WESTTOWN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Stokes Assembly Hall 1039 Wilmington Pike, Westtown Township August 17, :30PM

Transcription

1 WESTTOWN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Stokes Assembly Hall 1039 Wilmington Pike, Westtown Township August 17, :30PM Present Commissioners Rodia, Whitig, Adler, Pomerantz, Hatton and Lees. Absent was Yaw. Also present was Township Planning Director Chris Patriarca, Township Transportation Engineer Andy Parker and those mentioned below. Call to Order Mr. Pomerantz called the meeting to order at 7:30 and led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance. Adoption of Agenda The Agenda was approved unanimously as amended (JL/BW). Approval of Minutes The minutes of the Planning Commission (PC) meeting of August 3, 2016, were unanimously approved (BW/DP). Reports Mr. Rodia presented the August 15 Board of Supervisors (BOS) meeting. At their workshop the BOS discussed the 2016 road program, a resolution for the capital reserve fund policy, a honeybee initiative, and the potential Toll Brothers development. At their regular meeting under old business the BOS authorized payment for recent road improvements and extended the time allowed for the former Kirkwood Fitness Center to find a new tenant. Under new business the BOS approved a resolution relevant to the capital reserve fund, failed to approve the honeybee imitative, had several residents comment on the proposed chicken ordinance, made several announcements and paid the bills. As a result of the comments on the chicken ordinance, Mr. Rodia indicated the BOS may send it back to the PC for review further. Specifically there were concerns with permitting, coops, and right-to-farm. Announcements Mr. Patriarca stated the Westtown Woods application will likely be before the PC at the September 7 meeting. He further stated the Giant expansion project is in the final stages of approving agreements and that Toll Brothers is looking to a September submittal. Non-Agenda Public Comment There were no non-agenda public comments. New Business Dunkin Donuts (100 Skiles Boulevard) As Yaw was absent, Mr. Pomerantz first informed the audience in the event of a tie vote per the PC by-laws, it would constitute an unfavorable recommendation. He then introduced Abjibapa Enterprises, LLC and their consultant team and their conditional use (CU) application and Planned Office Campus (POC) district zoning amendment to allow a Dunkin Donuts (DD) to occupy the former space of the Malvern Bank at 100 Skiles Boulevard. Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 2016 page 1

2 Skip Brion, the attorney representing DD, stated he intended to go through the proposed zoning amendment and ideally leave with a recommendation from the PC on both the amendment and CU application. He acknowledged the traffic letter from EBS consultants, and stated that he felt it did not include much new information. Further he indicated their traffic engineer can demonstrate the overall traffic impacts on the site as a whole. Mr. Pomerantz then directed the conversation to the attorney representing EBS, Max O Keefe, to allow him describe their concerns with the proposed DD. Mr. O Keefe stated EBS retained a traffic consultant to review and comment on the study produced by the applicant. He stated the most important aspect of their analysis was relevant to additional traffic internal to the condominium site. This additional traffic within the site is of most concern to EBS as a result of their clients who can be developmentally challenged traverse the parking area. He also critiqued the report for its lack of providing focus on DD traffic throughout the day instead of only during the peak hour. Mr. O Keefe stated this overall increase in traffic is over 500 percent greater than what was experienced by the previous Malvern Bank. Mr. O Keefe further contended the proposed use of coffee shop does not adequately define a DD and that it is more like a fast food restaurant. He stated this as being the case based on its international business profile and high traffic volumes. He argued the more intense business brought by a DD will be inconsistent with the existing businesses as well as with the Township and County comprehensive plans. Specific to the current POC zoning designation, Mr. O Keefe argued a DD is contrary to the present allowable uses and intent of the district and its increased traffic is dramatically different from the previous banking use. Relevant to the Township comprehensive plan, Mr. O Keefe referenced portions of the plan that discussed congestion at the jughandle. He argued increased traffic generated by the DD on the jughandle makes it inconsistent with the plan as it will increase traffic. Relevant to the County comprehensive plan, he stated the DD is inconsistent as it differs dramatically from the established neighborhood in terms of the amount of traffic it generates. He further argued the DD does not promote walkability as promoted by the County plan due to this increased traffic and impacts of distracted driving. Mr. O Keefe further noted a Change.org petition that protests this zoning change on the basis of traffic congestion and overall safety of students that utilize on-site and neighboring facilities. Mr. Pomerantz next asked Mr. Parker for his overall thoughts on the EBS letter. Relevant to concerns raised with congestion and comprehensive plans, Mr. Parker stated the counts utilized in the applicants traffic study were recently calculated and do reflect the current condition of the site. He also stated concerns raised in the EBS letter about internal circulation are problematic, but that potential solutions could be developed in collaboration with the neighbors. He also clarified the total number of trips presented in the EBS letter are both incoming and outgoing, and that the majority of the incoming trips does not necessarily conflict with EBS. Mr. Pomerantz asked Mr. Parker if the additional traffic generated by the DD creates an unsafe condition. He did state it would be less safe than it presently, but that measures could be implemented to improve the overall safety situation. In order for these safety measures to be implemented, he stated it would require cooperation between all of the impacted parties on-site. Mr. Pomerantz then asked the applicant Diptesh Patel what their hours are proposed to be, and he indicated they will be 5:00 am to 9:00 pm on weekdays. Mr. Brion first commented that what Mr. O Keefe presented would be more in line with what one would expect at the onset of a CU hearing. He further noted the EBS traffic letter utilized the Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 2016 page 2

3 information from the applicants study and not from a study developed by their own consultant. John Yurick, the traffic engineer for the applicant, stated that 75 percent of DD traffic occurred prior to noon and that this pattern is very different from that of a fast food restaurant. He further stated the transaction data from two of the applicants exiting DD locations illustrates the study undertaken for Skiles proposal is much more conservative in nature. Mr. Yurick acknowledged there will be increased traffic, but that it will likely be less than what is presented in the report. Mr. Pomerantz asked Mr. O Keefe why he believes the DD proposal is not consistent with Landscapes2 when in their letter the CCPC indicated a coffee shop is an appropriate use for the suburban landscape. Mr. O Keefe stated his belief that DD is not a coffee shop, but rather a fast food restaurant as a result of the amount of traffic it generates, is out of character with the existing neighborhood and therefore is inconstant with Landscapes2. Mr. Pomerantz then asked him what his definition of a coffee shop is, and Mr. O Keefe stated he did not have one at this time. He further stated the CCPC only considered the amendment on its face, and did not take into account impacts of the zoning change on existing properties adjacent to the proposed DD. Mr. Brion reiterated their request is only for a coffee shop and that as part of the CU hearing this will be made clear. He further suggested that other municipalities throughout the County have similar definitions for a coffee shop as what is being proposed for Westtown. He further elaborated that DD does not utilize on-site fryers or ovens like traditional restaurants. Mr. Rodia asked what type of business EBS would find acceptable to occupy the space in question relative to traffic impacts. Mr. O Keefe stated a light business as being appropriate and for a business to be considered light, its traffic would need to be similar to that of a bank or office use. Mr. Patriarca then recited the proposed definition of coffee shop and asked the PC to consider whether or not it is appropriate. Mr. Brion restated the burden is on him to provide evidence as part of the CU hearing that demonstrates the DD is a coffee shop. Ms. Adler asked if the general provisions of the POC district are also proposed to be amended as part of the application. Mr. Brion noted language is proposed to be added to the general provisions to allow for the standalone coffee shop use. He further indicated that most coffee shops also exhibit a drive-thru and serve nearby residents, and that the drive-thru is the most contemporary way to serve the local community with this type of use. Ms. Adler then recited several other areas of the general provisions which contradict what is being proposed. Mr. Hatton asked why the sentence was being added to the general provisions, to which Mr. Brion stated it was done in order for the coffee shop use be consistent with the district as a whole. Mr. Hatton next asked what can be done to better refine the coffee shop definition to preclude the allowance of providing more food prepared on-site if the business evolves in that manner. Mr. Brion stated that other Townships with similar CU applications incorporated conditions to limit future expansion of the business. Mr. O Keefe stated concerns relative to safety are of most importance to EBS relative to allowing a DD at the Skiles Boulevard location. He further suggested the PC needs to consider the facts at a higher level, not necessarily with the detail of a CU hearing. He further stated the PC does have enough general information on the proposal to make a determination as to whether or not the DD use is appropriate for the Skiles location in context with established businesses. Next followed a discussion with Mr. O Keefe on what generally constitutes a light commercial use. Mr. Pomerantz then transitioned the discussion back to the PC for consideration on possible Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 2016 page 3

4 recommendations on both the amendment and CU application. Mr. Patriarca reiterated the PC needs to only consider what is before them and not what could be learned further as part of a formal hearing. He then suggested the PC go through the proposed ordinance section by section and discuss as needed. Mr. Lees expressed concern with outstanding questions that needed to be answered as a result of conflicting conclusions presented in the EBS traffic memo. Further he asked if the applicant was working with their neighbors to develop a solution for the shared traffic impacts. Although not generally opposed to the use, Mr. Lees expressed concern with proceeding without a solution to the internal traffic issues. Mr. Brion stated there is an existing agreement that allows DD to utilize the common driveways, but that to date no agreement has been reached with the association as a whole to mitigate additional traffic impacts. He further stated this issue will be further discussed with expert testimony as part of the CU hearings. Mr. Lees indicated he was not inclined to give a favorable recommendation until the traffic issues were better addressed. Ms. Adler expressed her concern again the proposed amendment does not reflect the overall intent of the POC as it was originally developed. Mr. Whitig expressed his concern with the use at this location, but would consider voting in favor of the amendment if the drive-thru provision was removed. Mr. Rodia indicated he was generally in favor of the proposal recognizing the traffic issues will be handled as part of the CU hearings. Mr. Hatton stated he generally does not oppose the coffee shop use, but did have some questions on the ordinance. Mr. Hatton made the following motion, seconded by Mr. Rodia that resulted in a tie vote: The Planning Commission has considered the coffee shop zoning amendment and recommends the Board of Supervisors consider the POC amendment to allow a coffee shop by conditional use, contingent upon the testimony heard as part of the associated hearings. Further, the Planning Commission recommends the Board consider as part of their evaluation of the amendment the following: Definition for light commercial business Limit a coffee shop to only food preparation and not cooking Not allow outside seating Proposed signage should be consistent with the proposed sign ordinance The motion was not approved as the vote was a 3-3 tie. Mr. Lees stated his concern with listing these things at this time as they will be addressed as part of a CU hearing. Mr. Hatton responded these are items are to make the BOS aware of the PC concerns with the ordinance. After the tie vote, the PC next considered the conditional use application to allow for a DD at the Skiles Boulevard location. Mr. Patriarca stated that although the vote for the ordinance failed, this is the time for the PC to comment on the CU application to be considered by the BOS. Ms. Adler suggested consideration be given to the enforcement of traffic violations on private property associated with this application. Relevant to whether or not a drive-thru should be allowed, the majority of the PC did not object to its inclusion. Mr. Pomerantz suggested that any internal circulation/safety improvements be fully evaluated by the appropriate professionals. Mr. Patriarca stated he would like consideration for refuse screening that compliments the existing façade. Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 2016 page 4

5 Ms. Adler made the following motion that was seconded by Mr. Lees and passed 6-0: If the Board of Supervisors is to proceed with the conditional use application for a coffee shop at the former Malvern Bank location on Skiles Boulevard, the Planning Commission would offer the following suggestions for their consideration as part of the hearings: The resolution of additional traffic signage and markings throughout the complex with the three condominium owners to provide for safe passage of motorists and pedestrians through the parking lots; Give careful attention and evaluation of where new traffic signage should be located throughout the parking areas; Screening of refuse bins (cans and dumpsters) with materials consistent with what is used on the building itself. Old Business 1131 South Chester Road Gifford property Mr. Patriarca started the discussion with the owner of 1131 South Chester Road on a zoning amendment to allow for professional office as a major home occupation at the intersection of two arterial streets. Mr. Gifford provided background on the property and indicated the likelihood of it being utilized solely as a residence as not being practical. Mr. Whitig stated he was in favor of the proposed amendment as presented. Mr. Hatton asked for a clarification on how the proposed definition of professional office will apply to the major home occupation standards. Mr. Patriarca stated the limited professional office use would become a potential use option for a major home occupation at the intersection of two arterial streets by special exception. Ms. Adler stated she was not opposed to the amendment, but the professional office definition should be refined further as to preclude misinterpretation in the future. Mr. Gifford expressed concern with the prohibition on the selling of good and merchandise in the context of a professional such as an architect where drawings are created. Ms. Adler expressed concerns with potential conflicts the ordinance may have with the existing home occupation ordinance. Mr. Patriarca stated the section listing prohibited home occupations is proposed to be amended to accommodate this use. Ms. Adler then suggested additional language be added to the proposed definition to clearly state product sold directly related to the professional service offered is permitted. Mr. Patriarca agreed that additional language should be added, and further stated the definition of professional office was developed as to have some objective criteria as to what constitutes one. Ms. Adler further suggested the proposed definition for professional office should not be included in the definitions chapter, but rather the home occupation section of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Patriarca next led the PC through the comments from the Township Planner John Snook. The principal one discussed was a suggestion to add language that limits the ability to have a major home occupation at the intersection of two arterial streets to only properties that have direct access to either one or both of the arterial streets. This would prevent a property that happens to meet the 300 foot distance criteria, but not actually front on the arterial. The PC agreed this language should be added to the proposed ordinance. Ms. Adler made the following motion, seconded by Mr. Whitig and approved unanimously: The Planning Commission has considered the zoning amendment to allow for a limited professional office use as a major home occupation at the intersection of two arterial streets, Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 2016 page 5

6 inclusive of the two proposed changes suggested by Township Planner John Snook relative to the location of the home occupation in relationship to the subject intersection and after a final review by the Township Solicitor for any potential conflicts with the proposed professional office definition with other section of the ordinance, and recommends its approval by the Board of Supervisors. Public comment There were no public comments. Adjournment 9:45 pm (JL/BW) Respectfully submitted, Chris Patriarca Planning Commission Secretary Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 2016 page 6