MUNICIPALITY OF MONROEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 15, 2006 MINUTES The meeting was called to order by Chairman Bernard Erb at 8 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was recited and a moment of silence was observed. ROLL CALL The Recording Secretary, Sharon McIndoe, called roll and the following were present: Bernard Erb, Frank Bole, Sidney Singer, Jack Murray, Bob Kerr, Barbara Sonafelt, Paul Humenik, Shelly Kaltenbaugh, Paul Hugus, Eric Nilson and Matt Radinovich. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There being no corrections, additions or deletions to the minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 18, 2006, a motion was duly made by Mr. Bole to approve them, as written, and Mrs. Sonafelt seconded it. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS 05-4-Z SCOTT BELEY The applicant is requesting a one-lot rezoning from R-1, One-Family Residential to R-2T, One-Family Residential Zoning District. The property is located at 2554 Haymaker Road at its intersection with McGinley Road. The total size of the property is.51 acres. 05-12-SUB SCOTT BELEY The applicant is requesting final subdivision approval for a five-lot subdivision to include Lot 1 of.09 acres. The property is located at 2554 Haymaker Road at its intersection with McGinley Road. It is zoned R-1, One-Family Residential with a proposed rezoning to R-2T, One-Family Residential Zoning District.
Regular Meeting 2 March 15, 2006 The applicant has requested withdrawal of this application. 05-16-ST(R) SCOTT BELEY The applicant is requesting site plan approval to construct four, three-story residential townhouses and associated site improvements. The property is located at 2554 Haymaker Road at its intersection with McGinley Road. It is zoned R-1, One- Family Residential with a proposed rezoning to R-T, One-Family Residential Zoning District. Mr. Scott Beley, the applicant, came forward to explain that it has been four months since the initial application and there are a number of changes in the plans. He stated the request is to rezone a property that has been vacant for over six years and is enclosed by two four-lane roads. He asserted it is located next to a hospital, church and commercial properties. Mr. Beley reviewed several photographs from a power point presentation. He indicated the first photo is a front view and the property has been used for commercial businesses, dance studio and horse stables. He explained since the November Planning Commission meeting, the plan has been reduced to four units and the square footage has been reduced to 1,630 square feet per unit. He stated it would now be considered a condominium association and will be subdivided. He reported the setback would be changed from 30 to 50 feet and a common area has been added for the residents. Mr. Beley indicated the second photograph is a view coming down Haymaker Road, the third is from the hospital parking lot, the fourth is from the hospital, the fifth is from the rear of the property, the sixth is from the neighboring property owned by Thomas Mistick, the seventh is a view from the back door facing the hospital, the eight is a view up Haymaker Road looking toward a number of businesses, the ninth is directly out the front door facing the buildings across the street and the tenth is the rear of the property reflecting its condition. Mr. Beley explained the property has had many difficulties so that it is not conductive for single-family homes. He stated it is located at a three-way light intersection and surrounded by commercial property. Mr. Beley pointed out the changes since the last meeting is that there are now four smaller townhouses instead of five and the square footage has been reduced. He indicated they will still face McGinley Road at road level instead of ten-feet above. He stated the structure will now be located 50 feet from Haymaker Road, it will sit parallel to the house located next door, the driveway would be widened providing better sight lines, the landscaping will be improved and it will be located 100 feet away from the neighboring residence. He indicated the driveway will continue to be isolated from the North American Martyrs property and an amenity will be added for a picnic and garden area. He stated adequate parking for four to six units will be provided and a
Regular Meeting 3 March 15, 2006 condominium association will provide the maintenance. He explained he had a request for an elevator to provide access for the elderly. He expected the price to be approximately $200,000 to $240,000. Mr. Beley explained the surrounding zoning consists of C-2 Business/Commercial located 75 feet directly across the street, L-Special Use located across the street, 300 feet from a multi-family residence or the Sunrise Rest Home located at the corner by Gateway High School, the property is bordered in the back by the North American Martyrs Church and there is a church located across the street. Mr. Beley asserted this development is consistent with the comprehensive plan which is to reinvigorate property in Monroeville and open up the corridor to other residential uses. He explained the demographics in Monroeville are changing and there is more demand for multi-family housing, retirees and young professionals. Mr. Beley reported he has had a number of meetings concerning this property and several people from the Haymaker Road area in support of the project gave testimony at the previous meeting. He submitted signed petitions which were included in the back of the package and he felt the public was generally in support of it. Mr. Beley reviewed that there are a number of plans that have single-family homes located adjacent to townhouses and he provided a list. He stated some are located down Haymaker Road and others are proposed for development. Mr. Beley concluded this development would provide a buffer to the residential areas down Haymaker Road and improve the entrance into the hospital. Ms. Kaltenbaugh questioned whether he knew the function for a L-Special Use district and where those districts are located throughout the municipality. Mr. Beley was uncertain where they are typically located but he knew of an L-Special Use district on Stroschein Road. Ms. Kaltenbaugh explained typically the L-Special Use districts are used for park type settings such as the hospital, US Steel and PPG. She indicated all of those buildings are located on large properties that have more of an office type quality to them and are not hardcore commercial uses. She questioned whether he was aware that churches and schools are allowed in residential zoning districts and are not considered commercial uses; Mr. Beley answered affirmatively. Ms. Kaltenbaugh inquired what section of the comprehensive plan he felt this was consistent with and Mr. Beley answered that he would find the section. Ms. Kaltenbaugh questioned what new uses he was referring to for this corridor and Mr. Beley answered that he felt this was a good use for the property because it buffers the rest of the single-family residences from commercial development down that corridor. Ms. Kaltenbaugh inquired whether he meant this would open up the corridor for more multi-family uses; Mr. Beley answered negatively. He asserted the rest of the houses on that stretch are not wide enough and the value of the houses would not make it financially viable. Ms. Kaltenbaugh questioned whether a conflict would exist between the single-story ranch type houses and these three story townhouses. Mr. Beley answered these would be lowered to street level where the
Regular Meeting 4 March 15, 2006 houses sit ten to fifteen feet back from the road so they would appear to be a two-story house from the front and back; and the entrance into the garage would be at street level. Ms. Kaltenbaugh inquired why this property was conducive for four families when he alluded to the fact that it was unsuitable for a single-family dwelling. He asserted most of the buyers would be retirees or young professionals that can walk to work. Ms. Kaltenbaugh pointed out that the new comprehensive plan shows that area as continuing to be single-family residential; Mr. Beley disagreed. Mr. Bob Mitale came forward to explain the survey of the property. He indicated this would consist of four units of mostly brick with hard plank of siding in some of the overhang areas. Mr. Murray inquired whether the garage entrances would be level with McGinley Road and Mr. Mitale answered affirmatively. Mr. Murray questioned how the first floor of the house would sit relative to the adjacent house and Mr. Mitale answered it would be a little higher. Mr. Singer questioned the steps at the end of the structure and Mr. Mitale answered they lead to a sidewalk that comes around to the front. Mr. Singer clarified they would go up into the building and Mr. Mitale answered affirmatively. He indicated the sidewalks are shown on the site plan. Mr. Singer questioned whether that was an entrance and Mr. Beley answered affirmatively. Mr. Mitale added the floor plan of the unit would be different for the entrance. Mr. Bole inquired whether it would consist of brick and Mr. Beley answered it would be a mixture of brick and siding. Mr. Bole questioned whether it could be bricked all the way up and Mr. Beley did not feel the entire building could be bricked but it would be a significant amount. Mr. Finnegan, attorney, came forward to answer any zoning questions. He indicated the subdivision was withdrawn because it is now being considered as a condominium association. He asserted that it is a logical transition into the area and the issue is not that it is a single lot but whether or not it is justifiably different from the others. He stated it is the only one at the intersection with all the signs leading into the hospital and nursing home, it is directly across from the parking lot of the hospital, directly across from the office building and is closest to Sunrise Home across the street. Again, he asserted that it is justifiable to do it because it is single-family attached instead of single-family detached and would not be that much of a transition. He indicated that because of its location and condition of disrepair, it has no value as a single-family resident. Mr. Bole inquired whether the side and front yard requirements were met since it has been reduced in size. Mr. Finnegan answered that was the reason for doing it and if it is rezoned, it complies with the zoning and engineering.
Regular Meeting 5 March 15, 2006 Mr. Singer inquired what was being done about the noise issue since it was discussed by the previous property owners. He suggested soundproofing and solid brick. Mr. George Donaldson, a resident, came forward to object to the development for personal reasons. He explained that he researched the criteria considered for zoning changes and he felt it was not permitted in these circumstances. He referred to Section Code 359-21, Provision B, changes will be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood in which it is located. He stated this is not keeping within the character of the neighborhood because they are all single-family dwellings. He felt it clashed with the neighborhood and a majority of the residents on his street, Colgate Drive, oppose this development. He referred to Code 359-48, Page 42, exception can be made when the person would inflict unnecessary hardship upon the property of the applicant. He suggested the applicant is inflicting the hardship upon himself by placing the development at this site. He pointed out Code 359-48, Page 43, gives the five relative hardships for making the change as follows: 1) if there is a unique physical circumstance and condition to the property; 2) there is no possibility that the property can be developed in strict conformance; 3) the hardship has not been created by the applicant; 4) the change will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and 5) the change would represent the minimum to afford relief to the hardship. He indicated that even in conditional uses, the development should be consistent with the existing neighborhood and he referred to Code 359-33, Paragraph E and G. Mr. Donaldson referred to an article in the Post Gazette where the city planner retired and indicated when the zoning of a property is changed, it changes the neighborhood for decades to come. He mentioned a lot of the houses in Pittsburgh were being changed to rentals and multi-family dwellings but those neighborhoods were changed back because most of them have absentee landlords. Mr. Donald also suggested this would be the worst location to have access for multiple cars and traffic. He felt if children would live in these townhouse, there would be nowhere for them to play safely. He spoke on behalf of his neighbors on Colgate Drive and was concerned about other townhouses being developed in the area. He begged the planning commission to not accept the project. Mr. Bole inquired about the location of his house and Mr. Donaldson answered it is at 1196 Colgate Drive. Mr. Bole questioned the number of houses on that street and Mr. Donaldson answered 59. He added that includes Drake and Clemson Drives. Mr. Bole asserted there were six residents on Colgate Drive that approved the development but he was uncertain whether there were 50 that disapproved. Mr. Donaldson indicated that he could get signed petitions from the residents not in favor of it because it will not allow clear access. Mr. Bole inquired how he felt about the development further down Haymaker Road with the townhouse complex in the middle of a residential area. Mr. Donaldson explained that he was not happy about it but did not object because of the terrain at the end of Haymaker Road with the embankment and single-family homes could not be built there. Mr. Bole rebutted this property is not conducive to having single-family residences and Mr. Donaldson answered that it does currently. He felt it
Regular Meeting 6 March 15, 2006 was done in conformance to the law as a residential development plan requiring five acres. He pointed out the advantages for that property are the storm water runoff, sewage, retentions and other benefits for drainage purposes. He suggested single-family homes should be developed on this side of Mosside Boulevard because it is within the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Singer inquired whether a doctor s office was proposed and the residents objected to it. Mr. Donaldson answered the previous owner wanted a daycare center and that motivated the other property owners to be interested. He suggested the code reflects grounds to disapprove it. Mr. Greg Beley, the builder, came forward to give an overview of the project. He explained the footprint of the project reflects that it was downsized from five to four units. He indicated he lives down Haymaker Road and drives by this property everyday. He reported when it was put on the market, they had drawings made and received favorable feedback. He indicated he put a lot of thought into the project because it is kind of an eye-catching sight on the corner. He stated if the end unit is setback 50 feet, it would look like single-family homes from motorists driving on Haymaker Road. He asserted their color scheme would be soft to blend in with the surrounding area because they did not want a brick building that would look commercial and they would have soothing landscaping to blend in with the area. He suggested the residents would all be professionals having different hours of access. Mr. Gregg Beley explained the property is not a long lot that faces Haymaker Road, but faces the office buildings, the hospital and the corridor. He felt this encouraged a slightly different use for the area. He answered there are a lot of different techniques that could be used to deflect the sound and they would be addressed when built. He pointed out the right side elevations reflect a nice single-family structure with a Williamsburg look and glass. Mr. Kerr questioned whether the bedrooms are located on the same side as the entrance for the ambulances to the hospital. Mr. Beley answered two or three floor plans will be offered and he further explained them. He indicated the back entrance will have access out the back door to a level area and this will not appear to be high townhouse units. He stated a sidewalk would be constructed all the way around to allow safety for children going to school. Mr. Bole inquired whether there would be sidewalks on Haymaker Road and Mr. Beley answered affirmatively. He added flowers and landscaping would be done. Mr. Kerr questioned whether there would be a buffer in the back between this and the houses; Mr. Beley answered affirmatively. He explained there would be a defining line of bushes in the back so the back of the units would not be seen. Mr. Murray felt this property is unique because of the location of the hospital and commercial building across the street. He could not see anyone putting a single-family house on the property, maybe a doctor s office but not a house. He alluded that the
Regular Meeting 7 March 15, 2006 traffic is not an issue and the additional traffic would not make any difference. He suggested that this is a reasonable way to accommodate a buffer between the residential and commercial properties with the medical and hospital especially with the lowering of the entranceway. Whereupon, Mr. Murray duly made a motion to approve Site Plan Application No. 05-16-ST and the Rezoning Application No. 05-4-Z. Mr. Singer seconded the motion. Upon a roll call vote, the motion carried with six affirmative votes and one negative vote by Mrs. Sonafelt. 06-1-ST THE PLAZA GROUP, LLC The applicant is requesting site plan approval to add a drive-through window at the western side of an existing shopping center. The property is located at 2525 Monroeville Boulevard. It is zoned C-2, Business/Commercial. The applicant requested tabling and waived all time limits. There being no further discussion, Mr. Murray duly made a motion to accept the tabling request and Mr. Kerr seconded it. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS 06-1-C ROMEO AND VIRGINIA ROSETTI/ HUNTLEY AND HUNTLEY, INCORPORATED The applicant is requesting conditional use approval as per Section 401.8, Conditional Uses, Monroeville Zoning Ordinance No. 1443, as amended, allowing for the preparation of an access road and drill site, drilling operation and the extraction of natural gas from one well site. The project is located on the east side of Beechwood Avenue; with properties belonging to John M. and Carol Woodhall to the north, Michael J. Rosetti to the south and the access road on Grandview Avenue. The total property area involved equals three acres. The property is zoned R-2, One-Family Residential. Mr. Michael Hillebrand from Huntley and Huntley came forward to give a brief overview of the request. He explained the property is located at the southern end of Monroeville off of Grandview Avenue. He stated the drill site will be located on the Rosetti property with an existing Equitable Gas right-of-way coming off of Grandview Avenue and they would come across the Kudrow property. He stated they would parallel the right-of-way and access the back of the property across a paper street onto the Rosetti property.
Regular Meeting 8 March 15, 2006 Mr. Erb questioned the hours of operation. Mr. Hillebrand explained the ingress would be made off Tilbrook Road turning onto Grandview Avenue which would be bonded. He indicated a bond is in place for the total well and the dollar figure would be extended. He proposed the hours of operation would be 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. but he would like to extend the hours to 9 p.m. Ms. Kaltenbaugh suggested there are several homes in the area and those hours should be adhered to and Mr. Hillebrand agreed. Mr. Erb inquired whether there would be wash bays for the vehicles and Mr. Hillebrand answered affirmatively. He explained it is a construction site and they would clean the road. Mr. Hugus indicated that a DEP and Fire Code permit were needed. Ms. Kaltenbaugh pointed out that some of the names of streets were missing on the drawings and Mr. Hillebrand agreed to provide them. Ms. Kaltenbaugh inquired why that particular area was such a good area for gas. Mr. Hillebrand answered that historically it has been and they have been doing wells in that area of Wall, Pitcairn, North Versailles and lower Monroeville for 22 years; they have approximately 65 wells. Ms. Kaltenbaugh questioned whether a new well would detract from production of the other ones. Mr. Hillebrand explained the state minimum spacing is 1,000 to 1,300 feet from well to well and if it gets closer than that, interference will begin to show up in about six to eight years. Ms. Kaltenbaugh inquired how far away from the closest house this well would be located and Mr. Hillebrand answered the state minimum is 200 feet and this would be approximately 228 feet. Ms. Kaltenbaugh questioned whether the residents within so many feet of the property would be notified and Mr. Hillebrand answered affirmatively. He explained anyone within 1,000 feet of a well bore would be notified and a week before, they personally notify the neighborhood. Mr. Singer inquired about the life of a well. Mr. Hillebrand answered their first one was 27 years old but there are some very old ones drilled in the 1920s and 30s that are still producing. He added it depends upon the quality of the reservoir. Mr. Murray questioned how deep the production would be and Mr. Hillebrand answered their deepest would be approximately 3,600 feet. Ms. Marilyn Skolnick, a resident of South Ridge Drive, came forward to inquire if they have ever drilled a dry well and Mr. Hillebrand answered affirmatively. Ms. Skolnick questioned how they could predict whether a well would produce and Mr. Hillebrand answered it is uncertain until it is drilled but they have not had any dry ones in this area. Ms. Skolnick inquired whether this is all located on private property and Mr. Hillebrand answered affirmatively. He explained it is on private property and they lease the oil and gas rights from the owner which is usually the surface owner. Mrs. Skolnick questioned the amount paid for the royalty and Mr. Hillebrand answered it is a 12½ percent flat fee off the top. Mrs. Skolnick inquired whether any trees would need to be removed to acquire access and Mr. Hillebrand answered affirmatively. Mrs. Skolnick questioned whether the trees would be replanted and Mr. Hillebrand answered negatively.
Regular Meeting 9 March 15, 2006 He explained the area for the footprint is generally 150 by 150 feet which is what is needed to maintain the property. He indicated the construction takes approximately 45 days but once it is operating, everything is replanted and vegetated. Mrs. Skolnick questioned the size of the area used and Mr. Hillebrand answered the biggest is 150 by 150 feet and the finished well would use a 12 by 20 foot area. Mrs. Skolnick was concerned with construction going into the site. There being no further discussion, Mr. Bole duly made a motion to approve Application No. 06-1-C and Mrs. Sonafelt seconded it. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. 06-2-C MCDAIN GOLF CENTER/ HUNTLEY AND HUNTLEY INCORPORATED The applicant is requesting conditional use approval as per Section 401.8, Conditional Uses, Monroeville Zoning Ordinance No. 1443, as amended, allowing for the preparation of an access road and drill site, drilling operation and the extraction of natural gas from one well site. The project is located at 4400 Broadway Boulevard on its southerly side. The total property area equals 27.5 acres. It is zoned M-2, Industrial. Mr. Hillebrand explained this site is located by the McDain Driving Range close to the Route 48 Bridge going over Turtle Creek. He indicated they have communicated and coordinated their efforts with all the changes going on in the area. He stated they are approximately 1,000 feet away from the existing well. He requested construction for this one be allowed to be done on a 24-hour basis and the access road is off of Route 130. Further brief discussion ensued regarding the 24-hour work schedule. Ms. Kaltenbaugh asserted when they did drilling on the hillside, the noise carried and she received complaints about it. Mr. Hillebrand indicated they have tried to do a lot of things to keep the rigs quiet and he was hopeful they could have the round-the-clock construction because it is already in a noisy area with the trains and they are located far away from most Monroeville houses. He asserted that his activities are very quiet and if a problem arises, he would shut it down. Mr. Bole inquired whether the noise would only occur during the construction phase and Mr. Hillebrand answered it would be during the drilling of the well. He indicated if the 24-hour schedule is allowed, it would only take approximately five days to complete. He explained if they have to shut down at 9 p.m. or 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., the time is extended to approximately ten days to construct the well site. Ms. Georgiane Woodhall, a resident of 4560 Broadway Boulevard, came forward to report of drilling near her house behind Haymaker Village at the Trafford Commerce Park close to the creek bed. She called the DEP and it was moved away from the creek. She explained she called Trafford at the time and they did not have a noise ordinance in place. She stated they were drilling around the clock and she physically went over at 2 a.m. and requested that the drilling stop. He indicated the mayor told her if the drilling is
Regular Meeting 10 March 15, 2006 stopped, they would loose the well. She also explained how there was 24-hour drilling for a well drilled off of Holt Drive behind the Eat n Park Restaurant. Mrs. Sonafelt inquired how much noise occurs because of the bridgework and Ms. Woodhall answered none. She indicated she had been concerned about a maintenance procedure. She could not imagine the wells being located near anyone s home. Mr. Hollebrand explained that before the wells are constructed, he usually calls the dispatch before the maintenance is done. He reported that he has worked in many communities where municipal lines are located side by side and he has shut operations down when complaints have been made. He stated this well is located down in a certain area that would be quiet and he has made a lot of changes to make them quieter. He indicated that if someone calls to complain and he cannot fix the problem, he would be the first to shut it down. Mr. Kerr asserted this construction would take place for five days while the bridge is under construction and Mr. Hillebrand answered affirmatively. Mr. Kerr questioned about the noise for operation and Mr. Hillebrand answered it is minimal. Mr. Kerr asserted this is just a little noise on top of a lot of existing noise and Mr. Hillebrand agreed. Mr. Murray inquired whether it would be located over at the creek far from Route 30 and Mr. Hillebrand answered affirmatively. Ms. Kaltenbaugh added it has been stipulated before that if complaints occur, the operating hours would be changed. Mr. Hillebrand added that if a complaint is made and he cannot get it resolved, then it would be shut down. There being no further discussion, Mr. Singer duly made a motion to approve Conditional Use Application No. 06-2-C with the stipulation that if any complaints are made, the well would be shut down. Mr. Murray seconded it and upon a voice vote, the motion carried with six affirmative votes and one abstention by Mrs. Sonafelt. Mr. Bole was concerned that the complaints had to be legitimate not from a competitor and Ms. Kaltenbaugh answered it would have to be from the surrounding residents. Mr. Hillebrand suggested he would address any concerns be directed to him immediately. 06-3-C CHARLES W. KUNKLE/ HUNTLEY AND HUNTLEY, INCORPORPATED The applicant is requesting conditional use approval as per Section 401.8, Conditional Uses, Monroeville Zoning Ordinance No. 1443, as amended, allowing for the preparation of an access road and drill site, drilling operation and the extraction of natural gas from two well sites. The project is located on Old Ramsey Road, on its westerly side and approximately 200 feet from its intersection with Forbes Road. The access road will
Regular Meeting 11 March 15, 2006 be located off of Forbes Road. The total property area equals 39.17 acres. It is zoned S, Conservancy. The applicant requested tabling. Whereupon, Mr. Kerr duly made a motion to table Conditional Use Application No. 06-3-C and Mrs. Sonafelt seconded it. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. 06-4-C JOHN T. MCCREARY/ HUNTLEY AND HUNTLEY, INCORPORATED The applicant is requesting conditional use approval as per Section 401.8, Conditional Uses, Monroeville Zoning Ordinance No. 1443, as amended, allowing for the preparation of an access road and drill site, drilling operation and the extraction of natural gas from one well. The project is located off Hillside Avenue with access to the site via Oak Street. The proposed site is located northeast of Jewell Lane and properties to the west belonging to Jack and Marilyn Backus, Thomas and Pamela Edwards, to the north by property belonging to Michael and Megan Culig, and to the east by property belonging to William R. Kelley. The total property area equals 5.3 acres. It is zoned R- 2, One-Family Residential and S, Conservancy. Mr. Hillebrand explained this property is located in southern Monroeville close to Pitcairn and all of the access roads are in Pitcairn. He indicated the property is in a residential area and they would adhere to the restricted hours of operations. Mr. Erb inquired whether there would be wash bays for the construction vehicles and Mr. Hillebrand answered affirmatively. Mr. Hugus requested a DEP and fire code permits. Ms. Betsy Stevick, Mayor of Pitcairn, came forward to voice her concerns about this project being located near a semitary and Mr. Hillebrand answered they are not located in it. Ms. Stevick pointed out the access road is very narrow and in poor condition. She reported the well across the hill and tracks did make a lot of noise and she had many complaints. She indicated the residents are conditioned for the train noise and so far removing the dirt for the bridge has taken place at night and has been quiet. Mr. Hillebrand explained they have made many modifications over the years to keep the rigs quiet. There being no further discussion, Mr. Murray duly made a motion to approve Conditional Use Application No. 06-4-C with the hours restricted to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Mr. Kerr seconded it and upon a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. (A brief break was taken at 9:20 p.m.)
Regular Meeting 12 March 15, 2006 06-5-C CEDARS COMMUNITY HOSPICE The applicant is requesting conditional use approval for a personal care home to allow for the construction of a 16-bed hospice center and associated services 2½ stories in height and 28,393 square feet in size. The proposed development is located at 4363 Northern Pike situated north of and adjacent to the Cedars, Monroeville Christian Judea Foundation property. The total property area equals 2.134 acres. It is zoned R-4, Multi- Family Residential. 06-3-ST CEDARS COMMUNITY HOSPICE The applicant is requesting site plan approval for a personal care home 2½ stories in height and 28,393 square feet in size and associated site improvements. The proposed development is located at 4363 Northern Pike situated north of and adjacent to the Cedars, Monroeville Christian Judea Foundation property. The total property area equals 2.134 acres. It is zoned R-4, Multi-Family Residential. Mr. John Sylvestri, attorney, came forward representing the development. He indicated the property is owned by the Christian Judea Foundation which he is a member of the board of trustees and the Hospice Center of Monroeville Incorporated is an affiliate of it which is he a board member. He stated this was advertised as a personal care home and the ordinance has a category for a nursing home, personal care home but there is nothing for hospice. He indicated this project is intended to be a hospice facility that deals with individuals who are actively dying with a terminal illness. He stated hospices are licensed by the state separate from licensure for a personal care facility or skilled nursing facility. Mr. Sylvesti briefly explained the model of the lot for the proposed hospice facility. He pointed out where the Cedars Facility is located which is three stories, one floor of skilled nursing and the other two floors personal care. He indicated the Cedars Facility currently provides hospice services on top of services provided to its assisted living clients or skilled nursing patients. He stated this may be viewed as an expansion of that service but is in a structure that is devoted to hospice care. Mr. Mike Wetzel from Victor Wetzel and Associates came forward to orient the commission to the overall site area. He explained a photograph of the proposed development and its location. He pointed out Northern Pike, the Pennsylvania Turnpike and the Monroeville Interchange or the exit ramp for the westbound area. He stated the existing Cedars Personal Care Facility is located off the site located where the building is situated along the western boundary line and the existing parking facility along the parking lot. He indicated the hospice is proposed for the back area of the site and the driveway is being extended to serve that particular section. He cited the Cochran Automotive Dealership located down below the hill on Route 22, the Pennsylvania
Regular Meeting 13 March 15, 2006 Turnpike along the western portion of the site, the Autism Society located on the eastern section of the site and front access off of Northern Pike. Mr. Sylvestri asserted that a pre-meeting took place with Mr. Torisky, President of the Board of the Autism Society, his administrator and Mr. John Michaels, a resident of the subdivision on the other side of the Autism Society. He submitted a letter from Mr. Torisky indicating no objection. Ms. Kaltenbaugh inquired whether he received a letter from Mr. Michaels and Mr. Sylvestri answered negatively. He offered into evidence a duplicate letter to Mr. Michaels providing him with the final site plan and an explanation of the differences in the different site plans. Ms. Kaltenbaugh explained that it would take a lot of time to amend the text of the zoning ordinance to included hospice. She inquired whether this should be called a nursing home instead of a hospice. Mr. Sylvestri answered that it could be considered either and both because hospice services are delivered at the Cedars in the assisted living area of the building and in the skilled nursing area. He indicated hospice is transparent as to whether it is an assisted living arrangement or a skilled nursing arrangement. Ms. Kaltenbaugh was uncertain whether the wording in the advertisement should be changed and Mr. Sylvestri answered negatively. Mr. Wetzel explained the next drawing of the site with Northern Pike along the driveway with the access into the existing Cedars Personal Care Facility. He pointed out the parking lot, the drop off and the existing building. He stated the hospice facility would be an extension of the overall parking lot because it extends beyond the existing parking lot leading into an oversized turnaround area which could be used as a drop off and an additional area to leave the site. He proposed 28 new parking spaces associated with the hospice center and adding 8 additional spaces for the Cedars personal care facility. He pointed out the footprint of the building has 28,400 square feet which is 2½ stories, with the entrance on the first floor, a basement and a third floor which has a smaller footprint that would be utilized for professional offices. He stated the first floor and basement would be the location of the sixteen beds. He pointed out the access point with the drop off and the emergency access would be located along both sides of the building with a 20-foot reinforced grass paved section so the overall structure could be accessed on three sides. He explained because the elevation of the site drops, they proposed a retaining wall in the parking lot along the western edge of the overall property area. He stated the utilities would be located within the Cedars section and the existing development will be extending those into the site and located underground. He proposed an underground storm water tank located under the parking lot which would handle all the storm water management. Mr. Sylvestri explained the engineer has provided a letter of deficiencies of the site but they have not had time to prepare a substitute plan sheet, adding one or two plan sheets and submit a report. He indicated their storm water management consultant corresponded with the planning director and engineer on March 10, 2006 with a letter to address, correct and comply with all the requests from the engineer for storm water management and do the necessary geotechnical on the law for the submission for
Regular Meeting 14 March 15, 2006 building permit. He requested a favorable consideration of the project subject to their compliance with the engineer s request to submit the substitute storm water management plan for the consideration of council. Mr. Erb inquired when they would apply for the building permit and Mr. Sylvestri answered they would have the storm water management plan within the next two weeks. Ms. Kaltenbaugh questioned whether there were any problems that this could not be approved conditionally and Mr. Nilson answered affirmatively. He explained upon review of the submitted design, some major elements are missing for compliance with the new Storm Water Management Ordinance No. 2332. He could not see anything that indicated conceptually that they solved all the problems and the letter submitted does not fully explain how it would be done. He had problems in terms of meeting the requirements for the new ordinance for the storage tank to cover the required infiltration and he was uncertain how it would be solved. He felt the new best management practices must be integrated into the total site design. Mr. Sylvestri answered the substitute plans have not been submitted but per his discussion with the engineer, he did not have any problems with them meeting the requirements. Mr. Erb explained that the planning commission traditionally does not like to send incomplete projects to council for review. He had reservations about sending piecemeal or conditional projects to council and did not want to approve it unless the best practices currently required were adhered to. He felt if the substitute plan is the best one, it should be submitted along with this one to get approval. Mr. Hugus requested an eight-inch water line be supplied to the fire hydrant instead of the six-inch one shown on the site plan. Mr. Kerr inquired whether tabling for a month would produce a hardship and whether construction would begin immediately after council s review. Mr. Sylvestri explained they would like to proceed with construction as soon as possible. He also pointed out this has been tabled several months to allow time for meetings with the municipality to be sure the plans were the best planning practices and consistent with the desires for fire safety. He indicated the sidewalk plan was changed and the fire safety issues were resolved. He asserted their documentation is complete concerning how this will fit into the community and its function but their technical engineering issues are deficient. He briefly reviewed some of the issues and concluded the he wants everything to be in compliance. Mr. Wetzel asserted the site plan would be changed in regards to the storm water management plan but the parking layout and the drop off will remain the same. He stated they will resolve all the issues prior to the council meeting. Mr. Kerr was adamant that the planning commission is not in favor of sending incomplete plans to council. Mr. Wetzel suggested that if everything is not satisfactorily addressed by review of staff and engineer prior to the council meeting, then it could be tabled until it is resolved.
Regular Meeting 15 March 15, 2006 Mr. Nilson explained the tank design complies with the previous existing peak flow control ordinances. He indicated his objections about inspection are about detail but he had a problem with using the tank as a best management practice under the new ordinance. He stated it is difficult to see how that would meet the new ordinance requirements because there is nothing like that addressed in the state storm water manual. He suggested it would need to be expanded considerably and integrated into the overall site. He indicated the old version is for peak flow and the new version is the volume and quality control. He added it requires that the best management practices are applied in order to achieve the requirements under volume equality. Mr. Wetzel indicated to resolve that issue, because of the unique character of the site, they would be utilizing an expanded portion of the parking lot which has a topographic difference so the best management practices are more difficult to achieve. He stated the inlets would be used to achieve the infiltration before it goes into the tank. Mr. Sylvestri asserted that the tank needs to be larger and doing that does not change any of the plans concerning the site. Mr. Murray asserted it is a little more complicated than just dealing with the technicalities because of the best management practices go to the storm water discharge. He explained it in not just a technicality because there is a large retaining wall on the property and the problem is they need to get water back into the ground but not behind the retaining wall. He was very concerned about the retaining wall and the ground water behind it but agreed the other items, the mechanical separators for the oil and solids from the parking lot, are standard items. Mr. Murray inquired how tight the parking spaces were. Mr. Sylvestri answered they are within the ordinance requirements and they have more parking than is required. Mr. Murray suggested if more than the two handicapped spaces are shown he had no problem approving the hospice concept. Mrs. Sonafelt inquired whether they would agree to have all the conditions met by a certain date. Ms. Kaltenbaugh added the information would have to be submitted to provide enough time so the municipal engineer could perform his review by April 3 and Mr. Sylvestri agreed. Ms. Kaltenbaugh advised if everything is not submitted and reviewed by that time, the applicant would be back before the planning commission in April. Mr. Singer complimented them for going down the two sides of the block for the fire trucks. He suggested the location of the fire hydrant be moved further back in the circle because if a pumper had to use it, it would block the entrance to the hospital. Mr. Wetzel answered that it would be addressed. Mr. Hugus indicated that per his meeting with the fire chief, it was decided that was the best location because that is where the fire department connection needs to be for the sprinkler system. Mr. Wetzel added that they would place it upon the fire chief s recommendation. Mr. Matt Radinovich, municipal traffic consultant, reported they concurred with a traffic impact study submitted comparing the type of trip generations expected from this
Regular Meeting 16 March 15, 2006 increase in square footage and the 16 beds. He indicated it was estimated that the increase would be 60 vehicles per day on the site driveway or 120 trips. He stated that would not change the low volume driveway classification in accordance with PennDOT s criteria so the highway occupancy permit would not need to be revised. He submitted five housekeeping issues that need to be addressed. Mr. Erb suggested the issues that need resolved are not simply engineering issues but for compliance with the municipal code and requirements of the state or the best practices that must be adhered to. He felt it is a very important part. Mr. Bole inquired how the retaining wall is affected by the storm water and Mr. Nilson answered the requirement is to infiltrate water to replicate the site as to the conditions before and after development up to a certain size storm. He stated it has to be infiltrated, it cannot be permitted to run off as was the past practices. Again, he explained the water has to be infiltrated into the ground and the predevelopment condition must be maintained for up to this two-year event. He stated if there is a retaining wall or significant fill, excessive water applied at certain points can destablize the structures or cause the slopes to slip. He advised that has to be handled from a geotechnical standpoint and the wall has to be designed to deal with the water. Mr. Bole questioned whether they may still have a problem with the wall even if they meet all the storm water requirements and Mr. Nilson answered affirmatively. Mr. Bole inquired whether the wall shown in the current site plan is constructed to handle it and Mr. Sylvestri answered the wall has not been addressed at this time but will be. He explained the retaining wall is needed because the storm water storage tank underneath the Cedars Parking Lot spilled water through the property. He indicated that he obtained an environmental study to make sure it would not have an adverse affect on the environment. Ms. Kaltenbaugh asserted the geotechnical study for the walls is not reviewed with the site plan but must be submitted prior to the building permit application for the construction of the wall. There being no further discussion, Mrs. Sonafelt duly made a motion to approve Application Nos. 06-5-C and 06-3-ST with the condition that everything is submitted and reviewed by April 3. Mr. Singer seconded it and upon a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. 06-6-C WIDEWATERS MONROEVILLE COMPANY, LLC The applicant is requesting conditional use approval, as per Section 204.1, Conditional Uses, of the Monroeville Zoning Ordinance No. 1443, as amended, approving permitted uses as a conditional use at an intersection of a major thoroughfare or transportation artery, to include the construction of a retail shopping center with primary access being the signalized intersection of Route 130/Broadway Boulevard and
Regular Meeting 17 March 15, 2006 Haymaker and Forbes Roads. The total property area equals 16.5acres. The property is zoned C-2, Business/Commercial. 06-4-ST WIDEWATERS MONROEVILLE COMPANY, LLC The applicant is requesting site plan approval for the construction of a retail shopping center, 36,660 square feet in size, and associated site improvements to be located west of the existing Haymaker Village Shopping Center. The total property area equals 16.5 acres. The property is zoned C-2, Business/Commercial. Mr. Jim Roberts, counsel for the applicant, came forward with Mr. Bill Andrews, Director of Preconstruction, Mr. Pat Cooper from Gateway Engineers and Mr. Jeff DePaolis from Trans Associates. Mr. Roberts explained this development would be an extension of the existing Haymaker Village Shopping Center on Route 30. He stated it would be 36,000 square feet of retail and related parking. He indicated they have filed applications for both land and conditional use because of the proximity to the intersection. He asserted a shopping center and retail are permitted uses in this C-2 District. Mr. Cooper then gave a brief overview of the project they are proposing to construct the retail center towards the rear of the existing fall plateau. He asserted the main parking field would have approximately 200 parking spaces which meet the requirements and they are currently working with F & F to address the storm water management design. Mr. Erb inquired whether the old system for the current retail location is complying with the old ordinance and Mr. Cooper answered they have not reviewed it. He explained a design was made and detention pond constructed at the rear of the site and may currently need to be maintained. Mr. Hugus indicated he would review the existing system and report any problems so that it could be rectified. Ms. Kaltenbaugh recommended the pond be reviewed by the engineer, a representative of the property owner and the municipal engineer to find out what additional maintenance is needed and to determine whether a 25-year storm was installed at the time of construction. She wanted the opportunity to investigate whether the pond could be redesigned to hold a 100-year storm. Mr. Nilson felt, after reviewing the plan several times, progress is being made. He agreed in principle that the latest design meets the requirements of the new Ordinance No. 2332 with only a couple of details needing addressed. Mr. Hugus reported only one fire hydrant is shown on the plan but another one is required at the rear of the structure; Mr. Cooper agreed to do so. Mr. Hugus suggested fire lanes be established around the perimeter of the building.
Regular Meeting 18 March 15, 2006 Ms. Kaltenbaugh inquired about the location of the sidewalks and Mr. Cooper explained sidewalks have been added along the frontage of the property along Route 130. Ms. Kaltenbaugh questioned whether street trees have been added and Mr. Cooper answered affirmatively. Ms. Kaltenbaugh suggested the existing development be complimented with some additional trees because it currently is a little barren along the front. Mr. Jeff DePaolis, Traffic Engineer with Trans Associates, came forward to explain the traffic study they did for the expansion of the shopping center. He reported the 36,600 square feet expansion would generate approximately 90 additional new trips during the evening peak hour and 120 additional trips during a Saturday peak hour. He recommended after reviewing the intersections of Route 130 and 48 down to the main and secondary driveway on the eastern end of the property, construction of a right-turn lane on the eastbound Route 130 into the site driveway and widening of the site driveway to allow for more individualize movements coming out of the site crossing over onto Forbes and Haymaker Roads. He reported that would improve the overall intersections of service and they will be reviewing the HRG letter and recommendations from PennDOT. Mr. Matt Radinovic, municipal traffic consultant, recommended per their review of the study, that the development be coordinated with PennDOT because it is a state road. He wanted to make sure the mitigation of the anticipated site traffic is handled in an agreeable way to both the municipality and PennDOT. He suggested there are items that need to be addressed concerning pre-development conditions both in the first year and ten years in the future. He mentioned the recommendations in the comprehensive plan should be incorporated into the plans for the intersection from the municipal standpoint because they are not only local but regional. He reported the intersection currently operates at a failing level of service concerning capacity and the developer is responsible for mitigating them back to the levels of service that are projected without them in the first year and ten years in the future. He reported they had 14 detailed items that needed clarification with the existing traffic study. Ms. Kaltenbaugh inquired whether the proposed main driveway that would be made into three lanes would align with Forbes Road. Mr. DePaolis answered affirmatively and added they have not put the plan on paper yet but it is feasible. Ms. Kaltenbaugh suggested Forbes Road be widened, as suggested in the comprehensive plan, to allow for an exclusive left and right turn. Mr. DePaolis asserted that since it would be located in a cut out area, it may be rather extensive regarding the retaining wall construction. He added the widening of Forbes Road might not be a good cost benefit to the solution of the trips generated. Ms. Kaltenbaugh recommended it be reviewed further as to how it might affect the functions and levels of service at the signal. Ms. Kaltenbaugh inquired whether the elimination of the left-turn lane into the driveway has been incorporated. Mr. DePaolis answered the traffic study does assume that left turns into the site would be restricted at the main driveway at Haymaker Road. He added there were concerns about how it would be accommodated. He reported even though traffic from Forbes Road would come through, it can be done through a physical restriction on