MINUTES – DECEMBER 11, 2006
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the
Planning Commission: John Pazdera, Chairman (joined meeting in progress)
Dean Dickson, Vice Chairman
Tony Bush, Secretary
Richard Cylinder, Member
Karen Friedman, Member
Others: Nancy Frick, Director Zoning, Inspection, & Planning
John Donaghy, Township Solicitor
James Majewski, Township Engineer
Ron Smith, Supervisor Liaison
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Friedman moved, Mr. Cylinder seconded and it was unanimously carried to approve the Minutes of November 13, 2006 as corrected.
Mr. Edward Murphy, attorney, and Mr. Robert Jordon were present. Mr. Murphy stated
they were before the Planning Commission in October to present the Plan that followed
the entry of the Court Order and Stipulation resolving outstanding litigation surrounding
the project. Plans were re-submitted in mid-November addressing review comments, and
they now have new review comments. Mr. Murphy stated they have no issues with the
Schoor DePalma letter of 12/5. He stated PennDOT plans will be submitted this week.
Mr. Bush stated in October he asked if they had gone before the Environmental Advisory
Council, and Mr. Murphy indicated he had not; but that he had discussions with
Mr. Bray. Mr. Murphy
stated he did talk to Mr. Bray after the meeting in October, and Mr. Bray
indicated he would be sending formal comments; but Mr. Murphy stated he has not
received anything official from the EAC.
Mr. Majewski stated he did receive comments from the EAC, and he
forwarded them to the
December 11, 2006 Planning Commission – page 2 of 14
Mr. Bush stated he drove past the property Saturday; and although it had not rained for
ten days, there was water visible along
Mr. Bush stated he feels they envisioned that water would be going toward the detention
basin on the other side of
water would be going to the basin via a storm sewer collection system. They do not
anticipate standing water after build out.
Ms. Friedman noted documentation which refers to an un-named tributary to Brock
Creek on the property. Mr. Majewski stated the tributary is within the existing wooded
area, and they have been asked not to touch the woodlands adjacent to that stream.
They have pulled the detention basin outside of the woodlands, and there should be no
impact on the stream.
Mr. Cylinder asked if there is any provision to insure that the parcel which contains the
woodlands will not be further subdivided. Mr. Murphy stated they have no intention of
subdividing this. Mr. Cylinder stated they need this land for drainage, and there should
be a Condition placed that there can be no further subdivision of the property.
Mr. Murphy stated this would be acceptable, and a Note could be added to the Plan to
Ms. Virginia Torbert, representing the Citizens Traffic Committee, asked what road
improvements are contemplated. Mr. Majewski stated going north on
there will be a right-turn lane heading east on
middle. Heading east
and modification of the traffic signal permit. They are also proposing shoulder
Mr. Bush moved, Ms. Friedman seconded and it was unanimously carried to recommend
to the Board of Supervisors approval of the
Preliminary/Final Plan dated 5/30/06, last revised 11/10/06 subject to compliance with
the Schoor DePalma review letter dated 12/5/06, approval of Waivers as outlined in the
Schoor DePalma letter dated 12/5/06, subject to compliance with the Remington Vernick
review letter dated 11/28/06, subject to compliance with the comments in the Fire
will be no further subdivision.
December 11, 2006 Planning Commission – page 3 of 14
APPEAL #06-1405 – LIBERTY PROPERTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
RECOMMENDATION ON APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION (MEDICAL OFFICE) AT
John Fenningham, attorney, was present with Mr. Tony Nichols, Director of Leasing for
Liberty Property, and Mr. John Hunt, engineer. Mr. Fenningham stated the Final Plan for
this site was approved in July, 2004. It is a three-story building comprised of 116,000
square feet. The Application filed 11/6/06 was to seek a Special Exception for limited
medical office occupancy up to 30,000 square feet. The property is zoned O/R, and a
medical use is permitted by Special Exception. The
approached Liberty Property with a proposal to occupy up to 30,000 square feet with two
long-existing practices – Yardley Family Medicine and Bucks County Internal Medicine.
Ms. Friedman asked how many floors they will take over, and Mr. Nichols stated they are
looking at 8,000 square feet on the first floor and 16,000 square feet on the second floor.
Mr. Fenningham stated the reason for the limitation of 30,000 is because they are
complying with the parking requirements. They have 550 existing parking spaces.
They propose a drop-off driveway that will be installed subject to approval of
the Building Permit Application, and this will eliminate six spaces which will leave 544
spaces. For the 86,000 square feet of General Office use, they require 344 parking
spaces. The limited medical office use of 30,000 square feet will require 200 parking
spaces so the combined requirements would be 544 which is what they will provide.
Mr. Cylinder stated a Special Exception requires that certain provisions be met, and he
asked if they meet all of these provisions. Mr. Donaghy stated the use is permitted
provided they meet certain Conditions, and the Applicant must prove to the Zoning
Hearing Board that they meet these Conditions. Under the Ordinance, prior to going to
the Zoning Hearing Board, the matter is to come to the Planning Commission for review
on planning aspects such as the location of the building, parking, access, etc.
Mr. Cylinder stated he feels the Planning Commission should be reviewing the
Conditions that are outlined in the Ordinance; and Mr. Donaghy stated while the Planning
Commission can ask about these, it is not ultimately the role of the Planning Commission
as it is the role of the Zoning Hearing Board to make that decision.
Mr. Fenningham stated this property was reviewed by the Planning Commission in 2004.
Mr. Donaghy stated while this is correct, that Application did not include a request for
Medical Office use so there could be other comments the Planning Commission might
want to make in this regard. Mr. Fenningham stated questions were asked at that time
about occupants, and medical use was discussed; and it was indicated on the record that
while it was not contemplated at that time, the Applicant would look to the future for
full occupancy of the building. Ms. Friedman noted some of those currently on the
Planning Commission were not on the Planning Commission in 2004.
December 11, 2006 Planning Commission – page 4 of 14
Ms. Friedman asked about the changes proposed and how this will impact the traffic flow
as there was significant discussion about this when the property was originally approved.
Mr. Fenningham stated they did provide in the package submitted how the traffic would
flow. He also noted the building as constructed is less square footage than what was on
the approved Plan. Mr. Hunt showed a Plan of how the traffic will flow noting the area
of the drop-off location proposed which results in the elimination of six parking spaces.
He stated this will be the only change to the traffic patterns.
Mr. Majewski asked the nature of the medical offices. Mr. Nichols stated they are two
primary care physician groups. There would not be special need for ambulances, etc.
Mr. Cylinder asked if it is wheel-chair accessible, and Mr. Nichols stated it must be.
There will be an internal elevator. Mr. Majewski stated if the primary entrance is on the
side of the building as shown, they would need to relocate some of the handicap spaces to
that location, and the Applicant agreed. Mr. Majewski stated since they are changing the
approved parking and traffic patterns, they would need to
Ms. Friedman asked if the proposed changes will also result in additional impervious
surface. Ms. Frick stated it would appear so, but they do not have any information on this
at this time. She stated before the Planning Commission this evening is only the Special
Exception. They will have to file an Amended Land Development Plan and come back to
the Planning Commission.
Ms. Friedman stated what is now being considered will result in a different kind of traffic
flow than that which was originally discussed when the Plan was approved. She stated at
that time there was going to be an influx of traffic in the morning and an outflux in the
early evening. She stated with a medical office, there will now be a lot of in and out
traffic. Mr. Majewski stated since the use will not coincide as much with the peak hours
and there will instead be a metered use, he feels overall the impact on Township Line
Road will be a slight improvement. He stated internally there may be an issue with
directing people to the facility, and they will have to install signs to direct people where
the medical offices are and that they need to go around to the side of the building.
Mr. Cylinder stated he feels it is a confusing parking arrangement. Mr. Fenningham
stated it will be a one-way flow. Ms. Friedman stated she is concerned with the way the
parking is laid out as it seems there are a number of areas which seem difficult to
navigate, and they will have to discuss this further at the Land Development stage.
Ms. Friedman asked about the office hours anticipated and asked if this will conflict with
times the rest of the building is open. She stated with the general office use it was
anticipated that it would be quiet after 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Mr. Nichols stated they do
anticipate that there will be some night hours and possibly weekend hours. He stated the
way they are setting up their space is that they will have their own entrance so they will
December 11, 2006 Planning Commission – page 5 of 14
not impact the other tenants in the building. Mr. Majewski stated he is also concerned
that they insure that the lighting plan is appropriate for the use.
Mr. Cylinder stated he does not want the Zoning Hearing Board to feel they have to
approve this and they should recognize that this specific design is not acceptable as far as
he is concerned; and that if they approve it, they should approve it conditioned upon a
satisfactory re-design of the access to the building and the parking area. He does not feel
that simply installing signs or improving the lighting is sufficient. He does not feel what
they have proposed is good design. He stated they have proposed a significant amount of
parking, and he does not feel it will be easy to change the Plan.
Mr. Nichols stated the intent of the drop-off area is that it clearly denotes where the
medical use is. He stated the building is ideal for this user as they are not coming into a
property which has multiple buildings. Mr. Cylinder stated the semi-circular drive comes
off a parking area, and there is not a clear access to the street. He stated they would be
coming out to a maze. Mr. Bush asked about the percentage of use they anticipate for the
drop-off area. Mr. Patrick Doris, representing the Health System, stated the people who
would need to be dropped off would be those who are wheelchair bound, elderly, or have
difficulty walking; and he would anticipate this would be less than 1% to 2% of the total
patient population they service. He feels this will be an enhancement for their patients
over the situations which are existing for these practices which have awkward accesses.
Ms. Friedman asked if the drop-off area could be turned so that it is a direct line from the
street to the drop-off area without crossing through parking spaces and weaving their way
to the side of the building. Mr. Fenningham stated possibly they could come off the main
access to the side of the building. Mr. Cylinder stated he feels the reason this was not
done was that they would lose parking spaces. Mr. Fenningham stated they will look into
this further. Mr. Cylinder stated he would like to see a re-design so that you would come
in off the main road and drive up to the drop-off without a lot of confusion and turning.
Mr. Donaghy asked if they receive the Special Exception for medical use, could it not be
used for any type of medical office including specialists, and Mr. Fenningham stated it
would be in accordance with the defined term “medical office” in the Ordinance.
Mr. Donaghy stated this could then be used for other type of medical uses so it would be
possible that those arriving by wheelchair or ambulance could be substantially higher
than what was indicated this evening for the projected current users. Mr. Fenningham
stated they could not speculate what would be done in the future. Mr. Donaghy stated
once they get an approval for medical office use, it would not be limited to the proposed
medical offices; and Mr. Fenningham agreed. Mr. Friedman stated they would be limited
to 30,000 square feet as requested, and Mr. Donaghy agreed. He noted it would not be
limited to that specific part of the building unless that were a Condition of the grant of the
Special Exception. It would be a maximum of 30,000 square feet in the building.
December 11, 2006 Planning Commission – page 6 of 14
Mr. Dickson asked since this was approved in 2004, would they now be subject to LID
requirements, and Mr. Majewski stated they would not since it is an Amended approval.
He stated the building does have LEED certification as they designed the building to have
a lot of “green technology.” Mr. Nichols stated there are in line to get a Silver
Ms. Friedman moved, Mr. Bush seconded and it was unanimously carried to recommend to the Zoning Hearing Board approval of the Special Exception subject to the following:
1) The Planning Commission has concerns with traffic flow in the parking lot;
2) The Drop-off area should be re-configured and/or shifted;
3) Lighting and safety issues should be addressed for evening and weekend use;
4) The 30,000 square feet stay in the location of the building for which it is being
Mr. Pazdera joined the meeting at this time. Mr. Pazdera took over as Chairman.
Mr. Carter VanDyke and Ms. Michelle Stambaugh were present. Ms. Stambaugh stated
they are presenting the Revised Zoning Ordinances and an overall presentation on their
accomplishments and goals. Ms. Stambaugh stated they did an inventory of the Historic
District in 1981, updated their CLG Status, have diligently tried to maintain the National
Historic Landmark District by preserving the historic properties within the Village,
updated the March Associates report, and created the Design Guidelines in 2003 which
are available to the public. She stated in 2004 they presented the Master Plan and began
working on the amendments to the Zoning Ordinances, and completed the Street Design
Guidelines in 2005. A map of the Village was shown.
The Plan developed by March Associates was shown. Mr. VanDyke stated this became
the guideline for their planning. He stated they are working with the
Amendments to implement the March Associates proposals and provided a Grant to do
so. There are Zoning Ordinance changes, Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance
changes, and Amendments to the Historic District Guidelines. They also developed a
new series of Applications for people coming in for Building Permits for properties in the
December 11, 2006 Planning Commission – page 7 of 14
Mr. Cylinder stated he and some other members of the Planning Commission are new,
and he would like to get an understanding of what the Plan is all about. He asked about
their objectives, where the Village is located, what buildings are part of the Village and
which are not, what is the reason for protecting the buildings, will they leave them in
their current condition, restore them, or move them. He also asked how they will handle
traffic. Mr. Smith stated he feels those present this evening should be permitted to make
their presentation first, and they could then consider some of Mr. Cylinder’s specific
questions. Ms. Stambaugh stated they do have working sessions where some of these
more detailed questions could be discussed. Mr. VanDyke stated this evening they would
like to first provide a background as what the Historic Commission has been doing since
1981 for the preservation of historic
of the questions Mr. Cylinder raised. They feel this will provide an overview; and they
will then have to get input from HARB, the Historic Commission, and the Planning
Commission before they have a Plan to present to the Board of Supervisors. He stated
what is being presented this evening was presented to the Board of Supervisors in
January, 2006 and is a public document which is currently on the Township’s Website.
Mr. VanDyke stated in 2003 they prepared Design Guidelines. He stated they are
working with the Pennsylvania Historic Museum Commission because this is a National
Historic site, and they do receive funds from them. They have also worked closely with
HARB and other historic consultants the Township has hired including Mr. Jeffrey
Goals of the Commission were noted including historic preservation, develop standards
for appropriate infill, provide for a mixed-use development, develop standards for
streetscape improvements, and initiate traffic calming making it a walkable community
and a Village destination. The benefits will be increased property values, funding from
public grants and private developments, provide employment opportunities, availability
of public sewer and water, availability of a regional stormwater management system, and
develop ratables for the Township.
Mr. VanDyke showed pictures of
photograph of one building which was demolished due to neglect and will be replicated.
They will also develop gateway signs and tentative locations for these signs were shown.
They are also looking into traffic calming in the corridor. At the gateways they are considering traffic calming islands and this ties in with the street tree enhancement.
A picture was shown noting the Messick property, bank/commercial area, and the Troilo/
Flowers Tract. At the Flowers tract location they are looking for mixed use with infill development. Examples of replicated structures were shown which are located in other Townships. A graphic of the Flowers Tract was shown listing some of the ideas that are being considered. Mr. VanDyke noted the location of the existing historic structures.
He noted office buildings are proposed along I-95 and
mixed-residential use for the center of the Tract. Along the front of
December 11, 2006 Planning Commission – page 8 of 14
commercial buildings. They are also considering the relocation of some of the historic
structures to a different location on the tract since they did not have the potential for
adaptive use as commercial structures at their current location.
Mr. VanDyke stated they are proposing on-street parking which will help maintain the
character and scale of the Village. He stated the Township traffic engineer has reviewed
the parking standards as part of the review process.
Some photos of existing commercial buildings in other areas were shown. He stated they
did work with people from Peddler’s Village who suggested that on the second floors of
the commercial structures, they should consider apartments or hotel rooms.
Mr. VanDyke stated future steps include the need to apply to the Pennsylvania Historic
Museum Commission for additional Grants, continue to encourage private/public
partnerships, and clarify the Ordinances. He stated what is proposed is an Overlay
District which would allow the existing Zoning to be in place but also allows for an
Overlay if the developer meets specific criteria for the District. They also need to address
the regional stormwater and sewage management, develop gateways for the community,
and apply for traffic calming and street improvement Grants.
Mr. VanDyke stated they have provided to the Planning Commission a draft Ordinance.
Members of the Planning Commission indicated they did not have this. Mr. VanDyke
stated they forwarded copies of it directly to the Planning Commission along with maps
rather than going through Ms. Frick. He stated they then recognized they did not go
through proper protocol so they did send this information to Ms. Frick. Mr. Bush stated
they did get drawings of the Overlay District on October 13. The Planning Commission
indicated they did not get the draft Ordinance. Mr. VanDyke stated they will provide
this. He stated he agrees with Ms. Stambaugh that they may need to have a work session
to review all of this material.
Mr. VanDyke stated the first Section is looking at new definitions. The second section
addresses the new Overlay District within the Ordinance. The third section of the
Ordinance deals with amendments to the Zoning Map. He stated there have been a
number of public meetings with the Board of Supervisors, and during those meetings the
public asked that they consider expanding the Historic District to include the opposite
those Tax Parcels which came from that public participation.
Mr. VanDyke stated the next Section deals with the intention of the Overlay District
which is to provide for a traditional neighborhood, for the diversity of uses, block sizes,
and drawing unit types, encourage new development which emulates the character found
in places such as
quality to neighborhoods, to identify the
December 11, 2006 Planning Commission – page 9 of 14
Township, to encourage the combination of businesses and residential uses in the
Historic/Commercial District which enables jobs and employment, to create economic
incentives that will further the preservation and renovation of historic structures within
infill development that will not be detrimental to the Historic District.
Mr. VanDyke stated they discuss permitted uses which allow for the types of residential
uses such as single-family, twins, townhouses, and manor houses as well as provide for
Inns and Taverns, Civic Buildings, and home occupations. They will also have an
Overlay for sign standards for the Historic District. He stated they also allow for some
Conditional Uses and list some prohibited uses. He stated they also developed some
specific area criteria for commercial and residential uses. They also have Supplemental
Regulations. He stated since this is an Overlay District and is not mandatory, they are
able to include Supplemental Regulations that you would not typically have in a Zoning
Mr. Van Dyke stated they want to preserve the character of the historic buildings there
now. They are still working on language for this. He stated they have also provided
detailed design guidelines. He stated they are trying to hide the parking as much as
possible. Street trees and landscaping have also been discussed. Mr. VanDyke stated
this will be the first mixed-use development in the Township. Guidelines for the HARB
have also been included.
Mr. VanDyke stated he feels it may be worthwhile to go over this eighteen-page
Ordinance in detail with a Sub-Committee. Mr. Pazdera asked about the timeframe, and
Mr. VanDyke stated this would be dictated by the Commission. He stated they have
been working on this since January, 2006.
Ms. Friedman asked how many homes have historic value, and Mr. VanDyke stated there
are thirty-six. Ms. Friedman asked how many they are planning to re-locate.
Mr. VanDyke stated one was demolished and will be replicated. They are looking at
three buildings on
Flowers Tract. Ms. Friedman stated she is envisioning this as a smaller version of
a small way, but it would be more of a livable community. Ms. Friedman asked how they
would address deliveries to the different commercial areas such as UPS or eighteen-
wheelers given the narrowness, alleys, etc. Mr. VanDyke stated they do mention this in
the Ordinance. He stated the buildings have to be small, so there would not be the need
for large trucks and they would most likely have UPS-type trucks and they will need to
December 11, 2006 Planning Commission – page 10 of 14
Mr. Smith stated at the Historic Commission meeting there was discussion about the
potential for losing the designation if they re-located structures within the District.
Mr. VanDyke stated a representative from the
Commission was present at one of their meetings, and he indicated the best situation
would be not to relocate structures, but noted the
Commission has been more flexible. The representative indicated they could re-locate a
building, restore the exterior to the standards of the National Park Service, and still get
tax credits for doing so. He stated if you do a restoration of a commercial/rental property,
you can get tax credits for this restoration so this does provide tax incentives for people to
help preserve these historic properties.
Mr. Bush asked how many non-historic structures are in the District, and Ms. Helen
Heinz stated there are seventeen out of a total of
thirty-six structures. Mr. Cylinder asked what constitutes a historic
building, and Ms. Heinz stated it would be a structure from 1765 to 1900 and is
of the style that would be a
Mr. Bush asked if the Historic Commission has given consideration to use of the
Township-owned parcel of land in the Overlay Zone where there was previously a soccer
field. Ms. Heinz noted that parcel is not currently in the Historic District. Mr. VanDyke
stated while he agrees, it is their intention to have that within the District and
Ms. Stambaugh stated the goal is to re-outline. She feels this would continue to be green
Mr. Cylinder stated his concerns are much broader. He stated there are a number of
people living in the area who use the roads to go to Route I and I-95, and they have to
travel through the intersection which is currently very difficult. He stated the buildings at
the intersection are some of the best buildings in the District but are very close to the
road. He stated the ability of traffic to go through the area today is probably good
compared to what might happen in the future if the area is developed to high intensity.
He stated most Villages he is aware of that have a lot of traffic going through them, do
not survive. Mr. Cylinder stated he feels there will be problems with improving it to the
degree they wish to and still satisfy the needs of those living in the area. He stated he
does not know of any way they could do much to restore the character of the Village
without getting traffic out of it. He stated there was discussion about having parking on
those frontages of a scale which is compatible with the scale of the existing buildings.
He stated attempts have been made to do this in
look insignificant because they do not match the road which is not a major road. He
December 11, 2006 Planning Commission – page 11 of 14
asked how they will address this and how they can still meet the needs of the people who
live in the area. He stated the Planning Commission is responsible for taking into
consideration the needs of the entire Township, and he asked how they would justify
inconveniencing people who live in the Township in order to restore a Village in the
manner in which they are discussing.
Mr. VanDyke stated his firm has developed new design guidelines for traffic calming
based on the European style. He stated a new handout has come out from PennDOT on
traffic calming, and they are re-visiting how traffic is moved through corridors such as
He stated much of what they are doing is based on European techniques, and the traffic is
always moving although it moves at a slower speed through the community. He stated
they have found that it does not negatively impact the capacity. He stated the on-street
parking slows down the traffic and also helps maintain the commercial development
along the street. He stated if there is on-street parking, it also makes the community more
walkable as there will be a car parked between the pedestrians and the traffic. He stated
they have been working in concert with the Township’s traffic engineer.
Mr. Dickson asked if there are any other buildings that no longer exist in the Village
which will be replicated. Ms. Stambaugh noted the Heacock Tenant House which was
demolished and will be replicated. She stated over the years several historic properties
through wear and tear have come down. Their goal is to not have any more demolition
by neglect on any other property.
Ms. Helen Heinz stated several buildings have come down, and they do have pictures of
many of them; but they are owned by private property owners. Mr. Dickson stated if
they adopt the Zoning and an individual wants to put a structure on a property, he
assumes their Plan would have to correspond with the Historic District and perhaps they
could make an effort to have them replicate a former building. Ms. Stambaugh agreed
that this is something they are looking to encourage. Ms. Stambaugh added this is one of
only a few historic crossroads left in
Ms. Susanne Curran stated in the 2005 Design Guidelines they very specifically
discussed not only renovation of existing buildings but also infill of new buildings with
very detailed illustrations and guidelines; and this information is on the Township
Mr. Smith stated he has heard that they may want to have a working group with different
Commissions and asked how they would suggest getting together a joint working group
of members of the different Boards such as HARB, Historic Commission, and the
Planning Commission. Mr. Pazdera stated he feels they should consider having a Sub-
Committee after the first of the year. He stated they have done this in the past pulling
together people from different Committees. Mr. VanDyke stated he also feels they may
December 11, 2006 Planning Commission – page 12 of 14
want to invite someone from the Environmental Advisory Council as well since
stormwater management will be important. He also suggested someone from the Traffic
Commission. Mr. Stambaugh stated the main goal is to create the Village as a whole
even though it may be built in phases. Mr. VanDyke stated he feels they should set some
goals to get this matter resolved as there are a number of buildings waiting for the
Zoning. He stated the Board of Supervisors are interested in this as well so if they set up
a process working together as a group, they can then present it back to the Planning
Commission and then the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Smith stated the Board saw the initial presentation in January, and he wants to make
sure that the structures do not fall into further disrepair while they are still considering an
Overlay Ordinance a year from now. He stated he would like them to get the study group
together as quickly as possible so that they can eventually present something to the Board
Mr. Dave Broadway stated before they ask homeowners in the area to do any repairs to
their buildings, the Township needs to come up with a clear and comprehensive Plan of
what they want done. He stated he has been hearing discussions on this for twenty-five
Mr. VanDyke stated a significant amount of work has been done since January including
the development of this Draft Ordinance which is a key component. They have also been
working with some of the major developers in the area as
well as with the
Historic Museum Commission.
Mr. David Miller stated he and his family have lived in the Village for thirty-six years.
He stated the planning for this has been going on since 1981, and he echoes
Mr. Broadway’s comments. He asked what is the timeframe and who is in charge.
He stated they have seen numerous presentations and numerous volunteers trying to come
up with a Plan for
to have someone who is on the Board of Supervisors who will set the timeframe and
insure that this is done within a realistic timeframe.
Mr. Smith stated there was a conversation several months ago about what was happening
Commissions on board so that they were not moving in different directions. He asked if
the Planning Commission would like to invite the Historic Commission to come before
them to advise what they were doing. He stated now the Planning Commission has some
background, and a suggestion has been made that there be a joint group with members
from the various Township Commissions so that they will move together as a group,
report back to their various Boards, and eventually come before the Board of Supervisors
with the input from all the groups. He stated much of this will be driven by the
developers who are waiting for the Ordinance. Mr. VanDyke stated the developers are
December 11, 2006 Planning Commission – page 13 of 14
ready to proceed. He stated
it does have to go before the
Commission and the Park Commission. He stated a lot of work is being done behind the
scenes including working with the Township engineer with regard to the drainage issues
as well. He stated the Historic Commission has been driving the project to this point and
now they are turning it over to the Planning Commission. He stated the Planning
Commission through the Municipalities Planning Code must review it , hold a Public
Hearing, and present it to the Supervisors. He stated he understands that the goal of the
Chairman of the Board of Supervisors is to have it no later than January. Mr. VanDyke
stated he feels they could have two meetings of the Sub-Committee and then bring it back
to the Planning Commission and ultimately to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Cylinder asked if there has been any discussion as to how the public parts of the
project would be financed. Mr. VanDyke stated they are seeking Grants for the gateways
which would consist of the signs and creating traffic calming islands at the entrances.
There are four gateways. The streetscape enhancements including road widening,
historic streetlights, brick sidewalks, etc. would be funded by the private developers.
Mr. Cylinder asked if the developers have been informed of this, and Mr. VanDyke stated
they have and they are in agreement with this.
Mr. Bush stated before they proceed with formation of a Sub-Committee with the
Planning Commission, EAC and HARB, he feels they should be provided a copy of the
proposed Ordinance and they could all provide their comments and this may circumvent
having to form another Sub-Committee as there are already a lot of Sub-Committees.
He stated he is concerned formation of a Sub-Committee may slow down the process.
Mr. Smith asked that the draft Ordinance also be sent to the Citizens Traffic Commission
as well. Mr. Donaghy asked if the Solicitor’s office has seen this, and Mr. VanDyke
stated they have.
Mr. VanDyke stated he would be willing to continue to take the comments and put them
into final form.
Ms. Friedman stated she feels it needs to be considered by the Planning Commission as a
group and they can then e-mail final comments from the Planning Commission as a
Board to Mr. VanDyke. Mr. Pazdera suggested that this matter be put on as an Agenda
item in January. Mr. VanDyke agreed to provide everyone his e-mail address if
individual Planning Commission members have questions. Ms. Stambaugh agreed to
provide a copy of the Ordinance to Ms. Frick by Thursday afternoon to distribute to the
Ms. Curran stated a source for this Ordinance was Lantern Hill in Doylestown if anyone
would like to look at that traditional neighborhood development
December 11, 2006 Planning Commission – page 14 of 14
Mr. Pazdera stated he and Mr. Bush are on the Ordinance Review Task Force. He stated
if anyone has any specific ideas on what they feel needs to be changed in any of the
Ordinances, they should let them know.
There being no further business, Ms. Friedman moved, Mr. Bush seconded and it was unanimously carried to adjourn the meeting at 10:10 p.m.
Tony Bush, Secretary