Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
32-townhouse Valley Ridge plan draws fire-safety, traffic and parking concerns from commission and residents
Summary
Valley Ridge LLC presented a preliminary plan for 32 townhouses on about 4.5 acres; commissioners and multiple residents raised concerns about fire department access, whether townhouses front on a qualifying street, traffic operations at Route 611/George's Lane and adequacy of parking. Applicant requested feedback and will revise plans.
The planning commission and nearby residents pressed the developer of the proposed Valley Ridge townhouse project on June 5 over fire access, street frontage and vehicular operations at the Route 611 intersection.
Attorney Carrie Nace (Fox Rothschild) and engineer Shiroth Thakkar (Arnaud Engineering) presented preliminary land development plans for Valley Ridge, a proposal for 32 traditional townhouses on roughly 4.5 acres. The plan shows approximately 13,700–14,000 square feet of public open space (exceeding the corridor-mixed-use overlay requirement of 8,500 sq ft), new sidewalks tying into Valley Square, stormwater-management facilities designed to meet township and state NPDES requirements, and five requested waivers.
Planning staff and commissioners expressed significant reservations about whether the rear units meet the ordinance definition of “traditional townhouse,” which requires units to front on a street. The fire marshal’s review — referenced repeatedly in the public record — cautioned that several internal access aisles are not streets under the subdivision ordinance and may prevent fire apparatus from maneuvering without design changes. Chair (Speaker 3) said the design must demonstrate compliance: "The very definition of traditional townhouse is it is that it fronts on a street." The applicant said it has already met with the fire marshal and will address comments.
Residents filled the public comment period with specific operational concerns. Ernest Mont (2117 Georges Lane) called a proposed permanent ban on left turns from George’s Lane “idiotic,” saying left-turn restrictions would be impractical for longtime residents. John Kilpoyne (2143 Georges Lane) questioned the adequacy of parking, noting garages are often used for storage; the engineer responded that the plan provides, on average, 2.5 spaces per unit and that the design complies with the CMU ordinance parking range. Deborah Flores (2152 Georges Lane) and others said they worry about pedestrian safety crossing Route 611 and urged fencing and a bus shelter at an existing stop.
Commissioners also pressed the developer on traffic engineering: several suggested the applicant pursue a Highway Occupancy Permit with PennDOT and study signal timing or signal modifications to accommodate turning movements; applicant said preliminary contact with PennDOT has occurred but no formal HOP application had yet been filed. The commission highlighted the need for architecture (materials and colors) to comply with SALDO section 3.33 and asked that preliminary architecturals be provided when the applicant returns.
The project team asked the commission to treat this hearing as a request for feedback rather than a recommendation; commissioners agreed and requested plan revisions addressing fire access, street frontage, stormwater discharge details and traffic/PennDOT coordination. The applicant said it will revise the plans and return for further review.
