Council of the Municipality of Murrysville

Regular Voting Meeting – Wednesday, February 4, 2015 Council of the Municipality of Murrysville held a Regular Voting Meeting on Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. in the Municipal Building. Present at the meeting were Council members Regis Synan, William Vance, Jeffery Kepler, Joan Kearns, Joshua Lorenz, Loren Kase, and David Perry. Also present were Mayor Robert Brooks, Chief Administrator James R. Morrison, and Municipal Planner Allen Cohen. MAYOR BROOKS WELCOMES THE BOY SCOUTS Mayor Brooks announced that the first full week of February is Boy Scout Week and noted the several Scout groups in Murrysville. He welcomed members of the Venturing Crew 220 (ages 14-21) and their adult leaders. Each member introduced himself/herself and mentioned an activity that each enjoyed. Members from Boy Scout Troop 205 and their adult leaders were introduced. Mayor Brooks then introduced Martin Barbie, the Scout Executive for Westmoreland/Fayette, who spoke about the six Scout units in Murrysville comprised of over 200 young people. There are two Cub Scout packs, three Boy Scout troops and the Venturing Crew. There are 130 different Scout units throughout all of Westmoreland/Fayette Counties serving approximately 4,000 young people. There were over 100 young men who earned the rank of Eagle Scout last year and over 33,000 documented hours of community service were provided to local communities by the Scouts. Mayor Brooks stressed the leadership qualities the Scouts learn and said he was glad to have all of them participating in the Scouting program. PUBLIC HEARING Beginning at 7:23 p.m., Council held a Public Hearing on transferring a Restaurant Liquor License to Isano, Inc. for premises located at 4462 William Penn highway, Murrysville, PA and operate thereon a restaurant with liquor license as a tenant of Creekside Shops, owners of the real estate and commercial premises erected thereon. Nicholas Miller, an attorney with the law firm of Caputo, Caputo & Regan, located at 204 Fifth Avenue, 5th Floor, Pittsburgh, PA, representing the applicant ISANO, Inc., LLC, owned by David and Virginia Montanez, addressed Council regarding the request to transfer a liquor license from Derry, PA to a proposed restaurant business to be located at 4462 William Penn Highway, Murrysville. He explained that, pursuant to Section 461(b)(3) of the PA Liquor Code, the applicant must first get the Municipality’s approval for the transfer before filing an application with the PA Liquor Control Board to transfer the license from Derry Twp. to Murrysville. He continued that the focus of his client’s operation is the sale of food and intends to offer alcohol service only as a complement to its menu. Mr. Miller provided copies of the menu, which shows that the facility is a restaurant and not intended to be a watering hole or drinking establishment. He discussed the intended hours of operation, number of full-time and part-time jobs, and proposed seating in the restaurant. Mr. Miller requested that if Council chooses to pass the Resolution to allow the transfer, it do so as quickly as possible because of the delay that occurs once the application is submitted to the LCB; his clients are eager to open the establishment and offer authentic Mexican cuisine to the residents. car 2/20/15 Regular Voting Meeting – Wednesday, February 4, 2015 Mr. Perry asked if anyone knows the per capita ratio of current liquor licenses in Murrysville. Mayor Brooks said he believes there are 25 and the Municipality is supposed to have approximately 14 in the whole Municipality. Mr. Miller said almost every county is over the ratio because initially the population was well below the actual number of liquor licenses, so there are very few new liquor licenses that actually come into existence. Also, there are no liquor licenses currently available in Murrysville for transfer, so his clients had to go out of the area. Mayor Brooks explained that there are different types of liquor licenses and the license being requested is the nicest type of license that Council would want in Murrysville. There were no additional questions from Council; this item will be moved for further discussion and a vote at the next meeting. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:28 p.m. REGULAR VOTING MEETING AGENDA UNISTED AMENDMENTS: Under Council Action Items – Item No. 13C – Consider approval of the Murrysville Community Vision – If approved by Municipal Council, this item must be adopted by Resolution No. 639-15. Mr. Perry moved to approve the agenda as amended. Mr. Lorenz seconded. All present voted aye. Motion approved. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: None. COMMUNITY INPUT: Shirley Turnage, 3924 Sardis Road, addressed Council on the issue of accessibility to healthy foods and preservation of agriculture land previously discussed in connection with the Comprehensive Plan. She believes the Plan is geared to urbanization and is not including the preservation of farm land. She would like to see the preservation of agriculture land and encouragement of farming to meet the needs of the citizens desirous of purchasing healthy foods locally included in the Plan. A copy of Ms. Turnage’s comments is on file in the Municipal office. Eleanor Sharp, 3339 Shady Drive, thanked Council and all involved in writing and reviewing the proposed Comprehensive Plan. However, she objected to the current revision of the Energy Resources section of the Plan because she believes the overall tone seems to convey an approval of unconventional hydraulic fracturing for Murrysville. She urged Council to take her comments into consideration, postpone a vote, and create a better revision of the Energy Resources section to be voted on at a later date. A copy of Ms. Sharp’s presentation is on file at the Municipal office. Alyson Holt, 4830 Primrose Lane, spoke on meeting the requirements of the Municipal Planning Code and the PA Environmental Rights Amendment and said one of the central questions confronting municipal elected officials as they enact oil and gas ordinances is which of these legal statutes carries the most “weight.” She noted remarks made by Peters Township’s Council Chair, specifically, that the government is prohibited from interfering with the citizens’ right to clean air, pure water and a healthy environment (citing Constitutional Amendment in Article 1, Section 27). She made several comparisons between Peters Township and Murrysville car 2/20/15 Regular Voting Meeting – Wednesday, February 4, 2015 and asked if there is any area in Murrysville in which gas drilling would not violate Section 27. She also encouraged Council members and staff to attend the upcoming public meeting on Penn Township’s zoning ordinance. A copy of Ms. Holt’s comments is on file at the Municipal office. In response to Ms. Holt’s comments, Chief Administrator Jim Morrison commented that every Municipality is facing the same challenges, and it’s striking a balance between the MPC (which is a statute) and the Environmental Rights Amendment (which is a constitutional issue). That matter will be played out in the courts. Mr. Perry addressed Ms. Sharp’s mention of the word standards and said that standards is a very specific term. Within any industry, a standard is invariably a numeric standard and it’s a hard number or hard standard that must be followed; there is no interpretation on those. He is the one who asked that the word “standards” be included in the Plan. He said his company has to defend a lot of stuff like that and there is a lot of case law that indicates that there is no interpretation of standard, as long as the underlying statute makes it clear what the applicant would have to meet, so he’s good with the way that section reads. There were no further comments or discussion from Council or the public. WORKSHOP ITEMS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 10A. DISCUSSION ON S-2-15, MCKENNA SUBDIVISION, SUNSET CIRCLE, 2 LOTS. Municipal Planner, Allen Cohen, briefed Council on the background of the application and indicated a de minimus variance was granted by the Zoning Hearing Board because the parcel being subdivided does not have sufficient footage to create two legal lots by lot size. The request was granted based upon “borrowing” one-half of a paper street which was never accepted by the Municipality as providing an area that can be used toward the lot. The applicant has requested a workshop and vote at tonight’s meeting because a closing is scheduled in two days. All items have been agreed to by the applicant with the only condition being the $1,200 fee-in-lieu for the new lot being created, payable at the time a building permit is issued. There were no questions from Council and this item will be moved ahead for voting later in the meeting. Mr. Morrison advised Council that the Zoning Hearing Board is a quasi-judicial body and the Municipality, by attending those hearings, makes an appearance, so that if an issue would move forward on appeal because Council may questions a decision, the Municipality has standing. A policy has been implemented wherein Council will receive copies of all ZHB decisions. Mr. Morrison told Council members that, if there is a reason for any decision to be addressed, they should contact the office and appropriate steps will be addressed to discuss the issue and take it under consideration. car 2/20/15 Regular Voting Meeting – Wednesday, February 4, 2015 10B. A REPORT ON THE EVALUATION OF PARKING SPACES AT THE BLUE SPRUCE DEVELOPMENT. Mr. Morrison advised that there have been questions raised by local officials and the general public as to the parking at the Blue Spruce Shoppes. He felt it would be necessary to present publicly the evaluation of the parking so there isn’t any question concerning the review process by staff, Planning Commission or Council concerning the development. If it is perceived that there is a parking issue, it is a matter that must be addressed through the Ordinance because the Ordinance was met. If Council feels that way, after the presentation by Mr. Cohen, he suggests Council consider directing the Planning Commission to take a look at the parking regulations in the Zoning Ordinance and recommend any changes that Council believes are necessary. Municipal Planner, Allen Cohen, then discussed the review process used to determine the appropriate parking spaces for the site. The net effect, based upon the various scenarios, was that 433 parking spaces were required for the site. The scenarios utilized are different based upon what’s in the ordinance; the parking space requirements are additive, meaning each use requires a total number of parking spaces and are added to each other to determine the total number of spaces. However, there is a provision in the ordinance which provides for peak period parking, which means that not all uses are going to be 100% in demand at any given time. Mr. Cohen cited as an example, the Goddard School and the proposed east building housing medical offices and a bank will only be at 10% demand during the peak periods (week-end/Saturday). The result is that the maximum number of parking spaces have to be provided of the four different periods measured (day-a.m./p.m.; week- end-a.m./p.m.). The peak period is Saturday, and the demand for that time is reduced by the fact that the Goddard School and the medical offices aren’t being 100% utilized. Those spaces will be opened up during that time for the retail shops and restaurants. Mr. Cohen continued by stating that another aspect is the issuance of permits for the site. When an application is approved, the whole site is approved, and it’s basically demonstrating that there are enough spaces based upon the uses that have been illustrated on the site plan. As permits are issued for the various tenant occupancy, there has to be a count and a certain number of parking spaces allocated for the particular use. If there are changes in the plan building (i.e., a retail becomes a restaurant), that changes the formula and may create a higher demand for parking. It’s important for developer, zoning officer and building inspector to be on the same page and to keep track of what parking spaces are actually being utilized so that the “nth” use will use the last parking space and not go over the parking requirements. Addressing the Blue Spruce development specifically, Mr. Cohen said residents perceive there to be a parking problem; however, the ordinance is being met. He said that at peak periods, in any development, there will be times when there is not enough parking where people want to park. He said that people want convenience and want to park close to entrances. The lay-out of the Blue Spruce development is such that it is laid out with a large parking area in the center, parking near the Goddard School in the west, and an area in front of the east building adjacent to McDonald’s; some of the parking is underutilized because it’s not close to anything, but it serves the entire site. He said the bottom line is that the parking meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for the uses approved. Mr. Morrison said that the parking spaces exceed the requirement. car 2/20/15 Regular Voting Meeting – Wednesday, February 4, 2015 Mr. Morrison discussed the current Ordinance and said that staff will be creating spreadsheets for Rosa Court, Walnut Hollow and Blue Spruce Shoppes, which were all approved under the current Ordinance, and track the square footage based on how the site plan was approved. Some of the older developments like Creekside and Village of Murrysville will be a bit more challenging because they were approved under a previous parking ordinance. Spreadsheets will be developed for older developments to meet the existing ordinances and try to make provisions for parking at developments that occurred under previous ordinances and how those will be managed going forward. Mr. Cohen discussed the parking requirements for retail establishments and restaurants (1 space for every 200 sq. ft. for retail/1 space for every 60 sq. ft. for restaurants). The most concern would be if there would be a change from retail to restaurant, as that would have an impact on the parking requirements. That would put the responsibility on the developer to find more parking somewhere else, seek a variance, or have a “swap” on other uses that would have less parking requirements. Mrs. Kearns asked if a parking study is being done at the restaurant that is requesting the liquor license and if there will be sufficient space. Mr. Morrison said the question is “what is sufficient space” and said a parking review is currently underway. The challenge is that the site was approved under a previous ordinance and there have been a number of changes of use in the Creekside development that have been issued occupancy permits over the years. Mrs. Kearns had concerns about parking during the lunch hour when Subway is rather busy. Mr. Cohen said there is also the issue of non-conforming uses and non-conforming parking because the ordinance has changed from the when the original plan was approved; some communities have provisions in their ordinances referring to “non-conforming parking lots” and setting standard criteria and getting approval on any new business coming in. He said that is another consideration to look at Murrysville’s ordinance and add specific provisions for those scenarios. Mr. Kepler said, regarding Blue Spruce, he believes there is another issue besides parking spots, and that is the issue of traffic flow. He said drivers pull in, turn left, can’t find a spot, circle around to go to the east lot and all traffic is crossing at the center point, thereby jamming up traffic. He asked if there is anything in the ordinance as to the lay-out of the parking lot as it relates to traffic flow. Mr. Morrison said traffic flow is evaluated as part of the site plan approval process; there are minimum standards for parking stall widths and aisle widths. He said that because the site is still under construction, people are not using the parking area on the east side of the development, but believes that it’s a matter of getting used to it and staff is keeping a watch on the situation. Mr. Synan commented that staff must be attentive to making sure the maximum occupancy permitted is not exceeded so that vehicles are not parking in fire lanes and blocking emergency vehicles; this will then become an enforcement issue. Mr. Lorenz said that because the site is still under construction, construction vehicles are taking up parking spaces, trailers are sometimes on the property and, until recently, the east parking area had a fence across it, so people may not even be aware that there is parking available in that area. There was no additional discussion on this item. car 2/20/15 Regular Voting Meeting – Wednesday, February 4, 2015 COUNCIL - ACTION ITEMS ADMINISTRATION: 13A. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 922-15, AN ORDINANCE SETTING THE POLICE PENSION CONTRIBUTIONS FOR 2015. Mr. Synan moved to approve the Ordinance, setting the police pension contributions for 2015 at 5%. Mr. Kepler seconded. Mr. Morrison noted that 5% is the maximum permitted under Act 600. Upon a roll call vote: Mr. Synan – yes, Mr. Vance – yes, Mr. Kepler – yes, Mrs. Kearns – yes, Mr. Lorenz – yes, Mr. Kase – yes, Mr. Perry – yes. Motion approved. 13B. CONSIDER AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE ORDINANCE NO. 923-15, AN ORDINANCE REDUCING THE PERSONNEL BOARD FROM FIVE MEMBERS TO THREE MEMBERS. Mr. Kepler moved to approve. Mr. Kase seconded. Mr. Morrison explained that, unlike some of the other boards and commissions, the Personnel Board plays a role in personnel management as far as hearing grievances, acting as a Civil Service Board in police matters and also evaluating non-union salary ranges for recommendations to Council on an annual basis. Staff suggests reduction in the size of the board in order to ensure a quorum at meetings. Upon a roll call vote: Mr. Synan – yes, Mr. Vance – yes, Mr. Kepler – yes, Mrs. Kearns – yes, Mr. Lorenz – yes, Mr. Kase – yes, Mr. Perry – yes. Motion approved. 13C. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE MURRYSVILLE COMMUNITY VISION, A TEN-YEAR PLAN ADVANCING NEIGHBORHOODS, NATURE, RECREATION, EDUCATION AND BUSINESS VITALITY IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF MURRYSVILLE. Mr. Lorenz moved to approve the adoption of the Vision as required by the Pennsylvania Municipal Planning Code. Mr. Synan seconded. Mr. Kepler said the language in the section on Energy Resources does not represent Council’s prior discussions and agreement. He said it still makes reference to the Municipal Planning Code and he thought it was agreed that language would be removed. Mr. Kepler’s concern is that by leaving that wording in, it is assumed that for all times the Municipality is bound by the laws of the MPC, while laws are being changed and there are other avenues, constitutionally, that are in play. He believes that section should be eliminated or changed to refer to the “laws of the Commonwealth.” Mr. Lorenz reminded everyone that, ultimately, the document is not law, nor does it control; it is a 30,000 foot view of a vision of how the Municipality is looking to go forward. It’s supposed to be a guide to what the actual laws, policies and procedures will be. In particular to the Energy Resources issue, Council and staff are looking very carefully at this, analyzing all aspects of it, taking all points of view into account and trying to come up with something that is appropriate for Murrysville. car 2/20/15 Regular Voting Meeting – Wednesday, February 4, 2015 Mr. Perry said the only caveat is that the Act 13 ruling is very specific that the MPC has to play well with the ordinances; you can’t have one that says A and one that says B. Mr. Lorenz said the question is which has the greater legal import – the Pennsylvania Constitution or the Municipal Planning Code? Mr. Kepler added that the Vision is a public document which the residents are going to interpret and he believes it is a perception issue. He said the goal is to protect the community – period. Mr. Morrison said the MPC doesn’t direct how or what to zone certain areas; it just says to provide for the use, and that use could be anything. Mr. Kepler said that the drilling companies are the first to come back and say that, according to the MCP, the Municipality is not allowed to zone them out. Mr. Morrison said that’s right. Mr. Kepler said that the Municipality’s position is that it is being looked at from an overall perspective and how to best protect the community. Mr. Morrison said the authority to protect the community is granted through the MPC. Mr. Kase said that the Vision is a public document and when a resident reads it and asks where the energy section came from, he believes it’s clarified. Mr. Perry said that since the Constitution trumps the MPC, he wonders if Council is limiting itself. He further said that it is an issue of semantics. Mr. Cohen said that from a planning perspective and the MPC, this is all new territory because the Comprehensive Plan has never been given so much weight as it has in the decision by the Supreme Court. Pennsylvania is a very weak state, traditionally, on comprehensive plans; although it’s an important document, legally it has little weight in terms of justifying a decision. The only amendments made recently added the language (Article 3) “the zoning ordinance shall be generally consistent with the comprehensive plan.” That’s the strongest language in the MPC on the comprehensive plan as it relates to the zoning ordinance in defending what is being done. The next paragraph states that if the language [in the MPC and zoning ordinance] is not consistent, go back and amend the comprehensive plan and make it consistent. He said the real discussion is going to be what the zoning ordinance is going to have and is it generally consistent with the comprehensive plan. If it is found that the two are not consistent, enact the ordinance Council likes and feels is in the best interest of the Municipality and amend the Comprehensive Plan to make it consistent. Mr. Lorenz suggested that if there needs to be some reference to authority, it should just read “under Pennsylvania law” because that would encompass any authority, including potentially case law, additional statutes, and modifications to the MPC. Mrs. Kearns confirmed that Mr. Lorenz’s suggestion is to replace the second reference to the MPC with the words “under Pennsylvania law.” Following that discussion, Mr. Lorenz moved to amend the original motion to make the suggested change. Mr. Synan seconded. Upon a roll call vote: Mr. Synan – yes, Mr. Vance – yes, Mr. Kepler – yes, Mrs. Kearns – yes, Mr. Lorenz – yes, Mr. Kase – yes, Mr. Perry – yes. Amended motion approved. On the main motion to approve the Murrysville Community Vision, as amended: upon a roll call vote: Mr. Synan – yes, Mrs. Kearns – yes, Mr. Kepler – yes, Mr. Vance – yes, Mr. Kase – yes, Mr. Perry – yes. Motion approved. Mr. Lorenz moved to approve Resolution 639-15 adopting the ten-year Community Vision. Mr. Synan seconded. Upon a roll call vote: Mr. Synan – yes, Mr. Vance – yes, Mr. Kepler – yes, Mrs. Kearns – yes, Mr. Lorenz – yes, Mr. Kase – yes, Mr. Perry – yes. Motion approved. car 2/20/15 Regular Voting Meeting – Wednesday, February 4, 2015 13D. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF JIM BOYD’S RESIGNATION FROM THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION, AUTHORIZE TO ADVERTISE THE VACANCY, AND SEND A LETTER OF THANKS FOR HIS SERVICE. Mr. Kase moved to accept the resignation. Mr. Perry seconded. Mr. Lorenz indicated he was going to vote no; he believes Jim has been an asset to the Commission and the community. Mayor Brooks asked what would happen if 4 Council members voted no. Members were unsure how that would work. Upon a roll call vote: Mr. Synan – no, Mr. Vance – no, Mr. Kepler – no, Mrs. Kearns – no, Mr. Lorenz – no, Mr. Kase – no, Mr. Perry – no. Motion denied. Mr. Lorenz, liaison to the Commission, will contact Mr. Boyd to discuss this matter. 13E. CONSIDER APPROVAL FOR THE AAUW TO CONDUCT A CANDIDATES’ NIGHT ON FRIDAY, MAY 8, 2015. Mr. Kepler moved to approve a Candidate’s Night to be held in the Council Chambers. Mr. Kase seconded. Upon a roll call vote: Mr. Synan – yes, Mr. Vance – yes, Mr. Kepler – yes, Mrs. Kearns – yes, Mr. Lorenz – yes, Mr. Kase – yes, Mr. Perry – yes. Motion approved. 13F. CONSIDER THE APPOINTMENT OF TOM WILLARD AS CHAIR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) FOR YEAR 2015. Mr. Perry moved to approve the appointment. Mr. Kase seconded. Upon a roll call vote: Mr. Synan – yes, Mr. Vance – yes, Mr. Kepler – yes, Mrs. Kearns – yes, Mr. Lorenz – yes, Mr. Kase – yes, Mr. Perry – yes. Motion approved. 13G. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 638-15, A RESOLUTION IDENTIFYING TOM DITTMAN AS THE MUNICIPALITY OF MURRYSVILLE’S REPRESENTATIVE TO THE HERITAGE TRAIL CHAPTER COMMITTEE. Mr. Kepler moved to approve the Resolution. Mr. Synan seconded. Upon a roll call vote: Mr. Synan – yes, Mr. Vance – yes, Mr. Kepler – yes, Mrs. Kearns – yes, Mr. Lorenz – yes, Mr. Kase – yes, Mr. Perry – yes. Motion approved. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 14A. CONSIDER S-2-15, MCKENNA SUBDIVISION, SUNSET CIRCLE, 2 LOTS. Mr. Lorenz moved to approve subject to all of the conditions being satisfied. Mr. Perry seconded. Upon a roll call vote: Mr. Synan – yes, Mr. Vance – yes, Mr. Kepler – yes, Mrs. Kearns – yes, Mr. Lorenz – yes, Mr. Kase – yes, Mr. Perry – yes. Motion approved. car 2/20/15 Regular Voting Meeting – Wednesday, February 4, 2015 ENGINEERING: 15A. CONSIDERATION OF AWARD OF A CONTRACT FOR THE 2015 OVERLAY PROJECT, DPW-1-15. Mr. Perry moved to award the contract, DPW-1-15, in an amount not to exceed $1,500,000 to Tresco Corporation. Mr. Kepler seconded. Upon a roll call vote: Mr. Synan – yes, Mr. Vance – yes, Mr. Kepler – yes, Mrs. Kearns – yes, Mr. Lorenz – yes, Mr. Kase – yes, Mr. Perry – yes. Motion approved. 15B. CONSIDER BOND RELEASE FOR THE SIENA RIDGE DEVELOPMENT. Mr. Perry moved to release the maintenance bond being held to insure the structural integrity of the streets within the Siena Ridge development. Mr. Vance seconded. Mr. Morrison explained that this is the eighteen month maintenance bond for the overlay which was required when the roads were accepted. The amount of the bond was in excess of $102,000.00. Mr. Morrison said he didn’t provide a copy of the bond to Council with the agenda briefing because it had names and account numbers on it. There were no questions. Upon a roll call vote: Mr. Synan – yes, Mr. Vance – yes, Mr. Kepler – yes, Mrs. Kearns – yes, Mr. Lorenz – yes, Mr. Kase – yes, Mr. Perry – yes. Motion approved. OLD BUSINESS: *An interview will be scheduled for March 4 for an applicant for the EAC. *A reminder that the Blue Spruce Shoppes crossing on Old William Penn Hwy. needs painted. *Murrysville tree sign underbrush is completed. A maintenance program is being put into place to go forward. NEW BUSINESS: None. EXECUTIVE SESSION: None. ACTION ITEMS: None. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Kepler moved to adjourn. Mr. Kase seconded. All present voted aye. The Council Meeting concluded at 8:53 p.m. The Regular Voting Meeting was broadcast on local government Channel 19. A true copy of the Council meeting DVD is available for the public to purchase from the Municipality of Murrysville and is in the Murrysville Public Library for review. car 2/20/15