June 3, 2024  NORTH HUNTINGDON TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Monday, June 3, 2024 @ 7:00 p.m. 11279 Center Highway, North Huntingdon, PA 15642  CALL TO ORDER  Mr. Chapman called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.  PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE  ROLL CALL  William Chapman, President Present Virginia Stump, Secretary Thomas Kerber James McHugh Stephen Cross Joseph Dykta James Flynn  Also Present: Ryan Fonzi DJ Housley  Present Present Absent Present Present Absent  Deanna Perlinger, Recording Secretary  APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Mr. Kerber Second: Mr. Cross CITIZEN'S INPUT None  Motioned to approve minutes of April 1, 2024  Motion Carried: 5-0-0.  OLD BUSINESS:  SP-01-2024: Lincoln Corner Plaza II  Mr. Fonzi reminded the board that this was tabled back in April as it qualified for a traffic study. In May and up to now they had Trans Associates traffic engineer perform the study and then the township engaged with Wooster &  Associates to review their report.  169    June 3, 2024  Mr. Housley stated Trans Associates completed the traffic impact study and Wooster produced a dozen comments in which Trans Associates came back and satisfied all but one comment which was related to sight distance. He was advised tonight that Trans Associates does have the sight distance measurement and as Wooster was expecting, it does excess the requirements for the speed limit. Wooster does not have any outstanding comments, but ifthere is a positive recommendation to the Commissioners, he asks that they make a condition of Wooster review and KU Resources review. They addressed all items on KU Resources last review. There were six modification requests. The Township requires a nine foot by eighteen feet parking stall with double strip marking. They proposed a nine foot by twenty feet stall with single striping. The Township requires a twenty-four feet drive aisle when they are proposing a twenty-two feet drive aisle. The Township requires the parking lot island to be ten feet wide. They have two islands proposed. One is at 8.11 feet and the other is 9.0 feet. The Township requires an entrance less than or equal to twenty-five feet wide, but their entrance is proposed at 29.5 feet wide. The Township requires ten feet between the building and parking area. They are proposing seven feet. The Township requires curb radii greater than or equal to five feet. At stalls three and four, near the Summit entrance, there is a proposed 2-foot radii, a 4.5 radii related to the nine-foot island near stalls seventeen and sixteen, and a three foot and five-foot radii related to the 8.11 foot island near stalls twenty-eight and Mr. Kerber asked Mr. Fonzi for any comments or negative thoughts on these Mr. Fonzi stated several residents voiced their concerns about the extra traffic coming in and out of Summit Drive. After speaking to the traffic engineer at Wooster and Associates, they thought to alleviate this it would be beneficial to make the access to Summit Drive an ingress only. They could enter from Summit Drive, but they would have to exit on North Thompson. The traffic study showed that the traffic light could manage the extra trips. We also had a comment from the police department. They were recommending this be ingress only to limit the stacking on Summit Drive of those cars making the left out onto State Route 30. This is something that is not a requirement but can be asked for. Mr. Dykta confirmed that if the entrance off Summit Drive was ingress only, that the residents on Summit could still get in and out of their homes by utilizing Ms. Stump asked how we reconcile Summit Drive being twenty and twenty-one foot wide, since this is a residential road that commercial would be put on when Mr. Fonzi stated this is an existing township road. There is commercial property just to the north of this. The apartments are zoned commercial. This would not  forty-six. comments.  Summit Drive.  our ordinance does not allow the width.  170    June 3, 2024  be the first commercial for this road, and this road predates our current SALDO Ms. Stump questioned the depth to the residents because even though that would be a commercial building (apartment complex) it has residences in it. There is a distance required between residential and the commercial area. Mr. Fonzi explained this was a zoning district, not a use. The zoning ordinance dictates the buffer between different zoned property, but these are both C-1. Ms. Stump thought due to the apartment being a residential use that it applied Mr. Housley stated they did comment along the same lines and the plans show landscaping that was added. There is also a vertical relief as they have a retaining wall. The apartments are higher than the new building to break up the sight line sO a resident would not be staring at the back of the new building. Mr. Sofranko, Senior Project Engineer for Ascent, stated the modification of the twenty-foot depth stall and the twenty-two-foot drive aisle is the same scenario that Lincoln Corner currently has. To keep things consistent, they used the same dimensions. If you look at a drive aisle and parking space, it is a forty-two feet section. Iti is the same ifit is eighteen and twenty-four or twenty and twenty-two. As far as the last comment that Ms. Stump brought up, the building's elevation is at 1156 and the driveway is at 1178. If a six-foot-tall male were standing on the second floor of the proposed building, he would be looking at the level of the Zack Stehle, Engineer for Trans Associates, assisted with completing the traffic study. Regarding questions about queuing at Summit Drive, regardless of an ingress only entrance as opposed to full access, queuing will remain the same. Queuing is only anticipated to increase no more than one car length on Summit Dr when exiting onto Route 30. The level of service, or delay, is to increase by no Ms. Stump asked if the speed limit was taken into consideration as she knows the speed limit is 40 mph but many travel to that area at 60 mph. Mr. Stehle stated as part of the study they performed a radar speed study which recorded fifty vehicles in each direction. The east bound approach had 85 percent of the vehicles going 53 mph, the west bound was 50 mph. These speeds were used for the sight distance study, and they needed sight distance would be Ms. Stump asked how long and at what time of the day the speeds were taken.  as far as the cartway width is concerned.  to this as well.  apartment's driveway.  more than 1.1 seconds.  achieved.  171    June 3, 2024  Mr. Stehle stated the speeds are typically taken during off-peak hours when travel speeds are the highest when there is no congestion. If there were many cars together, breaking could take place and they are not included in samples taken. They only look at vehicles that are uninhibited and moving at constant Ms. Stump stated she believes that Summit Drive is too narrow to accommodate Mr. Dykta stated the ingress only scenario would take away the issue with the twenty or twenty-two foot, because it is only one lane and would be more than Mr. Fonzi stated they would not need that modification if it went to an ingress Mr. Sofranko asked ift the Planning Commission were asking for this development to be ingress only when the residents would be able to use Summit Drive as Mr. Chapman asked if residents from Summit Drive would be able to use this Mr. Fonzi stated it is a private development and it would be up to them to police Mr. Housley stated even if they put up signs, the police department is not going Ms. Stump asked how many cars could fit in between Route 30 and the entrance to the development if someone was stopped waiting to turn into the development. Mr. Stehle stated they did not measure how many cars could queue in this area; only how many would queue there. During the peak hour there should only be Ms. Stump stated there are businesses along Route 30 and during busy hours they are stacked out onto Route 30, which has caused accidents. She is asking how many cars, at one time, can get off Route 30 and be on Summit Drive prior Mr. Stehle stated they did not measure that statistic because they project less than one car queued making a turn into a development. They should be  rate of speed, not having to navigate around obstacles. that traffic but would favor an ingress only scenario.  adequate. only.  ingress and egress. (Heads were shaking in a yes) development and make a left on Summit Drive.  it. We would not be enforcing this.  to sit there and give people tickets for cutting through.  at the most one car in queue at a time.  to the entrance of the development.  uninhibited to make a turn in the development.  172    June 3, 2024  Mr. Housley stated a rough estimate of distance from Route 30 to entrance of Mr. Sofranko stated from curb edge of Route 30 to curb of development is Mr. Dykta asked for clarification that the ingress only could be a recommendation not a requirement and Mr. Fonzi confirmed that to be true. Mr. Cross stated he did not see the need to hinder the development with an ingress only. Summit Drive is not a through street. There is not a whole lot of traffic up and down Summit Drive. The amount of traffic coming down Summit Drive is not enough to interfere with traffic going into the development. This is not a shopping center or a constant flow of traffic in and out. This is a medical facility, and yes it will create some traffic but not an overwhelming amount. He thinks it will be more of an issue if we try to force everything on to Thompson Lane and then have everyone make a left turn to get to the traffic light. This would take part of the traffic to a less traveled road to alleviate some traffic to an Mr. Dykta asked if the modifications were like the first development of Lincoln Mr. Fonzi stated the parking spaces will be single line and twenty feet consistent with the first development. The original development was murky, and the old resolutions did not note all the waivers and modifications. He went through the Mr. Sofranko stated he knows that some of the curb radii for the first Ms. Stump asked if there would also need to be a modification to the width of the street being only twenty, twenty-one feet wide verses twenty-six. Mr. Housley stated this development is not proposing the street. It is already an existing township street. If they were proposing that road as part of the development, then they would have to have it. If the Township would choose to widen to their current standards, that would be on the Township to do. Mr. Stehle stated regarding the ingress only scenario, when they analyzed this and how it affected North Thompson Lane, they saw an increase in delay at the  the development is 100-120 feet, sO this would be about six cars.  approximately 130 feet.  alternate way to Route 30.  Corner.  old files and could not find how we are tracking now. development are under the five-foot regulation.  traffic signal due to all the traffic being routed to this street.  173    June 3, 2024  Mr. Chapman opened the floor to any other comments from anyone in the  audience before voting. No one came to the microphone.  Motion: Mr. Kerber Second: Mr. Cross  Motioned to Approve  With conditions of KU and Wooster's letter Motion Carried: 4 1- 0 (Ms. Stump Opposed)  NEW BUSINESS None  ADVISORY HEARINGS  None  ITEMS FOR ACCEPTANCE  S-07-2024 Bellone, Jellison & Harris Boundary Line Revision  Motion: Mr. Kerber Second: Mr. Cross  Motioned to Accept Motion Carried: 5 -0-0  S-08-2024 Natale Consolidation Motion: Mr. Kerber Second: Ms. Stump  Motioned to Accept Motion Carried: 5 -0-0  DISCUSSION ITEMS Zoning Ordinance Rewrite  Mr. Fonzi brought it to the Planning Commission's attention that the Board of Commissioners voted to have staff produce a new Zoning Ordinance. We had worked on that in 2012, SO there are some old documents, but there are new  174    June 3, 2024  items that have come to live since then. There was a document ready to go, but there was a hold up on the zoning map. He will look at this document and add some new items. There are things that have come about in the last twelve years that we had not even thought of before now, such as chickens, solar panels, food trucks, various kinds of permitting. The goal last time was to reduce the number of zoning districts we have. We have a lot of zoning districts (fourteen- sixteen) and we wanted to consolidate that to nine districts, to make it simpler. He is still working on this with staff and wanted to keep the Planning  Commission in the loop. issues with the zoning map.  Mr. Chapman asked if this is the whole Zoning Ordinance, and if there were Mr. Fonzi confirmed this was the whole Zoning Ordinance, and the zoning map changes just died. It did not go any further. The document was ok, but we kept Ms. Stump asked if this was the map they had large discussions over when Mr. Fonzi confirmed and stated he and Mr. Blenko were in favor of taking existing non-conformities out there, and they wanted to correct that zoning. In areas of Clay Pike and Robbins Station where there is small neighborhood commercial, if the zoning was residential, why not make it neighborhood commercial to reflect what is there? This would clean up some non-conforming Mr. Cross stated an item he and Mr. Blenko differed on was even though we may want to clean this up, but we do not have the right to just change it without the property owner should have a say in this. If the property owner is dead set against the change, he does not believe we can just make that change. Mr. Fonzi stated he had made up a mailing list and it was headed in that direction. We are not just going to wave a magic wand; this would be a Mr. Kerber asked if this goes in with the Comprehensive Plan.  going round and round with the map. Andy Blenko was still here.  but will also create some as well.  collaborative process.  Mr. Fonzi stated this is different, but we can try and assimilate where we can. We will be looking at the use and property restrictions. In the Comprehensive Plan meetings, we discussed that we needed to update the thirty-three-year-old Ms. Stump recalled many discussions about this previously and whoever put together the document copied from other districts, and not everything was  existing Zoning Ordinance.  matching.  175    June 3, 2024  Mr. Fonzi stated it was from Delta Development. He has documents with input from Planning Commission, input from developers, input from residents, staff input. He took all these remarks and tried to put them together the best they could. He liked the document they had, but it never got around to adopting it. He will have to do a revision to this document to add new items that were not Mr. Cross asked if there was anyway this document could show the language change from existing to what the new change would be to color code it sO Mr. Fonzi stated that would be tough as Delta Development handed us a document. They did not go step by step with our Zoning Ordinance. Our amendment section of our Zoning Ordinance is larger than the Zoning  even known about back then.  everyone can see where changes are being made.  Ordinance itself.  Ms. Stump brought up that back then, we were talking about overlay districts. An overlay was discussed with the Leger Road property and thinks it was too much of a headache to deal with overlay there for just one property. Mr. Fonzi stated typically a PRD is an overlay in other places, but here it is an actual district. He is against overlays in general, but we can talk about this Mr. Chapman stated in White Oak where residential properties are switching Mr. Fonzi stated shortly after he started working here there was a push to create a new district, a business district (B-1). It was where Walmart is now. In other communities there is a mixed-use development, where there are businesses on the ground floor and apartments on the second story. We do not Mr. Chapman stated you see mixed use in areas where there are fewer and fewer properties available. So, you see redevelopment where this zoning would Ms. Stump stated since many people are now working from home, these office spaces are being rehabbed and used for apartments and other uses. Mr. Housley stated if we would like reference, Plum Borough did theirs a few years ago, and they have a neighborhood commercial. There were some issues due to the Dollar General coming in. The intent was you could do çommercial, there was much more limit on signage and do more landscaping. It was intended to make the buildings look more residential not a box store effect.  later.  over to commercial, they made a transition zoning area.  have any zoning to accommodate that.  help.  176    June 3, 2024  Brentwood pushed a mixed use where they went block by block and looked at structures and designated. It will take some time but look at other areas' newer ordinances. All ordinances will have issues, there will always be something you Mr. Kerber brought up that in the Comprehensive Plan they brought up putting small commercial buildings, such as a small grocery store in the middle ofa large development sO residents would not have to drive to a large store. This  did not think of, and someone will find a loophole.  would put it within walking distance of your house.  CHAIRMAN'S REPORT  None  ADJOURNMENT Motion: Ms. Stump Second: Mr. Kerber  Motioned to adjourn 7:47 p.m. Motion Carried: 5 -0-0  Meeting minutes of June 3, 2024, were approved by the Planning Commission  on July 17,2024.  Xmwhkw Planning Commission Chairman  Xupuhntimp  Planning Commission Secretary  177