Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Development Storage Facility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves revised Warwick Street storage plan with screening, lighting conditions
Summary
Council granted final plan approval for Valley Storage’s Warwick Street site to increase two buildings from three to four stories after the applicant agreed to architectural screening, landscaping and a condition on interior lighting and window types.
Lititz Borough Council approved a revised final land‑development plan for Valley Storage’s property at 150 Warwick Street that increases two buildings from three stories to four, subject to screening, landscaping and conditions on lighting.
Dave Bittner of Bittner Engineering, representing Valley Storage, told the council the revised plan keeps the original building footprints but adds floors on Buildings 1 and 3 while retaining existing stormwater facilities. He said the applicant added architectural screening and increased landscape buffers after feedback from borough staff and the Planning Commission to reduce visual impacts on nearby residences, particularly the Pleasant View and Littitz Springs apartment buildings.
Bittner described the architectural screening as an exterior facade — a mix of fiber‑cement plank siding, fiber cement panel, brick and metal panel — attached to the building rather than a freestanding wall. He said the screening is intended to mask the typical storage‑unit appearance and that landscaping will screen the lower floors while the facade will address upper‑floor views.
Council members pressed the applicant on landscape longevity and irrigation; Bittner said the new owner has been replacing dead plants, the borough is holding escrow to ensure installation, and no irrigation system was planned. The applicant also requested a waiver of the traffic impact study previously granted under the original plan; Elijah (borough staff) confirmed the waiver and the previously approved 15‑foot planting buffer in lieu of the 30‑foot standard would be reaffirmed.
Council asked for specifics on lighting and window types. The applicant could not provide detailed interior lighting answers without the architect present; council therefore conditioned approval on confirmation of whether upper‑floor windows are real (interior‑facing) or faux facade elements and, if interior windows exist, that interior lighting be configured to avoid becoming a nighttime nuisance to neighbors. The council suggested a reduction standard consistent with borough zoning rules for exterior lighting.
Council also heard traffic estimates from the applicant’s consultant: the revised plan is projected to add about four AM peak hour trips, seven PM peak hour trips, eight Saturday midday peak hour trips and roughly 70 daily trips compared with the earlier, lower‑height plan. The applicant said the increase in peak trips is minimal.
After discussion, a council member moved to approve the revised final land‑development and lot‑add‑on plan with the waiver of the traffic impact study and the lighting/window condition; the motion carried by voice vote.
Why it matters: The change increases building height in a mixed residential/industrial area and includes waivers and conditions intended to reduce impacts on adjacent residential properties. The approval reaffirms prior stormwater approvals while continuing escrow protections for landscape installation.
