FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Zoning Workshop
February 14, 2006
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present were Supervisors Larry Lambert, John Shambaugh, Naomi Decker, and Gary Brown. Also present were Dominic Picarelli from KPI, Christina Fackler from Planning Principles, Secretary Nancy Zentmeyer, Planning Commission members Ed Campbell and John Holder, and Planning & Zoning Committee members Bob Eichelberger and Wayne Kober. Visitors are on the attached sign-in sheet.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Ms. Fackler and Mr. Picarelli introduced themselves to Supervisor Brown and explained the process so far of adopting the zoning ordinance. It was noted that the meeting will be addressing comments from the Solicitor and that some of the wording and text needs to be changed.
The interchange overlay area was noted that it should conserve and not impact that area with future development. Any changes to that area currently are not a priority of PennDOT or HATS.
Section XXX is a new part of the ordinance pertaining to Communication and Cell Towers and Antennas.
There was discussion on the steep slope overlay and the York County Planning Commission comments. It is noted that YCPC indicates that the 15% or greater slope is too restrictive. It was noted that there needs to be control with construction in the steep slope areas and that waivers should not be granted. Section 205 – Steep Slope Conservation Overlay zone A, B, C & D would have to be enforced by the zoning officer. The steep slope use will be noted in both the zoning ordinance and subdivision/land development ordinance.
Mr. Picarelli noted that some of the main issues and topics of discussion are the steep slope areas, communication towers, and the future interchange overlay. The Township Solicitor felt that interchange overlay could be challenged. This area should be kept on the map. There were changes on the re-wording of some definitions. An extra point of discussion is to consider this to be a concept or design.
Supervisor Shambaugh presented a few items for discussion as follows:
1. Section 200, Industrial Zone - B. Permitted Uses 1. Agricultural. There was discussion on is this required. Forestry should be kept but Agricultural should be removed. Also under Permitted Uses #3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, and 13 were discussed. Mr. Campbell noted that it is not reasonable to remove these uses but they should also be allowed in Mixed Uses.
2. Section 200, Industrial Zone – C. Conditional Uses 16. Lot size limit of 2-acres (with no outdoor storage). Discussion on the lot size being more than 2-acres consider coverage and/or screening. Also the use of hazardous waste needs clarification. It was noted that location of hazardous waste, storage area, and underground storage would need to be placed on the land development plan. H. Site Requirements 2. Off-street parking – required for certain uses. The design criteria is this in the Subdivision/Land Development Ordinance? There was discussion on 1. and 2. if it should be re-worded. Discussion ensued on parking in front of a building and if there are any safety concerns.
3. Section 200, Industrial Zone – D. Special Exception Uses - should not be allowed.
4. Section 201, Mixed Uses – B. Permitted Uses 15. Light Manufacturing – currently there is no description. H. Site Requirements 2. Off-street parking – as discussed previously with the following additions: The main area of this discussion is Range End Road. There was discussion of an interior road with businesses facing that road if there is an opportunity to create this type of road. Screening was discussed along with the design issue. A streetscape on both sides of the street was suggested along with lining up the businesses in an orderly fashion. Parking in front was again brought up along with parking on the side and rear of the buildings. After discussion there was a 5 to 3 vote in favor of parking in the front. Contour of the land would also be considered. Ms. Fackler suggested that they re-create the site requirements for review and to give a couple of options in order to create consistency. Section 201.F.1 – Lot Dimension Requirements with minimum lot width of 75’ there was discussion on the installation of sidewalks.
5. Section 203, Residential – there was a discussion on townhouses and condominiums. It is noted that this is covered under Section 413.
6. Section 413, Cluster Developments – D. Delineation of Required Common Open Space – there was discussion on this type of development being broken down by percentage, with public sewer and water 5 units per acre is allowed.
7. Section 204, Floodplain Conservation Overlay – E.7 under Permitted Uses the number of fence strands. There was discussion on whether or not it should one or two strands instead of three or greater. Section 204.G.9 Prohibited Uses indicates except 1 or 2 stands.
8. Section 310, Off-Street Parking Requirements – Mr. Holder questioned interior landscaping and it is noted that that is covered along screening.
9. Section 309.A, Access Drive Requirements – Discussion whether two driveways can be permitted for a “U” shape driveway. It was noted that “access drives” be omitted and the word “driveways” be inserted. Currently the Subdivision/Land Development Ordinance indicates on one driveway and this will also need to be changed.
Ms. Fackler reviewed the timeframe schedule with the Township Solicitor re-reviewing the changes. Mr. Picarelli noted that he is planning to schedule a meeting with the Township Solicitor. The next meeting should be addressing the final issues and any options for those areas.
The next Zoning Workshop meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, March 14, 2006 beginning at 7:00 p.m. Ms. Fackler noted that she will not be present due to another commitment.
Supervisor Brown questioned the height of fences and under Section 301.A Fences and Walls were dicussed.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submittted,
Nancy E. Zentmeyer
Township Secretary