Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Call to order. Sorry. I'd like to call to order the July 1st, 2025 meeting of the town of McCamless Planning Commission. First order of business tonight is approval of the June 3rd Commission meeting minutes. It was a very long meeting. I hope you had a chance to review them. Are there any comments or corrections to the minutes? If not, I'll entertain a motion to approve. Move. Second. Okay. All in favor? I I I have to abstain. I wasn't here. Okay. One abstension. Sorry. Next order of business this evening is an application for minor land development. Excuse me. Old Perry Highway Townhouse building land development. We have someone from the development to present tonight. Yes, sir. Please come up. one should present. There may be some questions. We do. I can just answer any questions you might have. Okay. You don't have I don't have a presentation. No. Okay. Anything you'd like to tell us about the development? It's really, in my opinion, not a development. It's a the building of a three-unit townhouse. By definition, a development. Okay. By your definition. Yes. All right. You know, any questions you have, I'd be glad to try and answer. I'm not an engineer, but you know, we'll do our best. Did you play one on TV? I haven't. Okay. But am considering that as a second uh There were a number of um engineering comments. Some of them are still open. Kelly, do you want to address? Yeah, so we had a letter issued

June 5th with some outstanding comments. Um, and then we did receive a resubmission, I believe like June 18th, June 20th, and we did get a chance to review that. So, we issued an updated letter on June 30th. Um, that just had one outstanding comment, but I will touch on just a few of the items that we had before. Um, so one item just regarding uh the buffer yard and what was going to be used for the landscaping. We did receive an updated landscape plan that showed some um protection of existing landscaping to remain. There's a few trees that are going to be removed, but they are also planting um a buffer yard and there's additional plantings going in on the property. So, we did uh receive that. Just a note as well on um one comment we had in a previous letter regarding the driveway. So this lot right now there's no subdivision that was submitted as part of this development. Um so the ordinance states there's um only two driveways per like one lot. But I did just want to note the the reason that we no longer have that comment is um that there is no maximum driveway throat width in the ordinance itself. there's only a minimum of 9 ft and the revised plans actually show like one curb cut for two of the town homes that comes onto the road and um behind the right ofway line that's where it splits. So I did just want to call attention to that as well that um in the code there wasn't anything um you know in our review that stated a maximum width off of the road that could be provided. So I just wanted to note that. Can we see that on the drawings please? Yeah, I think it's um C102 may be the best one. Are you able to zoom in at all? Yeah. Can you zoom in to like unit two and three near the rightway line? There you go. See how it kind of curves right at the right of way line where um the two unit there's kind of a grass

strip between the two. So, I just wanted to note that that was how that comment was addressed. So there's just two curb cuts now on this one property. Um and then just to note too, I know there might have been a question about site distance. Um that was a comment from one of our previous letters and the engineer did provide the updated site distance um numbers on here that were reviewed by our traffic engineer who um from his review said based off of the type of development here that it was adequate. Um so those are just three notes that I wanted to highlight from some of our previous um reviews that we had. Uh the storm water comments we had were addressed. Um so we are um clean on that end of things from a storm water management perspective. Um this development is under one acre so there is uh no NPDS permit that required. The amount of fill that's going to be needed was pretty substantial. Yeah, there is some fill that is needed. Yeah, there's some cut happening as well on the upper side, but there is some fill in here. Did you have anything to add? Um, yeah, the in conjunction with the com um one of one of the items that I didn't see in the submission was a plan for recording development required to have the plan recorded with county. Um, we have in our code there's guidelines for having that plan. Um, I don't see that as a major comment. It's pretty minor plan. It's just showing this plan, showing what the plan development actually is and having the signature so it can get reported. That's our first comment. Our second comment is in terms of the storm weather facilities operation and maintenance. Um I know that it was addressed that the comments were addressed for having that completed once um you get to the process of applying for you know a building permit having storm water operation and

maintenance agreement recorded. Um that'll just have to be you know at some point in the future if there were plans to subdivide this property um then that would have to be that the maintenance of that would have to be reported on any future needs if this lot would be split because that maintenance would be shared between multiple parts if there was a planning future that's property I just wanted to have that comment well aware of that so it it is a condominium sale not fe simple you're not selling any land. It's just the buildings themselves. That be if if it's sold, it'll be sold as time. So, it'll be individual lots. That's a subdivision. Yes. We haven't received a subdivision in this package at this time though. The way we've always done the subdivisions in the past was after it was built, it was would be subdivided for the mortgage subdivisions. Yeah. If that site be So then that was my question on the driveways. So each individual property will be maintaining the driveways. You're not looking at needing maintenance like the storm water for the drives. You're looking the only maintenance if it's subdivided would probably be the storm water. I didn't see anything that said it was being subdivided. So it's not right now, right? But in the future, do you have any um No, I don't actually. I am still very concerned about the site distance even though it meets the minimum requirements having driven by the site and I don't know if any of the other members did um that northernmost driveway coming down around the curb the property owners there's no tea or anything in the driveway so they will either be backing into the lots or

backing out of the lots into not the clearest sight distance. So that is a concern that I have. Are you're telling me that it meets the minimum requirements? Yeah. And our traffic engineers review for this size development, it was adequate. He what he reviewed on pup standards. Want to say from a lay person's perspective driving the the parcel, it didn't feel adequate. Any comments? Where are the two curb cuts on this one? There's so many lines. Yeah. Yeah. I have trouble with it, too. The There's one for the southern unit and then uh two one that is a combined for the the upper two units. Where's the combined? I can pop up here if you want. It's um if you put your mouse pointer right here just so they can see. It's right here. So from this section on, that's where it's combined. So like this would be kind of a grass view in here. This strip instead of it going right to the sidewalk, there would be a page section. If you look at the other one in that same location, you can tell the the engineer put the lines like straight through the sidewalks. That's how we were able to differentiate that change in their response to us. Apologize. It's all right. It's hard to It's hard to read. So, basically, the two southernmost properties buildings share a drive. It's the two the two northern I'm sorry, units two and three. driveway. Yeah.

All driveways go over the sidewalks when I mean like you're driving on the sidewalk always. No parallel like I physically like not crossing it perfectly. No, just crossing it. So, if I'm coming south on Old Perry Highway, Yeah. and I want to make a right-hand turn to get to the northern of the three town homes. Yes. Walk me through on this or if there's another illustration of how that would work. Where do I turn in and then where do I go? Turn in right in front of the garage door. Drive up the driveway to the garage door. I'm just not saying and same with with the center unit. You come down Perry Highway, right turn across the sidewalk and up the drive to the garage door. So, the other two properties have adjacent garages, correct? They all have garages. Yes. No, have adjacent garages. The common wall is at the garage. Is that correct? Um, no. They're all split, I believe. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm looking at the house, not the garage. So, Kelly, I'm still not understanding how we only have two driveways from this one. It's it's the way that the the code is written, there's only a minimum, the detail has a minimum driveway like entrance width of 9 ft. There's no maximum provided. So the maximum here is basically extending wider than one unit is how we had to look at appro here. Oh, so there's not like one and then you go up like a little. It's just 20 feet wide. It's just longer. Yeah, it's not like it's like neck down and then widening widening out. It's just wide

all the way down. And it's just the differentiation here that the the engineer did was that they have we call it like one curb cut instead of like two separate little aprons. Seems like a flaw in our code. So there is no maximum throat width in the code that we could identify in the details or the driveway design section. How do you subdivide that? If it's a mortgage subdivision, it would be a part of the common open space at that point if they would just own their units if that's how it's subdivided in the future. I also interject this is not for subdivision approval. This is just an approval for this development. And we're looking at a development that in the future might be subdivided. So I'm just trying to make sure that there isn't something I understand. We don't have we don't have authority to understand that. trying to understand the drawing. Does that make sense to everyone now about the driveway? Yeah, we we had to look at it and highlight some lines and we went through the code to identify if there was um an identified um concern or anything in the code that would prevent like a certain width of a of a cut on one parcel. Definitely something to take note of. Yeah. Uh, how does this work with the intersection of of Orchard View with the uh the church across the street? Because it looks like it it goes straight across to a driveway, but kind of offset. It's offset a little bit. It's pretty close. It's close, though. Yes. And did we take a look at how that would interplay with someone backing out of a driveway or in because now you've got like a four-way intersection there almost. Yeah. Yeah. I can have the traffic engineer comment on that specific item in regards since it's not like a a technical four-way stop out of a parking lot. That wasn't really fully within his review since it was more of a small

residential, but I could have him take a look at it and provide followup on that item in regards to any concerns just if there's adequate offset. That's coming down the hill, isn't it? Yes. Yeah. Down the hill around the bend. You have peak time traffic of a lot of cars at limited times going in and out of the drive up to the church. So I'm just concerned about what happens there are people trying to come in and out of the townhouse all three of those because they're pretty close. Mark, are the are the driveways level? Are they going to be greater? There's about a four or five% grade. four% right. There's some crosssections on one or two. Yep. 104. Um, yeah, they all go up, I believe. Yeah, they all go up. Yeah. Yeah, it looks like they vary from 4.3 to like six and a quarter%. You can't read them. And you're and a traffic engineer look at that as well. Getting Yeah. The max driveway slope is 12%. Yeah. And the um the these crosssections do show as well the sidewalk grading at like one 1% cross slope. So under 2% cross slope you would have there transitions too. I guess the other have the have the the two homes that are I don't know if they're occupied or not, but have they the neighbors are they aware of this development? I'm not sure. Well, we had to send out a notice. What about doing storm water? So, yeah, I would assume they're aware of it. See, how's that just for my own when you say you sent out a notice, what is is that like something in the

newspaper? It's in our code. I can speak to this if you want. Yeah. So in the storm water code there's a requirement to notify adjacent properties of the installation of a storm water BMP. Um so the developer or their um you know hire consultant sends out a letter basically saying hey we're proposing to develop this property and there is a storm water management facility that's going to be installed and then as the town um the requirement is like the green certified mail receipts just proof of that. So that from an ordinance perspective is how is what he's speaking of like how they're notified. Additionally, with land developments, the the MPC states that land developments that the town has to notify um property owners within the term distance. Um that occurs after an advisory review. I think it's section 509. Um so you know if this moves forward then notices get sent prior to any public hearing. for a future. So I guess like do they know now? I mean have they been sent the letter? They've been sent letters in regard to storm water and that's that is that is how the municipalities planning code has has written for for because the planning commission is an advisory review board. the they they review it primarily or preliminarily and then once it gets to a hearing state hearings have a requirement by the state to notify adjacent property owners for specific developments and other type of processes. So just as so gateway sent them letters. No developer the developer sent the letters. We we comment on it and we make sure that the towns receive the green certifi certified letter slips just to make sure that they were sent out. We

don't do any notification to property owners. Okay. So, the town has this as a response. Yeah. Okay. All right. No, thank you. Yeah. Um, no questions. I I I share the same concern about the the site distance from the north. I mean, I understand it it passed. Uh but I I would would would would recommend um having driven that that road uh almost daily that there should be signage or something just for the safety of the the occupant that unit three that just seems a dangerous turnout from there. That that was all I had. Anything like at a road sign that says blind driver or something like that? I I don't have anything. Sean has talked about the site and I agree with everyone on I've driven that a number of times pulling out on even from Orchard and uh it's it's tough to seize your coming. Any other comments or questions from the commission? If not, I'll open the opportunity for public comment regarding the development. Any public comment? Come up, please. There's a, as you're aware, there's five minutes. [Music] Ellen, right, 9635 Old Kimmer Road, Allison Park, PA15101. Um, I noticed that in the change of the agenda that it went from a major land development to a minor land development and I was curious, you know, um, about that change with the agenda was changed. It was a minor development from submission date. Okay. So, the previous agenda the previous agenda was updated to adequately show where the property

was located. Thank you. Um and then referred to loss of green space, loss of trees that um with these town houses. Um I'm curious how much of the green space is lost and um the trees that are to replace that green space, what kind of ratio there is with that. uh the lack of a presentation. I understand that it's good to um to have the question and answer period, but the lack of presentation for anybody curious about it is problematic because it's really hard to know what's going on. I did drive past the site and um it is a curvy site. So those comments were made and it seems like a lot of building for just 73 acres. So um I of course would encourage more information before a vote tonight and a table. Thank you. Thank you. [Music] We have a motion to consider whether or not to recommend this minor land development to the town council for approval. Do I have any? I don't think that we have any basis for not approving it, but I do think that all of the concerns are legitimate. And I don't know, at least maybe putting into for

council's benefit. We'll see this next, but perhaps we offer a motion to approve subject to consideration for safety signage concern over the um No, you can because you were going to maybe go ask about the orchard, right? Um I can follow up on that. So, further um further investigation from our traffic engineers, I just personally don't think there's a reason to hold it up from here, but I do think that um providing council with the benefit of um at least knowing our concerns. Is that a motion? Yeah, that's fine. That's fine. That's a good motion. Anyone else? I'll second that. Thank you, Al. All those in favor? I. Anyone opposed? All right. Thank you. It was a good motion. Thank you. All right. So, general public comment. Is there any general public comment this evening? Not seeing any. We have a motion for adjournment. Moved. Moved. Second. Second. Thank you. All those in favor?