centre regional planning commission agenda6ad7e2dc-ece4-41cd-b8e1-bac6a6336348}/uploads/crpc...mar...
TRANSCRIPT
Serving the Townships of College, Ferguson, Halfmoon, Harris, Patton and the Borough of State College
The Centre Region is a Bicycle Friendly Community
CENTRE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
Centre Region Council of Governments Office Building
2643 Gateway Drive
Thursday
March 3, 2016
6:30 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER – Ms. Strickland will convene the meeting.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – February 4, 2016 minutes
3. CITIZENS’ COMMENTS – For items not on the agenda
4. REGIONAL INTEREST ITEMS – Commission members will report on activities.
5. CRPA ACTIVITY REPORT – Mr. May will report on items of interest from the CRPA Activity Report.
6. CONSENT AGENDA
a. Resolution for PennDOT/CRPC Master Agreement and Work Order Agreements – Centre County
b. Master Grant Agreement Between the CRPC and PennDOT – Centre County
7. GUEST PRESENTATIONS
None
8. ACTION AGENDA
a. Confirm participation in a joint meeting with the COG Transportation and Land Use Committee on April 4, 2016 at 12:15 p.m. in the COG Forum Room.
b. Workforce Housing Ordinance – Ferguson Township
c. Zoning Ordinance amendment to permit Personal Care Homes and Assisted Living Residences in the Traditional Town Development (TTD) District – Ferguson Township
9. POLICY AGENDA
a. Presentation regarding Designated Rural Areas Project – Harris Township
b. Results and Planning Commission Training Needs Survey – Centre Region
March 3, 2016
CRPC Meeting Agenda
Page 2 of 20
c. Draft CRPC Bylaws – Centre Region
d. Presentation of Comprehensive Plan Implementation Program (CHIP) Reviewing Draft Priority Projects for 2017 – Centre Region
10. COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS
a. Centre County Metropolitan Planning Organization (CCMPO) Report – Mr. Eich will report on activities of the CCMPO Coordinating Committee.
b. Water Liaison’s Report – Mr. Hoffman will report on recent activities of the State College Borough Water Authority.
c. Millbrook Marsh Nature Center Advisory Committee – Ms. Strickland will report on recent activities of the Millbrook Marsh Nature Centre Advisory Committee.
d. University Area Joint Authority (UAJA) Liaison’s Report – Mr. May will report on recent activities of the UAJA.
11. OTHER BUSINESS
a. Matter of Record – CRPC Comment Letters from the February 4, 2016 meeting:
College Township – Adult Day Care Ordinance O-16-02 Ferguson Township – Ordinance to allow additional uses in the Planned Residential
District (PRD)
b. Matter of Record – Ferguson Township Response to CRPC comments on amendments to the PRD Ordinance.
c. Matter of Record – UAJA letter to Mr. Jim Steff regarding UAJA halt to sewer design approvals pending nutrient management plan.
d. Matter of Record – Map of proposed UAJA pump station and proposed alignment of new force main and gravity sewers to improve operations in the vicinity of Grays Woods in Patton Township.
e. Matter of Record – Planning Fact Sheet on Solar Power
f. Matter of Record – Year-End 2015 CRPA/MPO Financial Report
g. Matter of Record – The CRPC will next meet at a joint meeting with the COG Transportation and Land Use (TLU) Committee on Monday, April 4, 2016 at 12:15 p.m. in the COG Forum Room. Tentative agenda items include a review of potential Comprehensive Plan Implementation Program (CHIP) priority projects for 2017.
12. ADJOURNMENT
March 3, 2016
CRPC Meeting Agenda
Page 3 of 20
ITEM 6a.
RESOLUTION FOR PENNDOT/CRPC MASTER AGREEMENT AND
WORK ORDER AGREEMENTS – presented by Tom Zilla
This item involves the approval of a resolution authorizing the CRPC Chair and Vice-Chair to execute a Master Agreement and periodic Work Order agreements with PennDOT in 2016, through which federal and state funding will be provided to the CRPA for the completion of work tasks on behalf of the Centre County Metropolitan Planning Organization (CCMPO).
THE ISSUE
The original agreement forming the CCMPO in 1982 designated the CRPC as being responsible for performing the technical work required to maintain the MPO’s long range transportation plan and program. Having been assigned the responsibility of completing technical analyses, the CRPC also assumed responsibility for contracting with PennDOT for federal and state funding provided to the Commission’s professional staff to complete the technical work. The CRPC is also responsible for executing contracts with outside consultants and vendors when federal and state funding is used to retain special services.
Historically, PennDOT has required the CRPC to approve a resolution that authorizes the Commission’s officers to execute a multi-year Master Agreement and periodic Work Order agreements with PennDOT. The Master Agreement and Work Orders provide the mechanism by which federal and state funding is provided to the CRPA for MPO-related work tasks.
An adopted resolution for 2016 must be included when the CRPA submits the CCMPO’s FY 2016-18 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) to PennDOT in early March.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS
This item has not been previously presented to the CRPC.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the CRPC approve a resolution authorizing the Commission Chair and Vice Chair to execute a Master Agreement and periodic Work Order agreements with PennDOT in 2016.
ATTACHMENT
1. Resolution 2016-01
RESOLUTION 2016-01
WHEREAS, the Centre Regional Planning Commission (CRPC) was formed on
September 1, 1960, organized under the Pennsylvania Regional Planning Law, Act of May 19,
1956, P.L. 1845 (53 P.S. 491 et seq.); and
WHEREAS, the CRPC continues to function as the Centre County Metropolitan
Planning Organization (CCMPO) Secretary; and
WHEREAS, as CCMPO Secretary, the CRPC is authorized to perform certain
transportation planning activities under contract with the Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation (PennDOT);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Centre Regional Planning
Commission:
1. That the Chair, Lisa Strickland, or in the absence of the Chair,
the Vice-Chair, Steve Watson, is authorized to execute a Master
Agreement and Work Orders on behalf of the CRPC with
PennDOT for highway and mass transit planning activities
funded through the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and U.S.
Department of Transportation.
2. That all transportation planning activities will be consistent with
the approved CCMPO Unified Planning Work Program
(UPWP), designed to maintain a planning process consistent
with the intent of Section 134 of Chapter 1 of Title 23, United
States Code.
CERTIFICATE
The undersigned duly qualified and Chairman of the Centre Regional Planning Commission
certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution, adopted at a legally
convened meeting of the Centre Regional Planning Commission held on March 3, 2016.
ATTEST:
______________________________ By ____________________________
James J. May, AICP Lisa M. Strickland
CRPA Director CRPC Chair
DATE: March 3, 2016
March 3, 2016
CRPC Meeting Agenda
Page 4 of 20
ITEM 6b.
MASTER GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CRPC AND PENNDOT
– presented by Tom Zilla This item involves the approval of a new Master Grant Agreement with PennDOT which will provide federal and state funding to the CRPA for the completion of transportation planning work tasks on behalf of the Centre County Metropolitan Planning Organization (CCMPO).
THE ISSUE
Since the formation of the CCMPO in 1982, the CRPC has served as the local agency which contracts with PennDOT to provide funding to the CRPA for the completion of CCMPO-related work tasks. Funding is authorized through the execution of a Master Grant Agreement and periodic Work Order agreements between the CRPC and PennDOT. The Master Agreement typically covers a multi-year period, and Work Orders are executed on an annual basis for each fiscal year. The current Master Agreement was approved in April 2009, took effect on July 1, 2010, and will expire on June 30, 2016. PennDOT has provided a new Master Agreement for the time period from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2022.
OTHER INFORMATION
Funding amounts and work tasks for the Master Agreement and future annual Work Orders will be established in the CCMPO’s Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP), which is adopted every two years. The UPWP forms the core section of the Master Agreement and annual Work Orders.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS
In April 2009, the CRPC approved and executed the current Master Agreement #520895 between the Commission and PennDOT. An amendment to the Master Agreement was approved and executed in April 2013 that changed the expiration date from June 30, 2014 to June 30, 2016. Several work orders covering the annual UPWPs have been approved by the CRPC and PennDOT since 2009.
In February 2016, the CRPC reviewed the CCMPO’s FY 2016-18 UPWP, which details the transportation planning tasks to be performed by the CRPA between July 2016 and June 2018. The CRPC recommended approval of the FY 2016-18 UPWP, which was adopted by the CCMPO Coordinating Committee on February 23, 2016. Year 1 of the FY 2016-18 UPWP will be included as Exhibit A in the fully-executed Master Agreement, and Year 2 and subsequent UPWPs will be attached through the annual Work Orders.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the CRPC approve Master Agreement #521171 between the Commission and PennDOT, and authorize the Chair or Vice Chair to execute the Agreement.
March 3, 2016
CRPC Meeting Agenda
Page 5 of 20
ATTACHMENT
1. Master Agreement #521171 (online)
March 3, 2016
CRPC Meeting Agenda
Page 6 of 20
ITEM 8b.
WORKFORCE HOUSING ORDINANCE – FERGUSON TOWNSHIP
– presented by Lindsay Schoch and David Pribulka
This item provides information on a proposed amendment to the Code of Ordinances, Chapter 27, Zoning in Ferguson Township related to the creation of a workforce housing program.
THE ISSUE
It is the intent of the Ordinance amendment to:
1. Provide a wide range of quality, affordable housing units for qualified buyers in the Township;
2. Ensure the continued affordability of established workforce housing units by creating a development agreement between the developer and the Township;
3. Provide criteria for workforce housing including, but not limited to, design, construction, phasing, and location within a development;
4. Effectively enforce and administer the provisions of the workforce housing program.
OTHER INFORMATION
The Ferguson Township Planning Commission received this item on February 8, 2016 and did
not recommend the proposed ordinance for adoption by the Ferguson Township Board of Supervisors.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS
There has been no previous action by the CRPC on this item.
CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
This request is consistent with the Centre Region Comprehensive Plan. Specifically:
Housing Variety & Affordability (p.56)
Goal 2 – In the Centre Region, a variety of housing types and prices is available to give
current and future residents greater choice in both ownership and rental opportunities.
Objective 2.1 – Promote strategies for development of residential neighborhoods
that incorporate an integrated mix of dwelling types and prices.
Objective 2.2 – Promote federal, state, county, and municipal programs that
facilitate the availability of affordable homeownership and rental housing
options.
March 3, 2016
CRPC Meeting Agenda
Page 7 of 20
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the CRPC support this item and direct staff to send a letter indicating such to the Ferguson Township Board of Supervisors.
Staff has attached the CRPA’s comment letter and two housing fact sheets in support of Ferguson Township’s proposed workforce housing ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Ordinance 2. CRPA Comment Letter 3. ACS Housing Data 4. Housing Profile for the Centre Region
CHAPTER 27 – SECTION 215. WORKFORCE HOUSING
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF FERGUSON, CENTRE COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA, AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 27,
ZONING, AS FOLLOWS: (1) AMENDING SECTION 701, TRADITIONAL TOWN
DEVELOPMENT, SUBSECTION 2, RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER TOWNSHIP
REQUIREMENTS BY ADDING CHAPTER 27, SECTION 215, AND (2)
ESTABLISHING SECTION 215, WORKFORCE HOUSING.
Chapter 27 - Section 215
Section 215.1. Intent. It is the intent of these regulations to:
A. Provide a wide range of quality, affordable housing units for qualified buyers in the Township;
B. Ensure the continued affordability of established workforce housing units by creating a development agreement between the developer and the Township;
C. Provide criteria for workforce housing including, but not limited to, design, construction, phasing, and location within a development;
D. Effectively enforce and administer the provisions of the workforce housing program.
Section 215.2. Applicability.
The provisions of this ordinance shall apply to any zoning district within the Township where workforce housing is a requirement of a proposed development project. Provisions regarding the ratio of workforce housing units to market rate units, and incentives related to the establishment of workforce housing units may be found in the applicable zoning district regulations governing the specific development project.
Section 215.3. Definitions.
Median Household Income – The median income for Centre County as established and defined in the annual schedule published by the Secretary of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Workforce Housing Unit – Housing that is affordable for someone earning between 80% and 120% of the median household income for Centre County as established by the latest Income Guidelines defined in the annual schedule published by the Secretary of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. Housing shall be deemed affordable provided that costs of such housing including mortgage,
amortization, taxes, insurance, and condominium or association fees, if applicable, constitute no more than 30 percent of such gross annual household income for a household size that may occupy the unit in question.
Workforce Housing Development Agreement – A written agreement duly executed between the applicant for a development, the Township, and the designated third party administrator of the workforce housing program. Said agreement shall include all of the provisions established in Section 215.5.
Section 215.4. Administration and Enforcement.
The Board of Supervisors may, at its sole discretion and by resolution, authorize a third party administrator of the workforce housing program. The designated third party shall have the authority to administer the provisions of the workforce housing development agreement. The cost of said administration shall be the responsibility of the property owner and subsequent property owners throughout the lifetime of the property in the affordable housing program.
The Township shall have the authority to enforce the provisions of the workforce housing program. It shall be incumbent on the developer to ensure compliance with all aspects of the workforce housing program as prescribed in this ordinance.
Section 215.5. Workforce Housing Requirements.
In developments where the provision of workforce housing is required, the following conditions shall apply:
A. Workforce housing shall not be segregated or clustered within a development;
B. Workforce housing units shall be like market-rate units with regard to number of bedrooms, amenities, and access to amenities, but may be permitted to differ from market-rate units in a development with regard to interior amenities, provided that:
i. These differences, excluding differences related to size differentials, are not apparent in the general interior and exterior appearance of the development’s units; and
ii. These differences do not include insulation, windows, heating systems, and other improvements related to the energy efficiency and standard components of the development’s units;
C. No more than two adjacent lots shall contain workforce housing units;
D. No more than four lots along any block width or block length may contain such
units;
E. Principle Place of Residence. Unless purchased by the Township or transferred to a third party to hold in trust, all workforce housing units constructed as part of a development shall be offered for sale to a qualified household to be used as its primary place of residence;
F. Workforce Housing Development Agreement. No zoning permit shall be issued to a development in which workforce housing units are required unless the applicant for development shall have entered into a workforce housing development agreement that contains, at minimum, the provisions established in Section 215.5.
Section 215.6. Workforce Housing Development Agreement.
For developments required by this ordinance to include workforce housing units, no zoning permit shall be issued for said development without having first duly executed a workforce housing development agreement. Ferguson Township, the applicant for development, and the administrator of the workforce housing program established by this ordinance shall each be parties to the agreement. The agreement shall, at minimum, contain the following provisions:
A. A statement from the designated administrator of the workforce housing program that the workforce housing units are consistent with the definition of workforce housing units in Section 3., above;
B. The location, zoning designation, and ownership of the project;
C. The number and type of workforce housing units that will be provided and the calculations used to determine the number of units, including any incentives that were employed to reduce the requirement of workforce housing units or additional workforce housing units provided to reduce the requirement of another provision of the zoning ordinance, where applicable;
D. A description of the development proposed, including the name of the development project and marketing name, if different from the name submitted to the Township, and a site plan or preliminary subdivision or land development plan of the project;
E. The exact location of workforce housing units within the proposed development including lot number;
F. A schedule, binding on the developer or property owner, for the construction of the workforce housing units. For phased developments, a phasing plan for the construction of the workforce housing units and market rate units that is consistent with the preliminary subdivision and land development plan of the proposed development;
G. The proposed sale prices and affordability restrictions for each workforce housing unit and a copy of the applicable affordability deed restrictions or covenants;
H. Indication of which, if any, of the workforce housing units will be special needs housing for seniors, disabled, or other special needs populations and a description of the unique features or services for that population;
I. Indication as to whether the developer or a third party will be constructing the workforce housing units. If a third party is to construct the housing units, a separate development agreement or other binding legal document between the developer and the third party must be submitted with the workforce housing development agreement;
J. Acknowledgement that the certificates of occupancy for the last ten percent (10%) of the market rate units shall be withheld until the certificates of occupancy for all of the workforce housing units have been issued.
K. Acknowledgement that the designated workforce housing administrator of the Township’s workforce housing program shall have full authority to enforce the provisions of the workforce housing development agreement.
The workforce housing development agreement shall be reviewed by the Township Solicitor, and included as a condition of approval of the subdivision or land development plan. Revisions to the workforce housing development agreement shall be submitted in writing and shall require approval of the Board of Supervisors. Approved revisions shall be affixed to the workforce housing development agreement and recorded as an amended to the subdivision or land development plan.
Section 215.7. Continued Affordability.
The continuity of workforce housing units in the workforce housing program shall be ensured for a period of 99 years commencing the date of the approved certificate of occupancy for the unit. To provide for the continuity of workforce housing units, a
restriction shall be placed on the deed of the property, which shall read as follows: “This property is to remain affordable for a period of 99 years for persons earning between 80% and 120% of the median household income for Centre County as established by the latest Income Guidelines defined in the annual schedule published by the Secretary of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.”
Prospective buyers shall enter into a legally binding agreement with the designated administrator of the workforce housing program that will stipulate the process for certifying subsequent buyers of affordable housing units for the applicable 99-year period, and the amount of equity able to be recouped by the homeowner upon sale of the workforce housing unit. The designated administrator of the workforce housing program shall have the authority to require additional stipulations in the agreement including, but not limited to, the requirement of prospective buyers to participate in financial counseling in accordance with the procedures and requirements of the designated administrator.
Serving the Townships of College, Ferguson, Halfmoon, Harris, Patton and the Borough of State College
The Centre Region is a Bicycle Friendly Community
CENTRE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY 2643 Gateway Drive, Suite #4 State College, PA 16801 Phone: (814) 231-3050 Fax: (814) 231-3083 www.crcog.net
February 25, 2016
TO: Lindsay Schoch Community Planner FROM: Autumn Radle Senior Planner RE: REGIONAL REVIEW OF ZONING AMENDMENT – WORKFORCE HOUSING
The Centre Regional Planning Agency received a request from Ferguson Township to review a proposed zoning ordinance amendment on Wednesday February 10, 2016. This review is intended to fulfill the requirements of the Centre Region’s Agreement of Relationship (dated March 16, 1982) with the Centre County Planning Commission, relative to the provisions of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code. It is the intent of this zoning ordinance to:
1. Provide a wide range of quality, affordable housing units for qualified buyers in the Township;
2. Ensure the continued affordability of established workforce housing units by creating a development agreement between the developer and the Township;
3. Provide criteria for workforce housing including, but not limited to, design, construction, phasing, and location within a development;
4. Effectively enforce and administer the provisions of the workforce housing program.
Based on our review, the CRPA finds the proposed zoning ordinance amendment is consistent with the goals and objectives of the 2013 Centre Region Comprehensive Plan – specifically: Housing Variety and Affordability (p.56)
Goal 2 – In the Centre Region, a variety of housing types and prices is available to give current
and future residents greater choice in both ownership and rental opportunities.
Objective 2.1 – Promote strategies for development of residential neighborhoods that
incorporate an integrated mix of dwelling types and prices.
CRPA Regional Review Workforce Housing Ordinance
Ferguson Township February 25, 2016
Page 2 of 2
Objective 2.2 – Promote federal, state, county, and municipal programs that facilitate
the availability of affordable homeownership and rental housing options.
CRPA strongly supports this ordinance amendment and offers the following comments: There are several studies documenting the affordable housing shortage in Centre County including the Affordable Housing Needs Assessment (2005) and the Housing Market Study that was commissioned by the Centre County Housing and Land Trust in 2010. The conclusions of both studies overwhelming found that there is a housing affordability gap in Centre County. Market conditions make it difficult for many prospective residents--including young professionals, new families, and workers who provide essential services to the community--to afford a place to live in Centre County. In many cases, households earning the area median income cannot afford a median-priced home. A recent issue in the Centre Region has been the closing or repurposing of a number of affordable housing projects for other uses. These types of closings indicate the fragility of the affordable housing market when there is no permanence to the inventory of affordable housing. This ordinance would permanently provide 91 affordable dwelling units in Ferguson Township that are located near existing schools, health care facilities, services, transportation routes, and jobs. The CRPA believes this ordinance is consistent with the intent of the provision in the TTD and will help alleviate the lack of permanently affordable housing in the Centre Region. CRPA considers this ordinance amendment to be a bold step in addressing the affordability gap in the Centre Region and praises Ferguson Township for their proactive efforts. Workforce housing contributes to the health and economic diversity of our region, helps provides a stable workforce for employers, and can help build stronger communities by allowing more family time by reducing commuting distances Two attachments are included for your review and consideration. The first is a summary of ACS data and the second is a housing profile for the Centre Region. If you have any questions regarding the above information please contact us at 814.231.3050. Cc: Bob Jacobs, AICP, CCPCDO Jim May, AICP, CRPA Correspondence File
College Ferguson Halfmoon Harris Patton
State
College
Centre
County
Total Housing Units 4,054 7,704 978 2,110 6,763 13,957 63,562 Occupied Housing 3,812 7,371 933 1,949 6,217 12,515 57,197 Vacant Housing 242 333 45 161 546 1,442 6,365
Units in Structure 4,054 7,704 978 2,110 6,763 13,957 63,562 1 Unit Detached 2,838 4,490 934 1,626 2,748 3,322 36,936 1 Unit Attached 344 823 - 259 997 913 4,401 2 Units 246 208 4 51 127 687 2,269 3-9 Units 223 754 - 131 560 1,993 5,067 10+ Units 324 1,197 - 34 2,118 6,976 11,440 Mobile Home, Boat, RV 79 232 40 9 213 66 3,449
Owner Occupied 2,745 4,431 874 1,425 2,841 2,586 34,070 Renter Occupied 1,067 2,940 59 524 3,376 9,929 23,127 Percent Renter 28% 40% 6% 27% 54% 79% 40%
Median Value Owner Occupied $228,600 $244,000 $278,100 $238,000 $231,900 $267,600 $192,600Median Selected Monthly Owner Costs* $1,584 $1,601 $1,757 $1,692 $1,653 $1,715 $1,440Owner Costs as % of Household Income
Less than 30% 2,256 3,745 699 1,127 2,311 2,061 26,980 More than 30% 489 686 175 298 530 508 6,978 % More than 30%** 18% 15% 20% 21% 19% 20% 20%
Median Gross Rent $829 $886 $724 $1,023 $1,062 $908 $872Rental Costs as % of Household Income
Less than 30% 643 1,135 22 254 1,278 2,763 8,702 More than 30% 336 1,606 13 229 1,836 6,392 12,405 % More than 30%** 31% 55% 22% 44% 54% 64% 54%
3/3/2015
Selected Housing Characteristics
2009-2013 American Community Survey (5 year estimates)
* Mortgage, Home Equity, Taxes, Insurance, Condo/Mobile Lease, Utilities (gas, electric, water, other)** More than 30% of Household Income Needed for Housing Costs is considered "Housing Burdened"
CENTRE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY
2643 Gateway Drive, Suite #4 State College, PA 16801
Phone: (814) 231-3050 Fax: (814) 231-3083 www.crcog.net
Prepared by the Centre Regional Planning Agency 06/30/15
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
Where are the 25-34 Year Old Home Owners?
Region-wide, only 24% of 25-34 year olds are home owners. While the delay in purchasing a home is a national trend, the Centre Region is experiencing a lower percentage of 25-34 year old home owners than Pennsylvania or the nation as a whole. In PA and the U.S. this percentage is 47% and 42%, respectively. Many factors affect this statistic, including the affordability gap between home prices and income, student loan debt and volatility in job security, to name a few.
$20,340 $27,090
$34,900 $41,200
$47,200
$58,580
$68,870
$74,430
$145,820
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
$160,000
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
HomeHealth Aides
Retail Clerks AutoMechanic
Electrician Billing Clerk Teacher PoliceOfficer
PhysicalTherapist
FamilyPhysician
An
nu
al In
com
e A
mo
un
ts
Ho
me
Pri
ces
Home Buying Affordability*
Median Sales Price**
Annual Income***
* Home Buying Affordability Assumes - 30% of income, $5,000 down, and $250 in monthly debt - Zillow** Median Sale Price for State College, 2014 - Zillow*** PA Occupational Wages for State College MSA, May 2013
Median Sales Price
How Much House Can I Afford?
Median Home Values (OWNER OCCUPIED) Municipality 2013 2010 2000 1990
College Township $228,600 $223,400 $134,100 $90,400
Ferguson Township $244,000 $226,500 $144,900 $95,700
Halfmoon Township $278,100 $236,500 $148,400 $89,700
Harris Township $238,000 $226,400 $154,100 $98,500
Patton Township $231,900 $198,300 $140,100 $101,500
State College Borough $267,600 $237,900 $154,600 $115,800
Source: American Community Survey (2013 and 2010); U.S. Census (1990 and 2000)
Two-Family – 13.1% Multi Family – 40.2% Single Family – 46.7% Owner-occupied housing represents a majority of housing stock elsewhere in the country, but not in the Centre Region, where rental housing represents 55% of all housing stock.
Percent of Housing Types In the Centre Region
45%
70%
65%
55%
30%35%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Centre Region Pennsylvania USA
% Owner
% Renter
Percent Owner/Renter in the Centre Region
Prepared by the Centre Regional Planning Agency 06/30/15
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
Persons Per Household
Housing Unit Construction Activity (BY MUNICIPALITY)
Note: The full decade of data from 2010 through 2020 is not yet available, so this chart ends with the 2009 data. To date over 200 housing units have been built region-wide in the four year period 2010-2013.
22%
30%
48%
Pre 1960 1960-1979 1980-2013
Age of Centre Region Housing Stock
Source: 2013 American Community Survey
Source: 2013 American Community Survey
Source: 2013 American Community Survey
Gas – 33.9%
Electricity – 47.8%
Oil – 14.2%
Coal – .7%
Wood – 2.1%
Solar/Other – 1.2%
Percent Heating Fuel by Type in the Centre Region
2.15
2.20
2.25
2.30
2.35
2.40
2.45
2.50
2.55
2.60
2.65
2.70
Centre Region Pennsylvania USA
# o
f P
ers
on
s
1990
2000
2010
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
Pre 1950 1950-1959 1960-1969 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2009
# H
ou
sin
g U
nit
s
College Township
Ferguson Township
Halfmoon Township
Harris Township
Patton Township
State College Borough
March 3, 2016
CRPC Meeting Agenda
Page 8 of 20
ITEM 8c.
AMENDMENT TO PERMIT PERSONAL CARE HOMES AND ASSISTED LIVING
RESIDENCES IN THE TRADITIONAL TOWN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT IN
FERGUSON TOWNSHIP – presented by Lindsay Schoch
This item provides information on an amendment to the Traditional Town Development (TTD) District of Ferguson Township to allow personal care homes and assisted living residences as allowable uses.
THE ISSUE
The proposed request allows for personal care homes and assisted living residences in the Traditional Town Development (TTD) District. Currently, these uses are prohibited. The request was made by State College AL Investors, LLC, with the permission of the owners of the development, Circleville Road Partners. This request will affect the entire TTD. In particular, the request includes a reduction in the parking requirements from 1.5 spaces/unit to 0.75 spaces/unit. The Township Engineer has stated that a traffic impact study would not be required for this development.
OTHER INFORMATION
The Ferguson Township Planning Commission heard a presentation from Smith/Packet, the developer, and recommended that Ferguson Township staff move forward with drafting an amendment for this change. The Ferguson Township Board of Supervisors also heard the same presentation and voted 3-1 to have staff move forward with drafting an amendment.
The Ferguson Township Planning Commission will be reviewing this Amendment at its meeting on March 14, 2016.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS
There has been no previous action by the CRPC on this item.
CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
This request is consistent with the Centre Region Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is generally supportive of this amendment; however, we recommend that CRPC review CRPA’s comment letter (Attachment 4) and consider the proposed revisions therein before directing staff to send a letter indicating support to the Ferguson Township Board of Supervisors.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Ordinance 2. Application for Ordinance Amendment 3. Location Map 4. CRPA Comment Letter
ORDINANCE NO._______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF FERGUSON, CENTRE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 27, ZONING, IN PARTICULAR, THE
TRADITIONAL TOWN DEVELOPMENT (TTD) DISTRICT, TO ELIMINATE PERSONAL CARE HOMES
FROM PROHIBITED USES AND RESTRICT THE CONVERSION OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS INTO
PERSONAL CARE HOMES OR ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES; UPDATE THE EXISTING DEFINITION
FOR PERSONAL CARE HOME; ADD A DEFINITION FOR ASSISTED LIVING RESIDENCE; AND
INCLUDE PERSONAL CARE HOME AND ASSISTED LIVING RESIDENCE IN RESIDENTIAL USES
WITHIN THE TRADITIONAL TOWN DEVELOPMENT SECTION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
The Board of Supervisors of the Township of Ferguson hereby ordains:
Section 1: Chapter 27, Zoning, Part 7, Traditional Town Development, Section 27-701.4.A(1)(d)
Prohibited Uses is hereby amended to eliminate personal care homes and include the
conversion of residential buildings into personal care homes or assisted living facilities.
Section 1: Chapter 27, Zoning, Part 7, Traditional Town Development is hereby amended to
include Personal Care Homes and Assisted Living Residence.
Section 1: Chapter 27, Zoning, Part 8, Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations, Section
27.809.B(4)(D) is hereby amended to replace the current parking requirements for personal
care homes to 0.75 spaces per unit.
Section 1: Chapter 27, Zoning, Part 12, Definitions is hereby amended to remove the existing
definition of Personal Care Home and include the following definitions: Personal Care Home: i.
A premise in which food, shelter and personal assistance or supervision are proved for a period
exceeding 24 hours, for four or more adults who are not relatives of the operator, who do not
require the services in or of a licensed long-term care facility, but who do require assistance or
supervision in activities of daily living or instrumental activities of daily living. ii. The term
includes a premise that has held or presently holds itself out as a personal care home and
provides food and shelter to four or more adults who need personal care services, but who are
not receiving the services. And Assisted Living Residence: any premises in which food, shelter,
assisted living services, assistance or supervision and supplemental health care services are
provided for a period exceeding 24-hours for four or more adults who are not relatives of the
operator, who require assistance or supervision in matters such as dressing, bathing, diet,
financial management, evacuation from the residence in the event of an emergency or
medication prescribed for self-administration.
The Board of Supervisors of the Township of Ferguson herby ordains:
ORDAINED AND ENACTED THIS _____ DAY OF ________________, 2016
FERGUSON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
_____________________________________________
Steve Miller, Chairman
ATTEST:
________________________
Mark A. Kunkle, Secretary
RECEIVED FEB - 5 ZOlli
APPLICATION FOR PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Ferguson Township, Centre County
Date Application Submitted: February 4,2016
Subject of Proposed Ordinance Amendment: PCH and Assisted Living Residence in TTD Zoning
Applicant Name: State College AL Investors, LLC
Address: Roanoke, VA 24014
Phone: 540-774-7762 Fax: 540-772-6470 E-Mail: [email protected]
Chapter I Section of Existing Ordinance to be Amended: 27-701.4.A.(1)(d)
Description of Proposed Ordinance Amendment: Amend Chapter 27-701.4.A.(1)(d) to allow
"Personal Care Homes." Also to add "Personal Care Homes/Assisted Living Residences" to Chapter
27-701.4.A Land Use Standards as "(7) Personal Care Home/Assisted Living Residence."
Describe Reason for Ordinance Amendment: Currently no Personal Care Homes or Asssisted
Living Residences are allowed in TTD Zoning, prohibiting a valuable community benefit.
Signature of Applicant: tff--------------------Date Fee Paid: _______________ Amount: ________ _
Note: To be considered on a Board agenda, this application along with the required fee (see Township Fee Schedule) must be submitted to the Township a minimum of 7 days in advance of the Board meeting at which the applicant wishes to attend. The fee is non-refundable.
Smith/P ackett
January 7, 2016
Mark Kunkle, Township Manager, Ferguson Township Ray Stolinas Jr., Director of Planning and Zoning, Ferguson Township 3147 Research Drive State College, PA 16801
RE: The Crossings at State College, Circleville Road A New Personal Care Facility with a Dedicated Memory Care Wing in State College, P A
Dear Mr. Kunkle and Mr. Stolinas,
Thank you for taking the time to speak with me yesterday regar<;ling our proposed development in State College. In anticipation of our application for a text amendment to the Traditional Town Ordinance to allow a Personal Care facility in Ferguson Township, I wanted to follow up with some information about our companies and our proposed project.
Smith/Packett has been one of the most well respected healthcare firms in the United States for the last 35 years (http://www.smithpacl<ett.coml).OurCEO.JamesR.Smith. has served on the Virginia Medicaid Board and on the Board of Visitors for Virginia Tech. Our passion for seniors has driven us to continue to be the best in class via design, service, and innovative programs. Our sister company, Harmony Senior Services, will manage the facility (http://www.harmonyseniorservices.coml). We founded Harmony to fulfill our commitment to serve our seniors in an inviting and hospitable setting. Harmony's mission is to "Put our passion for life to work creating and managing thriving communities where seniors can enjoy the comforts a/home, Ihe care a/professionals and the energl) a/life."
Harmony Senior Services would value the opportunity to become part of the State College cOinmunify". Harmony currently operates ten communities in the Mid-Atlantic, with seven additional communities under construction. Smith/Packett and Harmony are also currently in pre-construction on a similar facility in Harrisburg, P A.
Our use is unique because it combines hospitality and office uses with a healthcare component. Qur facility will offer levels of care to meet the individual needs of our residents: Assisted Living (Personal Care), and Harmony Square, which is dedicated to providing special services for tl10se residents with Alzheimel" s disease and other forms of dementia. The ability for us to offer someone the opportunity to age in place is unique and provides a S€IlSe of security as well as a feeling' of home. Unlike other current providers in the Ferguson Township area, we are not a continuing care retirement community which cl1arges a large upfront fee. Because our
4423 PHEASANT RIDGE ROAD, S.W .. SUITE 301, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24014· PHONE 540.774.7762· FAX 540.772.6470 www,smllhpackett.com
and site plan review fees. Our community will not house any children and therefore will not place any additional demand or burden 01). State College Area School District. According to a Fiscal Impact Analysis performed by Ted Figura Consulting for a new:ly opened 174 unit project, for every dollar the municipality will spend to provide utilities and services to the project over its first five years, $6.50 in revenue is generated to the municipality.
Ferguson ~ownship is special and. we intend to build a community that will be a model for others, providing best-in-c1ass services to oUI'residents. CUI'rently, this area of Centre County is imderserved, and tlns location will allow us to build a relationslnp with Mount Nittany H;e.alth and Penn State College of Medicine, which will be of significant benefit to our residents. We will design the building and its intel'ior to complement the Blue COUI'se Dl'ive corridor, and we will do an outstanding job of taking care of tlle seniors in tlUs community. At the same time, we commit to being a good neighbor to the community-at-Iarge. Please let me know of any questions or feedback you might have.
Please reach out to Justin Newman or Winn Bishop Witll any questions or concerns by phone at 540-774-7762 or bye-mail [email protected]@smithpackett.com. We would be happy to meet witll Planning and Zoning staff at yOUI' offices to further discuss our use and our proposed project with you at your convenience.
Sincerely, ,,-
(U!~ Winn Bishop Senior Vice President, Development and Construction Smith/Packett Med-Com, LLC
February 10, 2016
Mark Kunkle, Township Manager
Ferguson Township 3147 Research Drive State College, PA 168m
RE: Ordinance Amendment and Master Plan Amendment To Allow a 120 Units of Personal Care Home and Assisted Living Residence on Parcels 1 and 2R of the Turnberry TTD
Dear Mr. Kunkle,
This letter is to serve as acknowledgement and endorsement by Circleville Road Partners, E, LP of the Ordinance Amendment application submitted by State College AL Investors, LLC to allow a Personal Care Home with Assisted Living Residence in the TID zoning. The Board of Supervisors will meet on February 16th to discuss authorizing staff to develop language to allow a Personal Care Home with Assisted Living Residence in the TTD zoning, and as the Owner of this property we strongly encourage the Board of Supervisors to approve this agenda item.
We understand that the Board of Supervisors will also consider in the future a Master Plan Amendment to allow 120 Units of Personal Care Home and Assisted Living Residence in the Turnbel'ry TID on Parcels 1 and 2R, which are currently approved for 120 Units of Senior Living. Also, the Phasing of the Turnberry TID Master Plan must be amended to accommodate the timely development of this project. Circleville Road Partners E, LP is aware of this Master Plan Amendment and provides our full support. Furthermore, we encourage the acceptance of the amendment as a Minor Master Plan Amendment by the Board of Supervisors due to the fact that this is a similar use, but one that will place less demand on surrounding infrastructure.
Please reach out with any questions or concerns. Additionally, Justin Newman or Winn Bishop with State College AL Investors, LLC can be reached by phone at 540-774-7762 or bye-mail at [email protected] [email protected].
Sincerely,
Wiffiam-}.-beef<e, Viee Preside] It . ~'b e. t-\~E.I PR~lb.EJl.slr
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
TOWNSHIP Of fERGUSON 3'147 Research Drive. State College, Pennsylvania '1680'1
Telephone: 814-238-4651 ' Fax: 814-238-3454 www.twp.ferguson.pa.us
Lindsay Schoch, Community Planner
Ron Seybert, Township E~eA~ " / _ ~
February 17, 2016 ~.£V=-G-~ I Turnberry TID, Senior Housing Change Traffic Impact Study Requirement Review
It is my understanding that Circleville Partners is requesting to change the Senior Apartments located with the Turnberry TID to an Assisted Living Facility (aka Personal Care Home). It is my understanding that the number of apartments currently approved on the TID Master Plan is 120, and the proposed number of beds for the assisted living facility would also be 120.
An evaluation of peak hour trips for each of these land uses is tabulated below utilizing information in ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition.
AIVIl'eak PIVIPeak Land Use
Ceide Description
Street.GenE!rator Street Generator
252 Senior Adult Housing - Attached 120 24 41 30 38
254 Assisted Living 120 17 22 26 41
Net Change -7 -19 -4 3
The projected number of peak hour trips under the proposed land use is less than that which should have been included in the traffic impact study completed for the original TID. That study was completed in 2010 and had a horizon year of 2030. Further, the projected change in the number of trips for each peak hour does not exceed the 75 peak hour trip threshold to require a traffic impact study under the Township's Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance. Also, I am not aware of any traffic deficiencies in the vicinity of the proposed use that might necessitate a traffic impact study.
Based upon the above information, a Traffic Impact Study is not required to be completed for this proposed change in use. Please contact me if you have any questions.
Copy: Turnberry TTD Senior Housing Change File
A Home Rule Ivfunicipality -
Schoch,Lindsay
From: Kunkle,Mark Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2016 11:47 AM To: Ce:
Miller,Steve; Buckland,Peter; Whitaker,Janet; Dininni,Laura Stolinas,Raymond; Schoch,Lindsay; Ressler,Jeff
Subject: FW: Feb l'st Supervisor's meeting: TOpic: Assisted Living Residence
Good morning all: Laura had provided me with the email information below that provides good information about assisted living facilities which is very timely as the Board and PC consider changes to the TTD zoning district. Mark
Mark A. Kunkle Ferguson Township Manager 3147 Research Drive State College, PA 814-238-4651 (p) 814-238-3454 (fax) www.twp.ferguson.pa.us
CDnstantContad<l>-q~:;~ Visit the Township's Web Site and sign up for Notify Me! to
receive email notices about Township information. IMPORTANT WARNING: The information in this message (and the documents attached to it, if any) is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is in.tended solely for the addressee. Access to this message by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken, or omitted to be taken, in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this message in error, please delete all electronic copies of this message (and the documents attached to it, if any), destroy any hard copies you may have created and notify me immediately by replying to this email. Thank you.
From: Dininni,Laura Sent: Wednesday, February 03,20163:56 PM To: Kunkle,Mark Subject: Fw: Feb l'st Supervisor's meeting: Topic: Assisted Living Residence
My mom just retired from PA Dept of Welfare investigations and I'd like to forward her insight on ALR vs PCH to the other supes. Can I do that? All of them at once or? Thanks
From: Laura Dininni <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 3:42:04 PM To: Dininni,Laura Subject: Fwd: Feb l'st Supervisor's meeting: Topic: Assisted Living Residence
Begin forwarded message:
1
From: Cdininnilalaol.com Date: February 3, 2016 at 2:46:31 PM EST To: [email protected] Subject: Feb 1 'st Supervisor's meeting: Topic: Assisted Living Residence
Hi there, I watched your Feb 1 'st Supervisor's meeting; you did great! The topic of the proposed Assisted Living Residence (ALR) & memory unit was of interest to me since my Bureau was sometimes involved with them. I noted that sometimes it was also referred to as a personal care home (PCH). Sharing information about the differences between the 2. I also found some information re the cost of ALR in PA. Medicare does not cover the costs!
ALRs are different from PCHs in 3 ways: concept, construction and level of care. ALRs embody the concept of allowing a resident to "age in place" without having to move to a licensed long-term care facility when their needs increase.
The construction of an ALR is different from a PCH. PCH residents live in bedrooms that may be shared by up to 4 people. ALR residents will have living units with kitchen capacity. No one will be forced to share a living unit. Living units will have a door with a lock and a private bathroom. This housing-service model will allow for privacy and maximum independence. It is similar to a studio apartment where the resident can make meals if desired and have a private bathroom.
The level of care provided in an ALR is distinguishable from a PCH, offering another choice of longterm living options in the commonwealth. A person who needs the level of care of a nursing facility must transfer when their needs become too great. That same person, however, will be able to live in an ALR where they'll be provided with the services they need to age in place.
A. PERSONAL CARE HOMES
Regulations: CHAPTER 2600. PERSONAL CARE HOMEShttp://www.pacode.com/secure/data/055/chapter2600/chap2600toc.html
Excerpt-Defillitions
Personal care home or home:
(i) A premise in which food, shelter and personal assistance or supervision are provided for a period exceeding 24 hours, for four or more adults who are not relatives of the operator, who do not require the services in or of a licensed long-term care facility, but who do require assistance or supervision in activities of daily living or instrumental activities of daily living.
(ii) The term includes a premise that has held or presently holds itself out as a personal care home and provides food and shelter to four or more adults who need personal care services, but who are not receiving the services.
Personal care services: Assistance or supervision in ADL or IADL, or both.
Licensing: From DPW (now DHS) website: http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=4005&&PagelD=432805&mode=2
PersonaL Care Homes Requires: License PA Department of Public Welfare Division ofPersonaJ Care Homes (717) 783-3670 Email - welfare@pagov
2
PCH Training: http://www.br.psu.edu/CE/26661.htm
Personal Care Homes In Pennsylvania: A Guide for Advocates: http://www.phlp.org/wp-contentluploads/2011/03/PCH manual-for-advocates-Feb-20071. pdf
B. ASSISTED LIVING Regulations: Chapter 2800. Assisted Living Residences: http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/055/chapter2800/chap2800toc.htmI
Excerpt-Definitions
Assisted living residence or residence-Any premises in which food, shelter, assisted living services, assistance or supervision and supplemental health care services are provided for a period exceeding 24-hours for four or more adults who are not relatives of the operator, who require assistance or supervision in matters such as dressing, bathing, diet, financial management, evacuation from the residence in the event of an emergency or medication prescribed for selfadministration.
Assisted living services-Services as defined in § 2800.220(b) (relating to service provision).
Licensing: From DPW (now DHS) website:
http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.ptlcommu n itv/reg ulations/17888/assisted living reg u lations/716095
Cost of Assisted Living in PA
http://www.dibbern.com/assisted-living/pennsylvania/cost-for-pennsylvania-assisted-living.htm
http://www.seniorhomes.com/s/pennsylvania/assisted-Iiving/
ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES IN STATE COLLEGE
https:/Iwww.retirementhomes.com/cgibin/homes/search.cgi?HomeType-Assisted+Living&HomeState=Pennsylvania&HomeCity=State+College&Search=Searc h
Love, Mom
3
Serving the Townships of College, Ferguson, Halfmoon, Harris, Patton and the Borough of State College
The Centre Region is a Bicycle Friendly Community
CENTRE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY 2643 Gateway Drive, Suite #4 State College, PA 16801 Phone: (814) 231-3050 Fax: (814) 231-3083 www.crcog.net
February 24, 2016 TO: Lindsay Schoch Community Planner FROM: Autumn Radle Senior Planner RE: Amendment to Permit Personal Care Homes and Assisted Living Residences
in the Traditional Town Development District in Ferguson Township
The Centre Regional Planning Agency received a request from Ferguson Township to review a proposed zoning ordinance amendment to the Traditional Town Development district on February 22, 2016. This review is intended to fulfill the requirements of the Centre Region’s Agreement of Relationship (dated March 16, 1982) with the Centre County Planning Commission, relative to the provisions of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code. The amendment would allow Personal Care Homes and Assisted Living Residences in the TTD; currently, these uses are prohibited. Definitions of Personal Care Homes and Assisted Living Residences would be added to Chapter 27, Zoning, Part 12, Definitions. The Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations (Section 27.809.B(4)(D)) would also be amended to replace the current parking requirements for personal care homes from 1.0 space per unit to 0.75 spaces per unit. Based on our review, the CRPA finds the proposed zoning ordinance amendment is consistent with the goals and objectives of the 2013 Centre Region Comprehensive Plan and staff is generally supportive of the amendment. We offer the following comments for your consideration:
1. The introduction of the draft ordinance includes the following: “RESTRICT THE
CONVERSION OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS INTO PERSONAL CARE
HOMES OR ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES;” but it is unclear in the remainder of the proposed ordinance amendment, where or how that is addressed.
CRPA Regional Review TTD – Zoning Amendment
Ferguson Township February 24, 2016
Page 2 of 3
2. Under the definition of Personal Care Home it states: “The term includes a premise that has held or presently holds itself out as a personal care home and provides food and shelter to four or more adults who need personal care services, but who are not receiving the services.” CRPA staff is unclear what this means, particularly the reference to those ‘who are not receiving services.’
3. Definitions are provided for Personal Care Homes and Assisted Living Residences in the ordinance amendment, but CRPA staff is unclear as to the specific similarities or differences between the two and whether both uses could be housed within one building. Does the difference hinge on licensing from the PA Department of Human Services and/or the administration of medication? Licensing does not appear to be required for a Personal Care Home, but would be required for Assisted Living Residence (per the definition on the PA Department of Human Services website - but this is not explicitly stated in the definition).
a. Moreover, the applicant (Smith/Packett) does not distinguish between Personal Care and Assisted Living, but does distinguish between this use and their Harmony Square, which is “dedicated to providing special services for those residents with Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of dementia.” What use would Harmony Square fall under within the Township’s proposed definitions?
b. CRPA recommends revising the definitions to either combine all of these similar uses into one, or to be more precise in distinguishing between them, being sure to include the type of service proposed for Harmony Square. According to the PA Department of Human Services:
Nursing homes are licensed medical facilities that are inspected and licensed by the Pennsylvania Department of Health. They must meet both state and federal regulations. There is third party reimbursement (Medicare and Medicaid) for those who qualify based on income.
Personal care homes are residential facilities that offer personal care services, assistance and supervision to four or more persons. They are inspected and licensed by the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services. Sometimes they are advertised as "assisted living residences," "retirement homes" or "boarding homes." A personal care home must have a license in order to operate in Pennsylvania. There are state licensing regulations that apply to personal care homes.
4. CRPA agrees with the reduction in parking requirements, however basing the requirements on a per unit basis is not illustrative given that there is no mention of unit occupancy limits– i.e. are units limited to one person, or can a unit accommodate two or more people? If a there is a limit of one person per unit, then the requirements still seem excessive because presumably at least some of these residents are no longer able to drive.
CRPA Regional Review TTD – Zoning Amendment
Ferguson Township February 24, 2016
Page 3 of 3
If you have any questions regarding the above information please contact us at 814.231.3050. Cc: Bob Jacobs, AICP, CCPCDO Jim May, AICP, CRPA Correspondence File
March 3, 2016
CRPC Meeting Agenda
Page 9 of 20
ITEM 9a.
DESIGNATED RURAL AREAS PROJECT – presented by Mark Boeckel
This item provides information on the Designated Rural Areas Project that was completed by the Harris Township Planning Commission in late 2015. This project focused on comprehensively planning for growth and development in Harris Township’s rural areas.
THE ISSUE
In 2012, the Harris Township Planning Commission began a comprehensive review of Harris Township’s zoning districts in order to evaluate the purpose and intent of each district, the land uses they permitted, and their development standards. The Planning Commission presented a report on its work to the Harris Township Board of Supervisors in September 2013, and during that meeting, the need to continue studying the Township’s rural zoning districts was discussed.
In January 2014, the Planning Commission discussed undertaking a comprehensive planning effort for the rural zoning districts, which became known as the Designated Rural Areas Project. The goals of the Designated Rural Areas Project were:
To find a balance between preserving the Township’s rural character and allowing limited growth;
To eliminate inconsistent uses through the exploration of intergovernmental cooperation; To strengthen the Township’s agricultural community with regulations that support
modern farming practices; and To maintain open space.
This broad level planning exercise was meant to identify how development should occur in the Township’s rural areas over a 20-30 year planning horizon. For the purpose of this study, rural areas included all properties outside of the Regional Growth Boundary and Sewer Service Area and a few agriculturally zoned properties within these boundaries. The Planning Commission utilized mapping to categorize rural areas of the municipality that should be protected based on natural and environmental features, areas that should be devoted to agriculture and open space, and areas where residential uses should be permitted. The result of this project is a long term plan for the Township’s rural zoning districts that can be implemented through amendments to the zoning ordinance.
RESULTS
Through its review and analysis, the Harris Township Planning Commission divided the Township’s rural lands into four designated rural area classifications, which include:
Natural Areas Designated Agricultural Areas Rural Residential Areas Rural Centers
March 3, 2016
CRPC Meeting Agenda
Page 10 of 20
The Planning Commission identified a purpose and intent for each of the designated rural areas and created a list of uses that would be compatible with the purpose and intent of each area. The Commission did not identify specific development standards for potential land uses. Below is a summarized list of uses that could potentially be permitted in each Designated Rural Area:
Natural Areas
Agriculture and related dwellings Parks Conservation areas Well sites Camps and camping grounds Forests and gamelands
Designated Agricultural Areas
Agriculture and related dwellings Agricultural support uses such as agri-tourism, limited agricultural retail, farm wineries,
etc. Open space uses such as parks, forests, camps, recreational resorts, etc. Public/Institutional uses such as religious uses, water facilities, communications towers,
and airports Limited commercial uses such as boarding kennels, dog training facilities, veterinary
offices, animal hospitals, and bed and breakfast facilities Single family residential dwellings, subject to conservation design criteria
Rural Residential Areas
Agriculture and related dwellings Conservation areas Parks and Recreational Areas Designated Well Sites/Potable Water Facilities Religious Uses Single Family Residential Dwellings at a density of 1 DU per acre
Rural Centers
Single Family Detached Dwellings Religious Uses Community Centers Parks and Recreation Areas Schools Potable Water Facilities Child Care Centers
March 3, 2016
CRPC Meeting Agenda
Page 11 of 20
Implementation of the Designated Rural Areas Project recommendations will be completed through comprehensive zoning ordinance amendments. These amendments will help modernize the zoning ordinance to be reflective of the current needs of farmers, the community’s ongoing desire to preserve open space and natural resources, and current growth and development pressures.
Implementation of the Designated Rural Areas Project will be an ongoing work item for the Harris Township Planning Commission over the next several years, as new rural zoning ordinances are drafted and developed. The Planning Commission began discussing conservation design subdivision regulations at the beginning of 2016, with the intent of completing a draft ordinance by the end of the year.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE CENTRE REGION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The recommendations of the Designated Rural Areas Project reflect an overall growth strategy for Harris Township’s rural lands that is consistent with broader growth strategies emphasized in the Centre Region Comprehensive Plan.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS
There has been no previous action by the CRPC on this item.
RECOMMENDATION
This agenda item does not require formal action by the CRPC. The CRPC may wish to provide comments on the Designated Rural Areas Project or recommendations regarding its implementation.
ATTACHMENT
1. Designated Rural Areas Map
March 3, 2016
CRPC Meeting Agenda
Page 12 of 20
Harris Township Designated Rural Areas/Potential Zoning MapLegendDesignated Rural AreasDRA
Natural AreasDesignated Agricultural AreasRural ResidentialRural CentersRegional Growth Boundary
March 3, 2016
CRPC Meeting Agenda
Page 13 of 20
ITEM 9b.
MUNICIPAL PLANNING COMMISSION TRAINING NEEDS SURVEY
– presented by Mark Boeckel This item provides information on the results of an online survey conducted by the CRPA in 2015 to assess municipal planning commission training needs. This item also provides details on how the CRPA will move forward with creating a planning commission training program and educational materials.
THE ISSUE
Over the past year, CRPA staff drafted several training modules tailored specifically towards municipal planning commission members in the Centre Region. At the end of 2015, the CRPA conducted an online survey to identify training needs for municipal planning commissioners. This survey was created to strengthen the content of the training modules as they are being finalized. The survey included 18 multiple choice questions that assessed how well planning commissioners understand their role in the municipalities, the resources at their disposal, and regular practices and procedures. The survey also allowed respondents to provide feedback on opportunities that would be beneficial to either themselves or future planning commission members, as well as concerns that should be addressed.
OTHER INFORMATION
The online survey was previewed by the CRPC at its December 3, 2015 meeting. The survey was made available online during the week of December 7, 2015 and was live until January 4, 2016. Twenty-one responses were received, representing 50% of all municipal planning commissioners in the Centre Region. Responses received by municipality were as follows:
Municipality # of Survey Responses
College Township 3 Ferguson Township 4 Halfmoon Township 5 Harris Township 4 Patton Township 3 State College Borough 2
The complete results of the survey are attached to this report. Due to the nature of the survey and the fact that respondents represent different planning commissions, results to individual questions varied by municipality. In some cases, the majority of respondents answered questions agreeably, while those that answered as uncertain or disagreed were from one or two municipalities. While this can skew the results to some degree, the following statements can be inferred based on the responses to the multiple choice portions of the survey:
The majority of municipal planning commissioners understand the role of the planning commission and their role as a commissioner.
March 3, 2016
CRPC Meeting Agenda
Page 14 of 20
Municipal planning commissions in the Centre Region are well organized, well informed,
have good attendance and participation amongst members, and have good relationships with municipal and regional staff.
Planning commissioners need better access to enabling legislation and municipal ordinances.
Commissions may want to consider evaluating/critiquing their meetings prior to adjournment.
More opportunities exist for planning commissions to set annual goals with elected officials and report annual results.
Those surveyed were also asked to provide input on strengths/opportunities and concerns/ weaknesses that would be beneficial to them or future planning commission members. The following are summarized responses to these open ended questions:
Strengths/Opportunities
A course or materials packet would be valuable for new planning commission members.
More electronic reference materials would be beneficial as well as a means to access those materials during meetings.
Additional training should be provided on the Municipalities Planning Code.
Planning commission members from across the region should meet together annually to discuss common issues, problems, and concerns.
Should the CRPA and CRPC consider other ways of outreach such as social media to elevate the awareness of planning and distributing information to the public?
Concerns/Weaknesses
New planning commissioners are often unaware of past commission decisions, which results the same issues being discussed and scrutinized again.
There may be lack of communication between the planning commission and elected officials. Ensuring that governing bodies are aware of prior planning commission discussions and reasoning is important.
Keeping the public informed about planning and regional growth is a major challenge.
New planning commissioners can be easily overwhelmed by the amount of information they are expected to learn.
March 3, 2016
CRPC Meeting Agenda
Page 15 of 20
As the results of this survey indicate, there is support for introductory training for new planning commission members as well as a desire to have ongoing training for existing planning commissioners. The CRPA is in the process of finalizing an “Introduction to the Planning Commission” style course that will focus on municipal and regional planning within the Centre Region. This course should be finalized over the next several months and can be offered to new planning commission members in 2017.
The survey indicates support for ongoing planning commissioner training and a desire to receive more information on the Municipalities Planning Code (MPC). The CRPA drafted several training modules in 2015 focused on comprehensive planning, the official map, and land use ordinances. Each of the training modules includes information on the MPC and its relevance to municipal and regional planning activities. Additional modules and training materials can be created in the future to expand upon these topics and provide additional information to planning commissioners.
Some of the major challenges to providing ongoing training is the significant investment of time that is required by planning commissioners, as well as presenting training materials in a way that is manageable to the recipient. There are numerous ways and times that these and other training modules can be provided, such as:
During an annual or twice annual Peer-to-Peer Regional Planning Seminar.
As requested by a municipality.
As a training newsletter series, either in print or online. These newsletters could break training modules into separate sections and be included with municipal planning commission agendas.
Provided by municipal planning staff on a quarterly basis. The CRPA could break the larger modules down into smaller components and provide them to municipal planning staff on a quarterly basis, which could then be presented to municipal planning commissions when time allows.
The CRPC should provide feedback on the results of the survey, make suggestions for additional training modules or module content, and provide input on how and when planning commission training should be offered.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS
The CRPC received a report on the draft training modules and reviewed the draft online training survey on December 3, 2015.
RECOMMENDATION
The CRPC should review the results of the Municipal Planning Commission Training Needs Survey and provide staff with feedback on how to proceed with creating a planning commission training program.
March 3, 2016
CRPC Meeting Agenda
Page 16 of 20
NEXT STEPS
CRPA staff will continue completion of the draft training modules and begin offering training programs based on the feedback received from the CRPC. CRPA staff will provide ongoing updates to the CRPC as training materials are completed.
ATTACHMENT
1. Survey Results
1. Please indicate the municipality that you represent.
My ReportLast Modified: 02/23/2016
1 College Township 3 14%
2 Ferguson Township 4 19%
3 Halfmoon Township 5 24%
4 Harris Township 4 19%
5 Patton Township 3 14%
6 State College Borough 2 10%
Total 21
Min Value 1
Max Value 6
Mean 3.29
Variance 2.41
Standard Deviation 1.55
Total Responses 21
# Answer Bar Response %
Statistic Value
2. Please indicate your responses to the statements below.
1 1. The role of the planning commission is clearly defined. I fully understand what isexpected of the commission – what it should and should not do. 5 11 1 4 0 21 2.19
2 2. I know what is expected of me personally on the commission. My role,responsibilities, and “job description” were fully explained to me upon appointment. 3 11 2 5 0 21 2.43
3 3. I received a copy of the Comprehensive Plan and municipal zoning andsubdivision ordinances upon appointment to the commission. 6 9 0 4 2 21 2.38
4 4. I received a copy of the Pennsylvania planning enabling legislation and anymunicipal planning and zoning enabling ordinances. 2 4 5 8 2 21 3.19
5 5. Following a reasonable length of time, the planning commission chair or staffdetermines if commissioners have read the documents and have questions. 1 7 3 8 2 21 3.14
Min Value 1 1 1 1 1
Max Value 4 4 5 5 5
Mean 2.19 2.43 2.38 3.19 3.14
Variance 1.06 1.06 1.85 1.36 1.33
StandardDeviation 1.03 1.03 1.36 1.17 1.15
TotalResponses 21 21 21 21 21
# Question StronglyAgree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly
DisagreeTotal
Responses Mean
Statistic
1. The role of the planningcommission is clearly
defined. I fully understandwhat is expected of the
commission – what it shouldand should not do.
2. I know what is expected ofme personally on thecommission. My role,
responsibilities, and “jobdescription” were fullyexplained to me upon
appointment.
3. I received a copy of theComprehensive Plan and
municipal zoning andsubdivision ordinancesupon appointment to the
commission.
4. I received a copy ofthe Pennsylvaniaplanning enabling
legislation and anymunicipal planning and
zoning enablingordinances.
5. Following a reasonablelength of time, the planningcommission chair or staff
determines if commissionershave read the documents and
have questions.
3. Please indicate your responses to the statements below.
1 6. The commission is appropriately organized to carry out its mission. Wehave and use bylaws. 4 12 4 1 0 21 2.10
2 7. We always have good attendance by commissioners during commissionmeetings. 4 15 2 0 0 21 1.90
3 8. We always have good participation by commissioners during commissionmeetings. 6 11 2 2 0 21 2.00
4 9. Commission members have input on developing the meeting agenda. 3 9 2 7 0 21 2.62
5 10. Commission/staff relationships are good. 8 12 0 1 0 21 1.71
Min Value 1 1 1 1 1
Max Value 4 3 4 4 4
Mean 2.10 1.90 2.00 2.62 1.71
Variance 0.59 0.29 0.80 1.25 0.51
StandardDeviation 0.77 0.54 0.89 1.12 0.72
TotalResponses 21 21 21 21 21
# Question StronglyAgree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly
DisagreeTotal
Responses Mean
Statistic
6. The commission isappropriately organized to carryout its mission. We have and use
bylaws.
7. We always have goodattendance by commissionersduring commission meetings.
8. We always have goodparticipation by commissionersduring commission meetings.
9. Commission membershave input on developing
the meeting agenda.
10.Commission/staffrelationships are
good.
4. Please indicate your responses to the statements below.
1 11. As a commissioner, I get adequate information from staff to help me prepare formeetings. 7 13 1 0 0 21 1.71
2 12. The commission has in place, and uses, a structured procedure for hearings,rezoning requests, and the like. 8 13 0 0 0 21 1.62
3 13. As a commission, we always critique/evaluate our meetings before we adjourn. 2 1 7 10 1 21 3.33
4 14. The commission has at least one meeting annually to review commissionactivities and accomplishments. 2 8 4 6 1 21 2.81
5 15. The commission meets at least once annually with the governing body todiscuss the work program and matters of mutual interest. 3 9 2 6 1 21 2.67
Min Value 1 1 1 1 1
Max Value 3 2 5 5 5
Mean 1.71 1.62 3.33 2.81 2.67
Variance 0.31 0.25 1.03 1.26 1.43
StandardDeviation 0.56 0.50 1.02 1.12 1.20
TotalResponses 21 21 21 21 21
# Question StronglyAgree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly
DisagreeTotal
Responses Mean
Statistic
11. As a commissioner,I get adequate
information from staff tohelp me prepare for
meetings.
12. The commission has inplace, and uses, a structured
procedure for hearings,rezoning requests, and the
like.
13. As acommission, we
alwayscritique/evaluate ourmeetings before we
adjourn.
14. The commission has atleast one meeting annually
to review commissionactivities and
accomplishments.
15. The commission meets at leastonce annually with the governing
body to discuss the work programand matters of mutual interest.
5. Please indicate your responses to the statements below.
1 16. The commission has at least one meeting annually to plan future activities. 3 13 3 1 1 21 2.24
2 17. The commission prepares and distributes an annual report. 3 8 5 3 2 21 2.67
3 18. The commission provides a verbal or written report to the governing bodyfollowing every meeting. 5 11 4 1 0 21 2.05
Min Value 1 1 1
Max Value 5 5 4
Mean 2.24 2.67 2.05
Variance 0.89 1.43 0.65
StandardDeviation 0.94 1.20 0.80
TotalResponses 21 21 21
# Question StronglyAgree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly
DisagreeTotal
Responses Mean
Statistic 16. The commission has at least one meetingannually to plan future activities.
17. The commission prepares anddistributes an annual report.
18. The commission provides a verbal or written report to thegoverning body following every meeting.
6. Please provide any other strengths and opportunities that would be beneficialto you or other future planning commissioners.
A better understanding of our role and responsibility to Council.
Training is always appreciated
A formal "Introduction to the Planning Commission" would be helpful to any new member.
I think going forward the more electronic reference material would be better. A tablet and access to the material at the meetings would be helpful.
Provide more information on and training concerning the MPC.
Is any planning organization in the region planning a newly elected official training session? Need to meet with Planning Commission members from across the region at leastannually to discuss common issues, concerns, problems -- a summit SCASD used to lead an annual Public Issues Forum to get citizen input on an issue of local importance. Isthat something local CRPC/CRPA should consider? Since media coverage of planning meetings (municipal planning commissions, CRPC, MPO) seems to be declining,should planners be developing a social media presence as a way of distibuting information (eg monthly activity reports, fact sheets, etc) directly to the public? What are ourpeer communities (college towns with a population about our size where the university is the major employer and students are a major portion of the population) doing inregard to planning, zoning, economic development, etc. Are their approaches that can be applied here?
It would be helpful to new members to visit meeting held by other townships to see how they conduct business.
Our working relationship with D.J. Liggett was fantastic. She was always helpful, prepared, and informative. The main reason our PC has accomplished so much of our zoningreorganization is because D.J. researched answers to our questions, found comparable examples in neighboring municipalities, and created invaluable maps to illustrate ourgoals.
A "Welcome to the Planning Commission" packet with overview type materials would be nice to handout to potential or actual new members; then a follow-up full informationdocument (or access to such a document containing ordnances etc.
Total Responses 9
Text Response
Statistic Value
7. Please provide any concerns or weaknesses that if addressed would behelpful to you or future planning commissioners.
Training sessions on "real like" situations at P/C meetings.
How long it takes to get something done .
Most new Planning Commission members are not aware of past PC decisions or the reasoning behind those decisions. This can create confusion and the rehashing of olddecisions when similar issues arise.
From my observations at Supervisor meetings, the Supervisors sometimes repeat the discussions held at the commission. Maybe have a representative of Planning attendSupervisor meeting to express how the commission came to a discussion. That may save time and effort and make things more efficient.
See above.
How we can work together better: annual planning commisioners summit in the region, Public Issues Forum-type events to engage the public, intermunicipal agreements toimplement the regonal comp plan, a regional subdivision and land development ordinance, a multimunicipal zoning ordinance(s), common definitions for zoning districts,single point of entry for subdivision and land development plans, common starndards for the West End/Terraced Street Districts. A general public that is more informed aboutplanning, regional growth. Planners have a hard time getting the public involved until the work of planners reaches an "end point". We need to use tools that provide for acontinuous flow of information to the public. Websites are great, but they are passive -- they rely on the public coming to the website. We need a tool (social media) that doeswhat the media used to do for planning -- take planning information to the public. Like the idea of providing new PC membrs with the "tools of the trade": MPC, Comp Plan,SALDO, Zoning Ord, Official Map, etc. and a guide about howall the parties in the planning process interact. Question is: how do you keep them from feelng overwhelmed bythe sheer volume of material?
Attending meetings by other townships to see how they operate can teach bad habits.
As this survey seems to indicate; need a better Purpose, Strategic Guidance, Authority document to allow members to fully understand their role.
Total Responses 9
Text Response
Statistic Value
8. Please provide any additional feedback, comments or issues.
None at this time. This effort you suggest would be greatly appreciated,
Regional and municipal planning staff hase, for the most part, done a very good job of keeping the Centre Region ahead of the rest of the Commonwealth in implementing amulti-municipal planning program that protects and enhances the quality of life in the region. What are the steps that we can take to move to the next level?
This has been a great group to work with in the past. 2016 should be an exciting/stressful year for us as our PC membership will change by 50%, we build a workingrelationship with a new Centre Region Planner, and our zoning reorganization hits the public.
Total Responses 3
Text Response
Statistic Value
March 3, 2016
CRPC Meeting Agenda
Page 17 of 20
ITEM 9c.
DRAFT CRPC BYLAWS – presented by Jim May
This item provides a draft of the CRPC Bylaws and requests that the CRPC review and consider action to approve the revised Bylaws, pending review by the COG Solicitor.
THE ISSUE
The existing CRPC Bylaws are outdated and need to be revised to help serve as a guide for the internal conduct of CRPC members and staff. The revised Bylaws serve to strengthen and clarify the process by which the CRPC makes recommendations and ensures the Commission conducts itself in a fair and reasonable manner, that due process is afforded to all parties, and that recommendations are supported by relevant and sufficient findings.
OTHER INFORMATION
Major revisions include:
ARTICLE II. AUTHORIZATION
Amended authorization to include Halfmoon Township, reference to the Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), and other binding agreements between the Centre Region municipalities and Centre County.
ARTICLE III. MEMBERSHIP
Reduced the term of CRPC members from three years to two years.
ARTICLE IV. VOTING
Added a specific article to clarify votes and voting.
ARTICLE V. OFFICERS
Clarified that the CRPC Secretary is the CRPA Director and his/her designee and defined responsibilities.
Deleted the Treasurer. All financial matters are conducted by CRPA or COG staff.
ARTICLE VI. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Moved the annual organization meeting from the first Thursday of the year to the first Thursday in February to accommodate municipal reorganizations.
Limited Chairperson and Vice-chairperson offices to no more than one two-year consecutive term.
March 3, 2016
CRPC Meeting Agenda
Page 18 of 20
ARTICLE VII. MEETINGS
Remained silent on the date, time, and location of meetings so they can be set annually at the annual organization meeting.
Clarified the meaning of a quorum. Included a section on work sessions. Included a section on parliamentary procedure. Included a section on excused absences. Clarified meeting cancellation procedures.
ARTICLE IX. AMENDMENTS
Added additional language regarding authorizing legislation and documents and required signatures by the CRPC Chairperson and CRPA Director only.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS
The CRPC authorized the CRPA staff to proceed with revisions at the December 3, 2015 meeting.
RECOMMENDATION
The CRPC should review the draft and provide any comments to the CRPA staff.
NEXT STEPS
CRPA staff will incorporate any CRPC comments, forward the draft for review by the COG Solicitor, and schedule final review and potential action at the May 5, 2016 CRPC meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Revised CRPC Bylaws 2. Existing CRPC Bylaws
Page 1 of 5
Bylaws
Centre Regional Planning Commission
Centre County, Pennsylvania
ARTICLE I. NAME OF COMMISSION
The name of this organization shall be the Centre Regional Planning Commission
(CRPC).
ARTICLE II. AUTHORIZATION
The authorization for the establishment of this Planning Commission is set forth
under the Pennsylvania Municipalities Code (MPC) Act 247 of 1968, P.L. 805 as
reenacted and amended, 53 P.S. 10101, et seq. Centre County Commissioners
delegated powers and duties of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code
(MPC) as specified in the AGREEMENT OF RELATIONSHIP dated the 16th day of
March, 1982 between Centre County and the Centre Region Council of
Governments, comprised of College, Ferguson, Halfmoon, Harris, and Patton
Townships, and the Borough of State College. Additional authority is established
through the JOINT ARTICLES OF AGREEMENT OF THE CENTRE REGIONAL
PLANNING COMMISSION dated the 24th day of January, 1986, as approved by
College, Ferguson, Halfmoon, Harris, and Patton Townships, the Borough of State
College, and the Pennsylvania State University.
ARTICLE III. MEMBERSHIP
Membership shall consist of seven persons, one appointed by the governing bodies of
State College Borough, College, Ferguson, Halfmoon, Harris, and Patton
Townships, and the President or his/her designee of The Pennsylvania State
University. The term of office for members shall be two years, except for those
members appointed to fill a vacancy, who shall serve for the unexpired term of that
vacated seat. All members of the Centre Regional Planning Commission shall reside
within municipality they represent, except in the case of the member appointed by
The Pennsylvania State University who shall be an employee of the University.
ARTICLE IV. VOTING
Section 1. Each appointed member, including the Chairperson, shall be entitled
to one vote on any matter that may come before the Planning
Commission.
Section 2. If a quorum is present, a simple majority of the votes cast by members
present on any particular matter shall carry the issue.
Page 2 of 5
Section 3. The Secretary shall keep a record of each vote as part of the minutes.
The minutes of the Planning Commission shall also note members
voting no or abstaining.
Section 4. A motion from the floor must be made and passed in order to dispense
with any items on the consent agenda and the action agenda.
ARTICLE V. OFFICERS
Section 1. The Officers of the Planning Commission shall consist of a
Chairperson, Vice-chairperson, and Secretary. The Officers, with the
exception of the Secretary shall be appointed members of the Planning
Commission.
Section 2. The Chairperson shall preside over the meetings of the Planning
Commission and exercise all the powers usually incident of the office,
retaining the full privileges of a Planning Commissioner. The
Chairperson shall decide on all points of order and procedure, subject
to these by-laws. The Chairperson also serves as the signatory to
PennDOT contracts and periodic work order agreements between
PennDOT and the CRPC through which federal and state funding is
provided for completion of Centre County Metropolitan Planning
Organization (CCMPO) work tasks.
Section 3. The Vice-Chairperson shall, in the absence of the Chairperson perform
all the duties incumbent upon the Chairperson. In the absence of the
Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson, the members present may elect for
the meeting an acting Chairperson who shall have full powers of the
Chairperson during the absence of the Chairperson and Vice-
Chairperson.
Section 4. The Centre Regional Planning Agency Director or his/her designee
shall serve, ex officio without vote, as the Secretary. The Secretary
shall keep minutes and a record of all meetings of the Planning
Commission. The Secretary shall prepare the agenda of all meetings of
the Centre Regional Planning Commission under the direction of the
Chairperson and CRPA Director, provide notice of all meetings to the
members, arrange proper legal notice of meetings, and attend to any
correspondence of the Planning Commission and such other duties as
carried out by the Secretary.
Page 3 of 5
SECTION VI. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Section 1. An annual organizational meeting shall be held on the first Thursday
in February of each new year.
Section 2. Members shall make nominations for Officers from the floor at the
annual organization meeting for the Officers.
Section 3. A candidate for Chairperson and Vice-chairperson receiving a majority
vote of the members present shall be declared elected. The
Chairperson and Vice-chairperson may not serve more than two
consecutive one-year terms.
Section 4. Planning Commission vacancies shall be filled immediately the by
governing body of the municipality with the vacancy or by the
President or his/her designee of The Pennsylvania State University.
ARTICLE VII. MEETINGS
Section 1. The Planning Commission shall set the meeting date, time and
location for the coming year at the annual organization meeting. The
Planning Commission will meet on the first Thursday of each month at
a time and place designated by the Planning Commission, with any
adjustments for holidays, joint meetings, or other events, as approved
at the annual organization meeting.
Section 2. The Secretary shall publish the annual meeting schedule within two
weeks of approval at the annual organization meeting.
Section 3. A quorum shall consist of a simple majority of Planning Commission
members. A quorum is necessary to transact business.
Section 4. Special meetings may be called by the Chairperson or when requested
to do so by a majority of members of the Planning Commission. The
Secretary shall notify all members of the Planning Commission no less
than five days in advance of such special meeting.
Section 5. The Planning Commission may meet in non-voting work sessions for
the purposes of carrying out the duties of the Planning Commission.
The Chairperson shall call a work session when requested to do so by a
majority of the members of the Planning Commission. The Secretary
shall notify all members of the Planning Commission and publish
notice of work sessions in the same manner as regular meetings.
Page 4 of 5
Section 6. The rules contained in the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order
Newly Revised shall guide the Commission however; parliamentary
procedure shall be flexible and may be adjusted at the Chair's
discretion to best serve the needs of the Commission. Nevertheless, no
parliamentary procedure shall be followed that is inconsistent with
these bylaws.
Section 7. To be excused, members of the Planning Commission shall notify the
Secretary when they intend to be absent from a meeting. Members
should make every effort notify the alternate member from their
municipality or The Pennsylvania State University to attend the
meeting in their absence and notify the Secretary if the alternate will
attend.
Section 8. The Chairperson may cancel a meeting if there is no business on the
agenda or if it is certain that a quorum will not be present. The
Chairperson may also cancel a meeting because of weather, emergency,
or other circumstances that may substantially limit the ability of
members of the Commission or the public to attend. The Chairperson
shall give notice of cancellation to members of the Commission as far
in advance of the scheduled meeting time as practicable.
ARTICLE VIII. ORDER OF BUSINESS
The order of business at regular meetings shall be:
a. Call to order
b. Approval of minutes
c. Citizen comments
d. Regional interest items
e. CRPA activity report
f. Consent agenda
g. Guest presentations
h. Action agenda
i. Policy agenda
j. Committee and liaison reports
k. Other business
l. Adjournment
ARTICLE IX. AMENDMENTS
The membership of the Planning Commission may amend these bylaws by a
majority vote of the entire membership of the Planning Commission. The Planning
Commission shall not adopt or follow any operating rules, regulations, or guidelines
not expressly allowed by the PENNSYLVANIA MUNICPALITIES PLANNING
Page 5 of 5
CODE, the AGREEMENT OF RELATIONSHIP or the JOINT ARTICLES OF
AGREEMENT OF THE CENTRE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION.
Adopted this __ day of ___________ , 2016.
CENTRE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
_______________________________
Lisa Strickland, Chairperson
ATTEST:
_______________________________
James J. May, AICP,
Secretary
f·.rtlcle !.
Article II.
BYLAWS
TrIS CENTRE P.EG I OllAL PLAI1IW,G COHH I SS I ON
CEIHRE COU:HY, PElmSYLVAI<lA
Heme of Corr:nission:
Tne neme of the organization shall be The Centre Regional Piannlng Commission.
Authorization:
The authorization for the establishment of this Co~~ission i, sat forth under:
(I) Section 20,1 of the Second-Class Township COGe; (2) Section 1145 of the Borough Code; and by (3) The action of the President or The Pennsylvania State
University.
The appropriate authorization indicated above appl ies to the members of the Co~~jssion by virtue of their ap?oin~ments to the COiir.i\ission.r and the delegation of their powers and duties by the
(1) Board or Tov:nship $l.!ps-rvisors or
a a Co 11 cge TC\\'nsh i p b. Ferguson Township c. Harris Township d. Petton Township
(2) The Borough Council of State College Borough
(3) Tne President of ,he Pennsylvaniz State University
--al1 of the CCiii.l:.onweal th cf Pennsylvc.riiz..
Article 111. HembershiD!
Hembership shell consist of one member or appointed alternate from each Borough, Township, and Tne Pennsylvania State University, appointed TO, a te~m of three years. An appointment to fill a vacancy shall be for the unexpired term.
All members of the said Commission shall reside within the BorOUGh or Township they represent, except in the case of the member app~in~ed by The Pennsylvania State University who shall be an employee or the University.
Article IV.
Article t'~
Mticle Vi.
-2-
Officers:
Section 1. The officers of the Planning Com:l1ission shall consizt of a Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Secretary and Tr:;asurer. The offices of Secretary and Treasurer may be combined.
Section 2. Ine Chairman shall preside at ~ll meetings and hearings of the Planning Commission and shall have the duties normally conferred by parli~mentary usage on such officers.
Section 3. ;:bsence.
The Vice-Chairman shall act for the Chairman in his
Section 4. ihe Secretary shall keep the minutes and records or the Co~ission, and with the 2C~;stan~e of su~h staff 2S is ~v~i12~le, shall prepare the ~gencu or regular and special meetings under the direction of the Chairman, provide no~jce of all meetings ~D Cc~mission members, arrange proper and legal notice of hearings, attend to correspond~nce of the Co~~ission and su~h other cuties ~s ere normally carried out by a S~cretary.
Se::ticn 5. The Trec:surer shall maintain and kee? recorcs or all receipts ~and disburse.ments, ".:hich recorc;; sh=:ll :,e audited ar.i1u2.1iy by an ?uditiGD Clgency sele=ted by the fL!l 1 membership ot the Corrrni:.:;ion. A copy ~f the annu21 2uoit shzi1 be fu,nished. i:O e~ch fil'~rnber of the: Co:n.71issio!'1 and others 25 dire::ted by ~:-:e Cne.irm2n.
Electio~ of Offlce~s:
Se=tian 1. An an~ual organiz2tio~ ~eeting shall be held on ~ne fi r'st :nu:-sday of each new year.
Section 2. :~ominations shall be made from the floor a~ the annual or9anizotion meeting and elec~ion of the officers s?9cified in Section 1 of Article iV shall folloy.' immediatel), there.;.fter.
Section 3. A candidate receiving n majority vote of the entire membership of the Planning Com71ission 5hall ba ceclar~d elected and shall serve for one y~ar or until his successor shall take office..
Section 4. Vacancies in office shall be filled ir.mediately by regular election procedure.
Meetinas:
Section 1. Meeti~g5 wi 11 be held on the first Thursd2Y or eac~ month at 7:30 p.m. at the Municipai Suilding in the Borough of State College. In the event of conflict with holid.=ys or other events: a majority vote at any me2ting may c~3ngc the d~tc of said meeting.
-3-
S~ction 2. A quorum shall consist of a simple majority of the ms.'7,bers of the Commission. The number of votes necess<:ry to trans~ct busin~ss shal I be a simple majority. Voting may be by roll call. A record of the roll call vote may be kept as a part of the minutes if so required.
Section 3. SpecIal meetings may be called by the Chairman. It shall be the duty of the Chairman to call a specIal meeting "'hen re~uested to do so by a majority of members of the Com~ission. The Se=retary shall notify all m"mbers of the Cc:mdssion in writing not less than 5 days in 2dvance of such special meeting.
Sectio:1 ~. All meeting::; or portion~ of r.1eetinss Clt ",A"den official dstlon is tak2n shall be open to the general publ ic. Howaver, the Commission may ~3et in closed session for cii:':::..!ssion purposes.
Section 5. shal I govern
Unless otherwise specified, Roberts l Rules of Order tha p~oceediG;S at the ~ee:inss of this :o~~ission.
I~rtrcle Vi~ .. Orcbr of Dusine:ss:
SS::tiOil 1. The ord~r cf business at ,"e;!.dar j';1eetin;!; sh~ll
" • :'.:> 11 C"ll. b. Reading of minutes of ?reViOU5 Qee:lng ~nd ~cti0n ~hereQ~. c. Cc::,;nunications and bi 1 is. d. ~~ports of Officers 2nd Cc~:t~ees. e. Old Business. f~ N6W B~siness. g. Adj au r-nr.:en t.
Sectic!'"l 2. order ;:0 di spense \,Ii th ony i ;:e;n On the agenca.
Article VIi~. Eoolovaes:
Art!::i" I);.
Section 1. Within the limits i~?osed by the funds 3vaila~le for i~s use the Co~ission mzy e~ploy such staff personnel anci/or consultants 2S it sees fit to aid in its n~ik. Appojntments shall be r:;ade by a majority vote of the entire CO;'Gilission me~bership.
Hearincs:
Section I. In addition to those required by iaw, the CC~is5ion ",ay hold publi= hearings I-oilen it de::ibs that su=h hearings will be in the public interest.
Section 2. Notice of the time and place of sush hearing, when on matt:ers of wide:.pread interest] shall bE: published once n week for
Article X.
-4-
thO successive weeks in at least one newspaper of general circulation In the territorial jurisdiction of the Cor.~i~sion not earlier than three week~ prior to the hearing. For matters of limited territorial interest, notice shall be given in such manner as is deemed appropriate by the Co~ission.
Section 3. Tne ~atter before the Co~mission shall summary by a member of the Co~~ission de~i5natcd by and parties in interest shall have the privilege of
be presented in the Chair~an, the floor.
Section 4. No record or statt::ment shall be recorded or ~w:J:rn to ~s evidence for any Court of Law without notice to the parties.
Sec~jo~ 5. A re=ord shall be kept of those speoking ~efore the Lo~ission a: such hearings.
Tnese by12Y.'$ fiiay be 2m~nced by a liIajcii -::y vo-::e of the ent ire meriibership of rne Piznning Co~ission.
J_ i \ r ; r- a ..... "... ..... \. -,_. I (---;:J..-'"
~~; t-L.~.-:.. -z~· .. i Yr~-----~
March 3, 2016
CRPC Meeting Agenda
Page 19 of 20
ITEM 9d.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM (CHIP)
REVIEWING DRAFT PRIORITY PROJECTS FOR 2017 – presented by Jim May
This item provides information on the top five priorities that emerged from the joint CRPC and COG Transportation and Land Use Committee on October 29, 2016. The CRPC should briefly review the projects and consider any questions staff could answer prior to the April 4, 2016 joint meeting with the COG Transportation and Land Use Committee. This item is consistent with recommendations in the 2015 CRPA Regional Planning Program Evaluation, which recommended that the CRPA broaden meaningful participation in decisions by the municipalities. The proposed item is also consistent with the CRPA core service of “implementing the Centre Region Comprehensive Plan” from the same Evaluation.
THE ISSUE
Municipal input is essential to help the CRPA determine what projects are most important and to establish priorities for those projects to help the CRPA fulfill its mission. Since adoption of the Centre Region Comprehensive Plan on November 25, 2013, the CRPA has utilized the Comprehensive Plan Implementation Program (CHIP) on an annual basis to help determine the regional projects that implement goals and objectives from the Comprehensive Plan.
With nearly $250,000 dedicated to the Regional Planning Program, it is extremely important that the municipalities continually participate in determining realistic project priorities. The CHIP process also helps the municipalities work collaboratively to ensure the CRPA is working on relevant projects that benefit the municipalities within the financial and human resources allotted to the Agency.
OTHER INFORMATION
The Implementation Strategy in the Comprehensive Plan outlines a process to ensure that Regional decisions are generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The process also ensures that public and municipal representatives have the opportunity to help prioritize Comprehensive Plan actions and programs prior to the General Forum’s annual budget process.
Like all COG programs, the CHIP is a public process for making recommendations to the General Forum on proposed actions and programs to implement during the next budget year. The CHIP process also includes annual reporting to the COG General Forum on Comprehensive Plan implementation. This approach to Comprehensive Plan implementation ensures that the plan remains a dynamic, responsive document and that Regional decisions are generally consistent with the long-term goals, objectives, and policies of the Centre Region Comprehensive Plan. In summary, the CHIP process:
Proactively engages regional and municipal staffs and municipal representatives on the CRPC, COG TLU Committee, and COG General Forum in an annual public process to implement the Comprehensive Plan.
March 3, 2016
CRPC Meeting Agenda
Page 20 of 20
Ensures that all municipalities have an active role in identifying and establishing
priorities and that there is consensus on the most relevant and beneficial projects and programs the CRPA should undertake to implement the Comprehensive Plan in the short-term.
Provides a systematic process to address and adjust, on an annual basis, regional priorities, needs, and projects to implement the long-term goals in the Comprehensive Plan.
Ensures that the Comprehensive Plan remains a dynamic, up-to-date, relevant, and responsive guide for the physical development of the Centre Region.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS
The municipal managers, municipal staff, and CRPA staff reviewed the priorities at a workshop on September 16, 2015. The priorities were further refined and ranked during the joint meeting of the CRPC and the COG TLU Committee on October 29, 2015.
RECOMMENDATION
The CRPC should review the five highest priorities and provide the CRPA staff with any questions or comments prior to the joint meeting between the CRPC and the COG TLU Committee on April 4, 2016.
NEXT STEPS
The CRPA will address any comments or questions from the meeting and present the issues in more detail at the joint meeting between the CRPC and COG TLU Committee on April 4, 2016.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Project Priorities 2017 – Joint meeting of the CRPC and COG TLU Committee, October 29, 2015
2. Comprehensive Plan Implementation Program (CHIP) – Setting Draft Project Priorities for 2017 (to be distributed via follow up e-mail during the week of February 29)
Draft Project Priorities - 2017 Joint Meeting of the CRPC and COG TLU Committee
October 29, 2015
Project Total Score
Average Score
Project 2 – Utilizing Multi-Municipal Agreements to Share Land Uses 183 16.6
Project 12 – Promote Alternative Energy Options within the Centre Region 182 16.5
Project 6 – Comprehensive Update to the REDCAP Report 177 16.1
Project 11 – Incorporate and Implement the Regional Bike Plan(1) 171 15.5
Project 1 – Review and Potential Changes to Administration of the RGB/SSA 164 14.9
Project 7 – Improve the Sustainability of Agriculture 143 13.0
Project 10 - Cost of Development 137 12.5
Project 8 - Redevelopment of Older Neighborhoods that are in Transition/ Redevelopment of Commercial Properties
128 11.16
Project 13 - Pocket Neighborhoods Ordinance 128 11.6
Project 3 - Regional Student Housing Analysis 114 10.4
Project 9 – Create an Affordable Housing Clearinghouse 110 10.0
Project 5 – Develop an Inventory of Vacant Non-residential Buildings and Vacant Properties for the Region
101 9.2
Project 4 – Develop a Nutrient Credit System for the Centre Region(2) Not Ranked
Not Ranked
Notes:
(1) “Implement the Regional Bike Plan” is a process, not a specific project. The CRPC and TLU ranked this process highly, but removed it
from the final list. The CRPC and TLU Committee decided to have the Senior Transportation Planner work with individual
municipalities on elements of the Plan outside of this process.
(2) The CRPC and COG TLU Committee did not rank this project because it should be completed with the UAJA Nutrient Management
Project already approved for 2016