 |
 |
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||
|
 |
|
|
|
West Goshen Township Planning Commission - James L. O'Brien, Chairman; Dean K. Diehl, Paul D. Spiegel, Nancy B. Higgins, Jeffrey A. Laudenslager, Philip E. Yocum, Salvatore Triolo Supervisor – Dr. Robert White Administration – Richard J. Craig, Township Engineer A stated meeting of the West Goshen Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman, James O'Brien, at 7:02 p.m. on Tuesday, March 21, 2006, at the West Goshen Township Administration Building. In the absence of Michael McKie, the Chairman appointed Salvatore Triolo a voting member for the ensuing meeting. Following the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, the floor was opened for public comment. There being none, the Chairman called for approval of the Minutes from the February 21, 2006 meeting. The minutes were approved unanimously. Final Plan Reviews: Brady Subdivision This plan meets all requirements of the West Goshen Township Code. The proposed infiltration bed has been moved 25 feet from the residence. It was noted that the Highway Occupancy permit required by PennDOT has not been submitted to the Township as yet, and that it would be a condition for final approval by the Board of Supervisors. A motion was made by Dean Diehl and seconded by Nancy B. Higgins that the plan be approved for recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. Motion was carried unanimously. West Chester University Maintenance Garage Jane Shields, attorney for the applicant, presented the plan to the Board. When asked by Dean Diehl as to whether or not the improvements to the building were strictly internal, Jim Rudolph, engineer for the project, replied that the plan proposes to modify the existing interior of the garage, with additional minor modifications to the outside. The overall plan proposes a decrease in impervious service. When asked about the ventilation system in the building, Dee Giardina replied that the design is one of direct flow to allow for the constant movement of air. Jeffrey Laudenslager inquired as to the proposed sidewalks in front of the building and was informed that the design is still planned for implementation. Ms. Shields pointed out to the Board that a centralized location for equipment and maintenance vehicles would reduce the number of short trips in and around the campus. On motion by Jeffrey Laudenslager, seconded by Nancy B. Higgins, the Board unanimously approved recommendation of this plan to the Board of Supervisors. Initial Submissions: Sheller Oil - Omnipoint Communications Myers/McCue Proposed subdivision for a lot line change, which would transfer 25,364 square feet of property from the 18 E. Rhodes Avenue site to the property located at 931 Pritchard Lane. No discussion. Faulkner Pontiac Buick GMC Proposed land development to create a 17,576 square foot addition to the existing service building. No discussion. Scott Honda Proposed land development to create a 2,220 square foot addition to the existing showroom. Rick Craig stated that there might be some minor stormwater impact on the site. Parking will need to be evaluated as will lot coverage to determine if the additional space will take away from the general circulation pattern of the lot. West Goshen Town Centre Proposed land development depicting improvements to shopping center via parking, landscaping, and reconfiguration of space currently occupied by Downingtown National Bank. Plan Represented by: Jack D. Wuerstle, Esquire Jack Wuerstle, attorney for the applicant, explained that the plan before the Board is the start of the applicant's desire to clean up and modernize the shopping center. To that end Brandolini Companies plans on making modification to the Downingtown National Bank by upgrading the building to include a drive thru canopy which will face West Chester Pike. The current requirements for a canopy provide for a 100-foot setback, the proposed canopy will be located at 50 feet. Brandolini plans to lease 5,000 square feet of space from the Office Depot for a Panero Bread Company restaurant/store, which will include outdoor dining. At this time outdoor dining is not permitted other than at a stand alone restaurant. The plan calls for overall improvements to the traffic circulation by eliminating several of the existing parking areas and modifying the size of the spaces in the entire parking lot from 10 x 20 to 9 x 18. This would increase the amount of parking spaces required for such use by 115 spaces. Phil Yocum inquired as to the impact the loss of spaces would have on trucks that currently access the property. Mr. Brown stated that a truck turning simulation had been done which demonstrated that there would be no impact based on the reduction of spaces. Phil Yocum stated that he would like to see some additional green area on the plan, as the current site is primarily asphalt. Cornelius Brown, project engineer, pointed out several landscape islands that propose the utilization of various shade plants. Dean Diehl questioned the maintenance of these plants, as it was his opinion that within a short time the proposed landscaping would die. Mr. Billingsley explained that Brandolini Companies would be responsible for the maintenance. Jeffrey Laudenslager questioned Rick Craig as to our existing parking regulations. Mr. Craig responded that current regulations require 9 x 18 with the exception of retail space where 10 x 20 is the norm. This is due to the high turnover of traffic in retail locations. Mr. Craig pointed out that the Institute of Transportation Engineers standard is a 9 x 18 stall size overall. In regard to additional questions raised concerning the changes to parking, Fred Snow stated that the proposed changes would create a significant improvement in the circulation pattern. He noted that there currently exists a bottleneck at the entrance to the shopping center in combination with traffic generated from the bank. The proposed new canopy/drive thru would create an alternate traffic route, which would ease this obviously dangerous situation. Mr. Wuerstle explained that to reach their goals for improving the site, they are seeking ordinance changes in regard to parking, building setbacks for a canopy, and outdoor dining. These ordinance changes are also before the Board for review this evening, and will be before the Board of Supervisors on May 10, 2006. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Review: Applicant: Pulte Homes of PA The proposed amendment will allow the use of a Flexible Design Option for subdivision and development of 535 single family residences located on various tax parcels between Pottstown Pike, Greenhill Road, Phoenixville Pike, and Route #322. Ms. Mamourian noted that a minor change had been made to the text amendment based on previous commentary by the Board. The revised amendment requires that the Board of Supervisors will retain authority to allow retaining walls in yard areas. Ms. Mamourian advised that the text amendment would come before the Board of Supervisors on May 10, 2006, when testimony on this matter will conclude. The May 10, 2006 meeting will also include the review and possible approval of a conditional use amendment. A motion was made by Jeffrey Laudenslager and seconded by Nancy B. Higgins, that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the text amendment to the Board of Supervisors. Motion was carried unanimously. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Review: Applicant: Brandolini Companies The proposed amendment will redefine the term "Canopy", amend the regulations for outdoor dining as an accessory use to a restaurant in a C-2, C-4, and C-5 Zoning District; amend the building setback line for a canopy over a drive through lane at a bank or financial institution in the C-2 zoning district to 50 feet; and to amend parking requirements for a shopping center in the C-2 district with a gross floor area of at least 100,000 square feet to be 9 x 18 feet long. Dean Diehl noted that the proposed amendment changes were to be applied to the entire Township and not just the West Goshen Shopping Centre. He further pointed out an inconsistency in regard to the actual number of feet (40 vs. 50) the proposed building setback is to be. At this point, Chairman Jim O'Brien, decided the Board should review the proposed amendment, section by section and make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors as follows: Section 1. Definition of Canopy. A general discussion ensued whereby, Elizabeth Hulse, 210 Elton Circle, inquired how traffic problems are helped by the placement of a canopy in the front portion of the existing Downingtown National Bank. Cornelius Brown, engineer, explained that the design and placement of the canopy in the front would allow for better stacking ability overall, thereby a better circulation pattern. Lance Billingsley stated that currently there are conflicting movements in regard to the existing drive thru area. No changes proposed. Section 2. Canopy - Building Setback Fred Snow of Brandolini Companies stated that the canopy setbacks were necessary to allow for a drive thru section for DNB with an ATM. Current regulations require a 100-foot setback, which the bank does not meet. Ms. Hulse, stated that it was her opinion that a canopy that close to the road would be dangerous and asked why the building could not be moved back to accommodate the requirement. Mr. Snow responded that Brandolini must work within the confines of the building envelope and that they only have a certain amount of leeway within the lease agreements. In regards to the matter redefining a building setback line for a canopy over a drive through bank lane to 50 feet, a motion was made by Phil Yocum and seconded by Dean Diehl that this section be removed from the proposed text amendment. Motion carried 5:1, with Nancy Higgins opposing. Jeffrey Laudenslager moved that it be noted on record that any applicant wishing to go to the Zoning Hearing Board to seek variance relief for a canopy setback would have the full support of the West Goshen Planning Commission. This was seconded by Dean Diehl, and received unanimous approval by the Board. Section 3, 4, & 5. Outdoor Dining As An Accessory Use Text amendments in Section 84-21.K, 84-28.N, 84-32. No changes proposed. Section 6. Regulations for Outdoor Dining Amends previous ordinance permitting outdoor dining as an accessory use for a stand alone restaurant only. Revised text would permit use for any restaurant in the C-2, C-4, and C-5 provided it was part of a shopping center and attached to another building. Additionally the gross floor area may not exceed 7,000 square feet. Jeffrey Laudenslager mentioned that it might have been advisable to include this use when the outdoor dining ordinance came before the Board last year. Lance Billingsley stated that Brandolini Company has leased space to Panero Bread Company at the shopping center. They will occupy space next to Office Depot, and plan on having outdoor dining. No changes proposed by the Board. Section 7. Barriers between Outdoor Dining Area & Parking Areas/Streets. The proposed text suggested a 4-6 foot high barrier between the eating area and roadway/parking lot. This structure would require patrons to enter/exit from inside the restaurant. Phil Yocum stated that a solid fence as opposed to bollards similar to those found at a WAWA was unreasonable and too restrictive. Jeffrey Laudenslager agreed that some barrier might be feasible, however he would prefer one that would allow access to and from the dining area. Lance Billingsley, stated that the barrier was a township stipulation which Brandolini was complying with. Dean Diehl noted that the solid barrier would pose a safety issue in the event of a fire, as there would only be one means of egress. Phil Yocum mentioned that outdoor dining could become a staple in West Goshen, similar to West Chester Borough. He also noted that the Borough does not have outdoor dining areas separated from the roadway with partitions. Following considerable discussion in regards to the safety issues involved with a barrier such as the one proposed, a motion was made by Phil Yocum and seconded by Salvatore Triolo that Section 7C be removed from the proposed amendment. Motion carried unanimously. Section 8. Food & Beverages served in an Outdoor Dining Area must be served in non-disposable containers. A motion was made by Salvatore Triolo and seconded by Nancy Higgins that this section be deleted from the text amendment. Motion carried 4:2, with Jeffrey Laudenslager and Dean Diehl opposing. Section 9. Parking Space Requirements The amended text would provide for 9 x 18 feet parking spaces for any use involving retail sales, except shopping centers with at least 100,000 square feet of gross floor area, where a 10 x 18 foot requirement will exist. Phil Yocum questioned the need for additional parking spaces on the site as there appears to be adequate parking already. Lance Billingsley commented that Brandolini's contract with Panero Bread Company, provides for a certain number of additional parking sites for restaurant use only. Mr. Billingsley further added that with the addition of Panero Bread and the existing Applebee's restaurant site, the additional parking is a proactive measure. Salvatore Triolo asked whether a revised parking area would provide areas for expectant mothers and additional handicapped units. To which Mr. Billingsley replied in the affirmative. A motion was made by Jeffrey Laudenslager and seconded by Nancy Higgins that the Board approve Section 9. Motion carried 5:1, with Dean Diehl opposing. Committee Reports: There were no reports for the month. Miscellaneous: The Chairman opened the floor for public comment. Robin Murless, 824 Halvorsen Drive, stated that constant blasting going on in the area has disturbed his neighborhood. While Mr. Murless understands the necessity of the blasting in regard to the construction of new homes, he is annoyed with the apparent lack of consideration on behalf of the contractor to at lest notify the residents that blasting will occur. Mr. Murless asked if there were anything that the Township could do. Mr. Craig responded that the Township has no jurisdiction over the blasting and that many times the Township does not receive notification until a short time before it occurs. Jeffrey Laudenslager asked Mr. Craig if it were possible to notify one main resident when the Township was notified. Dr. White informed Mr. Murless that the Township would look into the matter. There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:27 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Diane E. Clayton |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
 |
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||