TREDYFFRIN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION

Transcription

1 TREDYFFRIN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION TREDYFFRIN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION Tredyffrin Township Municipal Building Keene Hall Thursday, December 15, :00 pm Minutes Call to Order: A Regular Meeting of the Tredyffrin Township Planning Commission was held on the above date at the Township Administration Building. Commission members present (6) included Victoria Snyder, Chair; William Rountree, Vice-Chair; Scott Growney; Richard Parker; David Thomas; and Denise Waite. Also in attendance were Heather Greenberg, Board of Supervisors Liaison; Murph Wysocki, Board of Supervisors Liaison; William Martin, Township Manager; Matt Baumann, Assistant Township Manager/Director of Planning & Zoning; Stephen Burgo, Township Engineer; Zachary Barner, Planning & Zoning Coordinator; and Patrick McKenna, Esq., Planning Commission Legal Counsel. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: November 17, 2016 meeting Ms. Snyder requested any comments and/or corrections to the minutes none appearing Ms. Snyder requested a motion to approve the minutes. Action: Motion made by Mr. Growney, seconded by Mr. Rountree, and carried unanimously (6-0) to approve the minutes. Old Business: LD Westlakes Marriott (Gulph Creek Development, LLC / Westlakes Lodging, LP) Preliminary / Final Land Development application to construct a single 4-story (18,200± sf footprint) hotel containing approximately 129 rooms, ground-level structured & surface parking, and associated improvements where a surface parking lot currently exists. The proposed use is permitted by a Special Exception from the Zoning Hearing Board (Appeal #13-16). The property, located at 1005 Westlakes Drive in Berwyn, is within the C-2 (Commercial) district. The associated Subdivision (SD ) was recommended by the Planning Commission on October 20, 2016 and will be reviewed by the Board of Supervisors on December 19, 2016 First before the Commission on July 21, 2016 the Applicant has granted an extension through December 21, 2016 Debbie Shulski, attorney for the Applicant, advised that the plans have been revised since the last meeting, per comments from the County, Staff, and the Planning Commission. Ms. Shulski added that Kristin Camp, Special Counsel for the County s trail system, has confirmed that the Chester Valley Trail lies within a non-exclusive easement (not a separate tax parcel) and that the County approves of the proposed improvements adjacent to the trail. The County has issued a letter outlining six (6) conditions, primarily related to signage and access, which the Applicant has agreed to and included on the revised plans.

2 Action: Motion made by Mr. Growney, seconded by Mr. Rountree, and carried unanimously (6-0) to grant Final Land Development approval. LD Atwater Crossing (Sage Atwater, LLC) Final Land Development application to construct a 5-story (67,804 ± sf footprint) residential care facility for older persons including a 4,895± sf health club / fitness center. The facility will contain approximately 250 units (160 independent living, 60 assisted living /memory care, and 30 skilled nursing units) with 283 beds, subsurface structured- & ground-level surface parking, and associated improvements on the currently undeveloped lot. The property, located at 900 and 1000 Atwater Drive (a.k.a lots 9 & 10), is within the PIP (Planned Industrial Park) district. The associated Subdivision (SD ) was recommended by the Planning Commission on November 17, 2016 and approved by the Board of Supervisors on December 5, 2016 First before the Commission on July 21, 2016 (submitted on June 9, 2016) the Applicant has granted an extension through December 16, 2016 Ms. Snyder provided an update on the proposal, which was before the Commission in November. At that meeting, the project received Preliminary Land Development approval (with 3 waivers). The remaining item (and associated waiver) left for discussion is related to the open space and recreation requirements. Denise Yarnoff, attorney for the Applicant, explained that while the original open space proposal attempted to satisfy the ordinance requirements by designating a portion of the property along the Atwater Drive frontage of the parcel, subsequent conversations with Staff and the Commission have resulted in a revised approach. The Applicant is currently proposing to make improvements to the existing trail which runs along the rear of the property (leading toward Church Road) and to include nearby steep slopes areas in the overall open space calculation (which would require a waiver from A.2.b). Ms. Yarnoff explained that, while the sloped areas are traditionally excluded from the calculation the nature and location of the slopes on this property provide not only visual relief, but also work in unison with the proposed trail improvements to create scenic amenity. Ms. Yarnoff advised that the waiver regarding open space would not apply to the (potential/future) development of proposed lot 9A. The Applicant is proposing to create a deed restriction on the proposed lots that would allow access to lot 9A through lot 9 and, in accordance with the 2001 approval of the Atwater Corporate Park, prohibit direct access to Church Road. This item will also be noted on the plans prior to recording. Mr. Growney asked whether there had been any additional conversations with the Church regarding the proposed development. Ms. Yarnoff explained that the Applicant has had ongoing contact with the Church and will continue to do so as the project moves forward. Ms. Snyder asked that the applicant clarify the notes on the proposed landscape plans which explain that the Applicant will meet with Staff during the upcoming growing season to assess the existing vegetation around the property and determine whether additional landscaping and screening is required on both the west (Church) and east (Church Road) sides of the property. Ms. Snyder opened the floor to the Public for comment none appearing Ms. Snyder requested a motion for Final Land Development approval, with revised notes regarding landscaping and site access (discussed above). This approval will also include Final approval of the waivers granted Preliminarily at the November meeting, with the addition of the waiver from A.2.b to include steep slopes in the overall open space calculation. Action: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, seconded by Mr. Growney, and carried unanimously (6-0) to grant Final Land Development approval.

3 LD Peyton s Crossing (Braxton Realty Holdings) Final Land Development application to demolish an existing residential twin home (located on two separate lots) and construct six (6) townhomes on one consolidated lot. The properties, located at Berkley Road in Devon, are within the C-1 (Commercial) district. First before the Commission on September 15, 2016 the Applicant has granted an extension through December 15, 2016 Ms. Snyder provided an update on the project, which received Preliminary approval at the November meeting (with waivers). At that meeting, the Commission requested that the plans be reviewed by the Berwyn Fire Company (BFC) prior to Final approval. Since then, BFC has reviewed the plans and issued a response letter. The Applicant advised that the plans are compliant with the comments in the letter and that BFC will be in contact throughout the construction of the project to ensure that there is adequate access to the site. Ms. Snyder opened the floor to the Public for comment none appearing Ms. Snyder requested a motion for Final Land Development approval. Action: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, seconded by Mr. Thomas, and carried (5-1) to grant Final Land Development approval (with Ms. Waite opposed). SD Howellville Road (Howellville Road Land Partnership, LLC) Preliminary / Final Subdivision application to amend two existing property boundaries. The properties, located at 951 & 1057 Howellville Road in Berwyn, are within the C-1 (Commercial) district. First before the Commission on December 15, 2016 the 90 day review period expires on March 15, 2017 John Benson, on behalf of the Applicant, introduced the proposal. The Applicant seeks to revise the lot line between two existing parcels to create two, more evenly-sized lots. The existing tax parcels numbers will remain, but the boundaries separating them will be revised such that one parcel will consume a large portion of the other. The proposed lot closer to Bear Hill Road (Rt. 252) will continue to be used in its current state (single-family home with outbuildings), while the other lot is proposed to be developed with townhomes (per application SK ). Mr. Burgo advised that there is an existing stream and floodplain area which will need to be explored in greater detail in order to better understand the impact of the corresponding land development. Ms. Snyder opened the floor to the Public for comment: Pete Goodman, representing Trout Unlimited, provided additional details on the surrounding stream network. Ray Clark asked for clarification on the proposed configuration and lot areas. Ms. Snyder provided a highlighted copy of the subdivision plan, which also contains a zoning table. SK Howellville Road (Howellville Road Land Partnership, LLC) Sketch plan proposal for the above listed Subdivision (SD ) to build twenty-four (24) townhomes (in 3 clusters of 8 units) on the reconfigured 951 Howellville Road parcel. Mr. Benson introduced the sketch plan proposal, which (as currently drawn) involves three clusters of townhomes that would be accessed by 3 separate driveways off of Howellville Road. He added that the plans are already in the process of being revised, per comments from Staff. These comments focused on providing adequate parking, snow removal areas, and sight distance around the ingress/egress. There were also concerns raised over the general circulation of the project and potential floodplain infringement.

4 Ms. Snyder advised that there are various sections of the code (in and elsewhere) that apply to the number, size, and location of driveways in relation to the adjacent roadway (and dwelling units) that should be explored in greater detail to ensure compliance. Mr. Rountree, Ms. Waite, Mr. Growney raised concern with the number of units, density of the site, and the proposed configuration particularly as related to internal circulation. Ms. Snyder opened the floor to the Public for comment: Pattye Benson (no relation to the developer) raised concern over the density of the proposed development and asked that the Commission take care to ensure that there are no adverse impacts on the existing neighbors particularly as related to traffic and stormwater. The historic roadway is lined with old homes dated back to the 18 th century. The narrowness and steepness of the roadway, and the closeness of the homes to the roadway, creates issues for folks living in the area. Joe Romano, owner and/or trustee of the nearby properties located 1080, 1074, 1068, & 1062 Howellville Road, echoed the concerns over traffic and stormwater. He advised that the traffic generated by the nearby ball fields, combined with the excessive speeding on the narrow roadway, creates hazardous conditions for him and his neighbors. Al Borzillo, owner of the adjacent 993 Howellville Road, explained that he is not opposed to the development but emphasized that he is concerned over the potential impacts on the creek and potential flooding. He advised that there is a drainage easement, owned by the Township, that across his property. ZA Petition for Zoning Ordinance Text & Map Amendment (950 Cassatt Partners, LLC / Nolen Development Group, LLC) Petition to revise the O (Office) district to permit Residential Care Facilities and to re-zone the subject property to O (Office). The property, located at 950 Cassatt Road in Berwyn, is within the R-1 (Residential) district. Ms. Snyder recused herself from the discussion and turned the gavel over to Mr. Rountree. George Broseman, attorney for the Applicant, introduced the project which seeks to revise the Zoning Ordinance & Map to permit a residential care facility for older persons at the Aquilante property on Cassatt Road. Mr. Broseman provided an overview of the physical location of the property and its surroundings, as well as a description the surrounding zoning districts. Originally, the entire area was zoned R-1 (Residential) but, as the Township became increasingly developed and commercial & office uses became more prevalent the zoning on the adjacent properties was converted to OA (Office-Apartment) [As part of a 2013 Zoning amendment, the OA (Office-Apartment) district was revised and renamed to O-Office]. By 1987, the property was surrounded on the north and west by office and commercial districts. Mr. Broseman noted that on the Future Land Use map in the Township s 2009 Comprehensive Plan, the northern portion of the property (which most recently housed a catering operation) was shown as potentially being converted to an Office/Business Park use. Although the majority of the land on the east side of Cassatt Road is zoned R-1, the Applicant feels that a residential care facility would serve as an appropriate transitional use from the higher intensity, commercially zoned properties to the north and west. Mr. Rountree noted that there are really two separate (but related) propositions before the Commission one is to create an overlay district related to the Office district, the other is to re-zone the property in question to Office so that it could be considered under the proposed overlay. Ms. Waite asked if the proposed amendments would affect other properties in the Township. Mr. Broseman advised that the zoning changes would affect other properties that are zoned Office, but only those along Minor Collector Roads and located adjacent to a Residential district. Mr. Rountree added that if the property were to be re-zoned to Office, it may be appropriate

5 to place some sort of deed restriction on the land to ensure that it is developed in a residential manner, rather than as an office building which would be permitted under the proposed zoning. Ms. Waite and Mr. Parker asked that the Applicant consider including additional height restrictions as part of the dimensional standards in the proposed overlay. This would reinforce the claim that this use could serve as a transition zone from the Office to Residential districts. Ms. Waite also asked that any future plans for lighting be considerate of the surrounding neighborhoods. The Applicant provided an overview of the conceptual plan for the property, which would consist of a 3-story, multi-family building complex in a town center-inspired campus. This would be an amenity-rich facility, with independent and assisted living arrangements. No skilled nursing care is currently proposed. Mr. Rountree opened the floor to the Public for comment: Jim Hilly of 551 Westwind Drive raised concern over the potential traffic impacts of the development, including cut-through traffic to Contention lane and points east. Bill Bellew, a former resident of Winston Way, echoed the concerns over traffic. He also raised concern over the affordability of the units for local residents who might be looking to downsize. During the 2009 Comprehensive Plan process, Mr. Bellew and his fellow task force members thought this property would make a good candidate for lower cost housing for older persons. Henry Fix of 756 Westwind Drive raised concern of the number of trips in /out of the facility by employees, visitors, resident bus trips, and delivery trucks. He also raised concern over lighting and buffering. Mr. Fix stated that previous proposals for residential proposals for the site would have also required zoning relief due to the asking price for the land. He added that he would like to see the residential properties creeping in on the commercial properties, not the other way around. Carl Ippoliti of 708 Westwind Drive stated that he was apprehensive of a project described as a cruise ship on land. He thanked the Applicant for having the integrity to meet with neighbors and hear their concerns, but added that he was worried what else might be built on the site if the property were to be re-zoned and then never pursued (as proposed). Mr. Rountree stated that he was generally receptive to the concept of an overlay for the Office district, and not entirely opposed to the proposed use at this location, but that he too was concerned what else might be built if the property were re-zoned. Mr. Growney echoed those concerns but cautioned that it may not be appropriate to assume that the property would remain undeveloped forever. He advised that he is not entirely opposed to the proposed use, but agreed that the ordinance should continue to be tweaked before coming back in front of the Commission. Mr. Parker stated that the current owner and the Applicant are within their rights to maximize the value of property, but that what they are asking for is a large request. Mr. Thomas asked that the Applicant add additional language for buffering of the surrounding properties, in addition to the bulk and height standards discussed previously. Adjournment: Mr. Rountree adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m. ~ Next Meeting ~ January 19, 2017