary stated that will be up to Joe. Harold stated moving forward on this motion it is still as printed. MAXIMUM ACERAGE FOR MOBILE HOME PARK Neil addressed section 31 regarding mobile home parks and setting a maximum size for a mobile home park. Neil suggested 30 acres. No one ever foresaw a 228 acre trailer park. Carolyn did look at the recommendation and she feels that it is within the spirit of the ordinance, considering the purpose statement of the district. It is important that if this were to be made a motion, moving forward, that it be done in the context of the purpose of the district in which this is allowed. There are minimum and maximums for different things throughout the ordinance. Those have all been developed as part of purposeful rationale and she would want the planning commission to be comfortable with that tie in. The nature of this type of planned development is rooted in the rural and semi rural
8 character of the district in which it is allowed. It is a permitted use. This type of acreage would enable a number of structures to be located there and designed and placed there. It is allowed throughout the district. It is not as if we have identified it for any other specific maximum. That is also important too. It will have a minimum of 5 acres as was previously drafted. MOTION TO SET MAXIMUM ACERAGE FOR MOBILE HOME PARK TO BE 30 ACRES A motion was made by Neil Kelly and seconded by Barry Crumrine to change Mobile Home Park section 31B to include the maximum site be permitted for mobile home park shall be 30 continuous acres based on the rural and semi rural purpose of the district. LIGHTING REQUIREMENTS FOR CHANGEABLE COPY SIGNS NEW BUSINESS: WATERDAM FARMS PHASE III 29 TH AMENDMENT Neil stated the second part came up because of the changeable copy signs that the neighbor thought is too bright. When Joe went out to measure we were unsure where to measure from. Joe stated it needs to be at the right of way line of the road because the lot can go into the road. Gary suggested the center of the road. Carolyn thinks it would be equivalent to how you have established lots now in saying that is the lot line or the right of way line whichever is to the interior of the lot. Joe stated one municipality has limited these signs to be a solid black background as opposed to white. That is where the biggest problem has occurred. Modify the ordinance to eliminate the white background. It limits video and display by having a black background at all times. The ones on 519 and 19 are motioned. With the one on 19 you can see the light bouncing off the townhouses. It was brought up to have them shut off and limit operation times. Maybe shut off at 11 P.M. and resume at 6 A.M. would be reasonable. There was discussion about the Meadows Casino sign. Margaret stated maybe we specify abutting residential districts. Joe stated there was discussion on commercial mixed with residential housing. Neil asked what about the apartments at The Streets. Joe feels they are far enough away and they are in a commercial district. Harold likes the idea of a black background. Joe added where you have a mixed use of commercial and residential. Neil said maybe this needs more work. WATERDAM FARMS PHASE III 29TH Amended plan, showing the as built conditions of lot 314 A & B located on Huntclub Drive in an R 3 zoning district. The following letter was submitted by Gateway Engineers dated: August 18, 2017 North Strabane Township Planning and Zoning Commission 1929 Route 519 South Canonsburg, PA 15317 Re: Twenty Ninth Amended Plan Lot 314 Waterdam Farms Phase 3 Huntclub Drive
9 Members of the Commission: We have received and reviewed the application for the above referenced plan for the subdivision of Lot 314 totaling 0.46 acres into two lots on Huntclub Drive in the A 1 zoning district as prepared by HMT and Associates, dated July 14, 2017. The plan is in order for consideration by the planning commission. The plans have been reviewed for conformance to Township Ordinance standards only. The review is based on information prepared by others and assumes this information is correct and valid as submitted. Sincerely Joseph H. Sites, P.E. Township Engineer All comments have been addressed and the plan is in order. MOTION TO APPROVE WATERDAM FARMS PHASE III 29 th AMENDED PLAN. A motion was made by Neil Kelly and seconded by Mike Kelly to approve Waterdam Farms Phase III 29 th amended plan. KAIRYS/MATOK PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SUBDIVISION AND CONSOLIDATION KAIRYS/MATOK Preliminary and final subdivision and consolidation approval for a residential land development located on both sides of Thomas Eighty Four Road in an R 2 zoning district. The following letter was submitted by Gateway Engineers dated: August 18, 2017 North Strabane Township Planning and Zoning Commission 1929 Route 519 South Canonsburg, PA 15317 Re: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Creekside Crossing/Matok Thomas Eighty Four Road Members of the Commission: We have received and reviewed the application for preliminary and final approval for the subdivision and consolidation of 200.37 acres into three (3) tracts of property in the R 2 zoning district as prepared by PYE Engineering dated April 26, 2017 revised dated August 1, 2017.
10 All of our comments have been addressed and the plan is in order for consideration. The plans have been reviewed for conformance to Township Ordinance standards only. The review is based on information prepared by others and assumes this information is correct and valid as submitted. Sincerely Joseph H. Sites, P.E. Township Engineer Steven Victor, from Victor Wetzel Associates, gave a summation for the consolidation, lot line revision and subdivision for three properties. This is along Thomas Eighty Four Road; made up of the Kairy property, the fire hall property, and a 14 acre portion of the Matok property. This will create one development parcel divided by Thomas Eighty Four Road, bringing everything together as a consolidation and lot line revision. It is a no improvement simple subdivision. They are asking for preliminary and final for the revisions and lot line so the closings for these properties and recording of the subdivisions can occur. All of Joe Sites comments have been addressed. MOTION TO APPROVE KAIRYS/MATOK SUBDIVISION AND CONSOLIDATION CREEKSIDE CROSSING PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION A motion was made by Mike Kelly and seconded by Barry Crumrine to approve the preliminary and final subdivision and consolidation of the Kairy/Matok properties. Table Creekside Crossing Preliminary and final site plan approval for a conservation subdivision totaling 101.8 acres consisting of 168 single family dwellings located on both sides of Thomas Eighty Four Road in an R 2 zoning district. Steven Victor, from Victor Wetzel Associates wanted some discussion on it. Steven stated he was hoping the board would act on it. Last year the conditional use was approved for Creekside Crossings. The next step was to apply for a preliminary subdivision plan which mirrors the conditional use with the exception of the fire hall property. It is a slight change from the conditional use to the preliminary plan. It will allow them to move forward other than grading the property. He continued we are not seeking formal plans for phases I and II, until there has been a complete and full review. Joe stated at the Board of Supervisors meeting last week, there was no issue with issuing a grading permit for this development so they can move forward. There were other items related to the utilities and the water and gas availability. Joe had asked for a letter regarding the sanitary sewer. He did get confirmation that sewage will be available for this development. The municipal authority did state the trunk line will not be active until sometime in September. Joe has not
11 received a letter for the electric. Joe did receive an email for the preliminary geotechnical report. Joe has no problem granting a grading permit once he receives a NPDS permit and a grading plan. From a timing perspective we will not be holding them up. We just do not it want to be implied that everything is here. Neil stated it was agreed to table. Steven stated he just wanted it brought up for discussion. It is a preliminary final for a conservation subdivision for the entire property. Then it will be the final plans for phases I and II. They are happy to proceed with grading. MOTION TO TABLE ITEM 6C CREEKSIDE CROSSING PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR PHASE I MOTION TO TABLE ITEM 6D WATERDAM, L.P. REQUEST FOR RE ZONING OF 29.151 ACRE PARCEL A motion was made by Neil Kelly and seconded by Diane Balogh to table item 6C for Creekside Crossing. Item 6D. Creekside crossing preliminary subdivision and site plan approval for Phase I, totaling 20.68 acres consisting of 46 single family dwellings located on Thomas Eighty Four Road in an R 2 zoning district. A motion was made by Neil Kelly and seconded by Diane Balogh to table item 6D for Creekside Crossing. Waterdam, L.P. Request for re zoning of a 29.151 acre parcel located west of Thomas Road and north of Ross Road, from A 1 zoning to R 2 zoning, for a single family subdivision. The following letter was submitted by Gateway Engineers dated: August 14, 2017 North Strabane Township Planning and Zoning Commission 1929 Route 519 South Canonsburg, PA 15317 Re: Rezoning Application Waterdam L.P. Waterdam Road and Ross Road Members of the Commission: We have received and reviewed the application requesting the rezoning of 29.151 acres located in the current A 2 zoning district proposed to be the A 1 zoning district under the pending zoning ordinance. The applicant is requesting that the property be rezoned from A I to R 2. Under the pending ordinance the R 2 zoned property on the east side of Waterdam Road will remain R 2.
12 The applicant is requesting the rezone the property on the West Side to develop with property on the East Side of Waterdam Road as one single family development. It should be noted that rezoning of the property may assemble enough property to permit the development of an age restricted community under the pending zoning ordinance. In addition, rezoning the parcel of property on the west side of Waterdam Road would be the first parcel of A I property to be rezoned R 2 and establish precedence for future rezone requests. The plans have been reviewed for conformance to Township Ordinance standards only. The review is based on information prepared by others and assumes this information is correct and valid as submitted. Sincerely Joseph H. Sites, P.E. Township Engineer Steven Victor, of Victor Wetzel Associates stated they are asking for a rezoning so that a development plan for both sides of the road that they own can be consistently done in the R 2 conservation subdivision. The thought is this site was overlooked. Steven pointed out the location of the pump station. The entire parcel of property is 43 acres and only a portion is being asked to be re zoned. The additional 13 acres sits in a different watershed. The description of the plan is as follows: a cul de sac coming off Thomas Road to the 33 acre parcel and a loop road with a cul de sac to serve the northwestern portion. There is gravity sewer almost the entire site. There is a smaller area in the bottom that will probably require grinder pumps. They are looking to do it as a conservation subdivision. The individual lots will be sold as fee simple. Harold inquired as to how many lots. Neil stated the top one will have 61 lots 85 feet wide, a slightly larger lot with more expensive homes. The other side will be 20 lots and 65 feet wide and smaller, more compact single family homes. Lot size would be on average ¼ acre. It is seen as 2 different styles or markets of single family. It is all owned by the same owner. It will be brought in as a single development plan. Neil asked about the residual of the lot and the intentions for it. Victor stated it will stay as A 1. It will not be left as a land locked piece of property as the owner s property borders it as well. Neil commented it was not forgotten the dividing point was Thomas and Thomas Eighty Four Road. Neil thinks it should be held until the public hearing. Neil is reluctant to change it as this point. Barry Crumrine inquired about the lay of the land and Steven gave a description. Joe had a few comments that he read off from his letter. MOTION TO DENY WATERDAM, L.P. RE ZONING A motion was made by Neil Kelly and seconded by Diane Balogh to deny the request of the rezoning of item E.
13 ROLL CALL OF VOTES: 4 YES 1 NO Barry Crumrine WYNTER S CIRCLE, LLC REQUEST FOR RE ZONING Wynter s Circle, LLC request for re zoning of 1.209 acre parcel 900 west of Waterdam Road on the north side of Galley Road, from A 2 to C 1, for a small retail or office building. The following letter was submitted by Gateway Engineers dated: August 14, 2017 North Strabane Township Planning and Zoning Commission 1929 Route 519 South Canonsburg, PA 15317 Re: Rezoning Application Wynter's Circle, LLC Galley Road Members of the Commission: We have received and reviewed the application requesting the rezoning of 2.309 acres located in the current A 2 zoning district remaining as A 2 under the pending zoning ordinance. The applicant is requesting that the property be rezoned from A 2 to C 1. The property abuts the Peters Township Mix Use Activity Center Zoning which includes commercial development. The request for rezoning appears to make sense, but considering the request, a piece of A 2 zoned property between it and the existing C 1 zoned area along Galley Road would remain. I would recommend that if the requested property is rezoned to C 1 that the entire area north of Galley Road be rezoned C 1 so that there is not a pocket of A 2 on the north side of Galley Road. The plans have been reviewed for conformance to Township Ordinance standards only. The review is based on information prepared by others and assumes this information is correct and valid as submitted. Sincerely Joseph H. Sites, P.E. Township Engineer Steven Victor commented it is a piece of property located along Galley Road and is known as a commercial area. The majority of the property is located in Peters Township and is zoned MA which is mixed use activity center. An additional parcel located in that area in Peters Township is zoned MA and it has been approved for a charter school. The property that lies within North Strabane is A 2 zoning and they are requesting it be re zoned as C 1. The rest of Galley Road heading all the way down to the bank is zoned C 1. This will give continuous commercial. Neil asked Joe how does the Peters Township zoning MA compare to North Strabane C 1 or C 2 zoning. Joe stated he feels the C 1 would be comparable. Neil asked Steven what the purpose is and what will be done with the property? Steven stated the zoning of MA is slightly different from North Strabane s C 1 as it
14 allows both multi family, offices, and retail. Half will be retail and the other half will be multi family condominiums. MOTION TO APPROVE WYNTER S CIRCLE, LLC REQUEST FOR RE ZONING A motion was made by Neil Kelly and seconded by Barry Crumrine to approve the request for re zoning of 1.209 acre parcel 900 west of Waterdam Road on the north side of Galley Road, from A 2 to C 1 WYLIE SUBDIVISION NO. 1 Wylie subdivision no. 1 located at Lindenwood Golf Course, a lot line shift to convey parcel A, consisting of 7.62 acres to lot 1 from lot 2, located in an A 2 zoning district. The following letter was submitted by Gateway Engineers dated: August 16, 2017 North Strabane Township Planning and Zoning Commission 1929 Route 519 South Canonsburg, PA 15317 Re: Preliminary and Final Consolidation Wylie Subdivision No. 1 Waterdam and Galley Roads Members of the Commission: We have received and reviewed the application for preliminary and final approval for the subdivision and consolidation of two (2) lots totaling 191.59 acres in the A 2 zoning district as prepared by HMT and Associates dated August 1, 2017 revised dated August 14, 2017. The subdivision and consolidation is a lot line shift and no new lots are being created. All of the comments of our letter of August 14, 2017 have been addressed and the plan is in order for consideration for approval. The plans have been reviewed for conformance to Township Ordinance standards only. The review is based on information prepared by others and assumes this information is correct and valid as submitted. Sincerely Joseph H. Sites, P.E. Township Engineer Joe stated all plans are in order. MOTION TO APPROVE WYLIE SUBDIVISION NO. 1 A motion was made by Neil Kelly and seconded by Diane Balogh to approve the Wylie Subdivision No. 1.
15 PARK PLACE PLAN OF LOTS PHASE II Park Place plan of lots phase II C site plan approval for a 7,000 square foot restaurant, located on Wildflower Circle in a C 2 District. The following letter was submitted by Gateway Engineers dated: August 17, 2017 North Strabane Township Planning and Zoning Commission 1929 Route 519 South Canonsburg, PA 15317 Re: Preliminary and Final Site Plan Park Place Phase 2C Site Development Route 19 C 1 Zoning District Members of the Commission: We have received and reviewed the preliminary and final site plan application for the development of a 1.3 acre parcel as commercial in the C 1 zoning district as prepared by Cheat Road Engineering, Inc. dated August 17, 2017. All of the comments of my letter of August 14, 2017 have been addressed and the plan is in order for consideration for approval. The plans have been reviewed for conformance to Township Ordinance standards only. The review is based on information prepared by others and assumes this information is correct and valid as submitted. Sincerely Joseph H. Sites, P.E. Township Engineer Nick Webb, Cheat Road Engineering, was present. Joe stated all of his comments have been addressed. Neil asked who the tenant will be. Nick responded it is planned to be a Chinese buffet. Neil stated he spoke with the fire chief on the proposed fire truck route. It takes it up behind and it can still come in the front at Route 19. There is still discussion on sprinklers and Mark Grimm and Rich Yosi are working with them on that. Gary asked if parking was an issue. Joe stated no issues with parking. MOTION TO APPROVE PARK PLACE PLAN OF LOTS PHASE II A motion was made by Neil Kelly and seconded by Barry Crumrine to approve the Park Place plan of lots phase II C site plan approval for a 7,000 square foot restaurant, located on Wildflower Circle in a C 2 District. There was no other business to discuss. Neil Kelly made a motion and Diane Balogh seconded to adjourn the meeting at 7:10 PM.
16 Harold Close, Chairperson Neil Kelly, Secretary