PLANNING COMMISSION
The Planning Commission of Chadds
Ford Township met in the Township Hall on
There was
no public comment.
Upon motion and second (
James Fritsch of Regester Associates, James H. Duff,
Executive Director and Vince Razzi of the Brandywine Conservancy, applicant,
presented a land development plan for the property at 6 Station Way Road. The property falls within the business zoning
district, however, prior use was a private residence, necessitating the need
for a land development application.
The
Conservancy is currently renovating the interior of the structure, some 1,315
square feet, with plans to use the facility as rental office space, but wish to
preserve the right for residential use.
The proposal is for parking to be provided at the maintenance building on
the opposite side of Station Way Road.
Comments contained in Kelly Engineer’s review letter of
Zoning Comment 1.
The applicant was not proposing the removal of any
existing trees. Mr. Matson agreed to
accept the color rendering of the site as submitted by Mr. Fritsch as the
required preliminary landscape plan.
Zoning Comment 2.
Mr. Fritsch stated that the applicant is not proposing a
parking lot, thus lighting is a non-issue.
Discussion followed with Commission members and Mr. Matson questioning:
Planning
Commission
Page
Two
·
hours of
operation if the building is leased as professional office space. Mr. Duff replied that the Conservancy has no
interest in leasing the space for retail use;
·
safety issues
both on site and with walking across the street, and
·
the amount of
light currently provided .
The
Conservancy is trying to avoid adding too much lighting to the area, however,
they would agree to add some lighting to the maintenance building parking lot
and perhaps one or two lights in the front yard of
Zoning Comment 3.
As to the parking issue, the following was discussed:
·
Mr. Matson
commented that in accordance with Township zoning requirements, seven (7)
usable, on site parking spaces would be needed for business use and suggested
that any relief from that requirement would need to be presented to the Zoning
Hearing Board for consideration;
·
Mr. Vernon
questioned where residential parking would be located. Mr. Fritsch responded that there is currently
sufficient parking on site for residential use;
·
Mr. Todd
questioned what Township ordinance provides for off sight parking. The applicant knew of none;
·
Mr. Matson and
Mr. Reiter questioned where handicapped parking spaces would be provided. Both Mr. Reiter and Mr. Todd felt the
applicant should provide at least one handicapped parking space on site;
·
The applicant is
trying not to increase the amount of impervious coverage to avoid the
submission of a stormwater management plan;
·
Mr. Matson asked
if there is sufficient area for the required number of spaces on site for
business use. Mr. Fritsh thought the
best option was still remote parking, however, head to toe parking might be an
option to reduce the amount of additional impervious coverage;
·
Mr. Matson asked
if the maintenance building parking lot is used by any other facility other
than the Conservancy. Mr. Duff replied
that the lot was specifically designed to be oversized in order to provide
additional parking for the Township if necessary during meetings. Mr. Matson asked how much additional parking
is available in that lot over and above the legal requirement. The applicant did not know.
Planning Commission
Page Three
·
The applicant’s
engineer asked if a stone parking area would be permissible. Mr. Matson responded that he saw no problem
with a pervious parking;
·
Mr. Todd
suggested that an option might be for the Conservancy to provide four (4) parking
spaces on site at 6 Station Way and the remainder off site, with the
understanding that if the property is ever sold, the Conservancy would have to
bring parking up to standard as required by then current ordinances;
·
Mr. Matson
stated that he would seek the Township Solicitor’s input as to whether remote
parking is an option. Mrs. Furlong also
agreed to contact Mr. Donaghue regarding the issue;
·
Mr. Duff asked
if an adjacent lot might be used for parking, such as the property behind
· Mr. Fritsch questioned whether parking spaces in the street can be credited towards the required number.
Comment 7.
Mr.
Matson questioned the presence and use of on site wells. Mr. Fritsh responded that the well is not in
use and a note will be added to the plan indicating that the well will be
abandoned.
Mr.
Fritsch requested approval of the land development plan, subject to conditions
as discussed, and as long as parking requirements do not necessitate the
applicant seeking relief from the Zoning Hearing Board.
Mr.
Taylor replied that the only problem was the parking issue. Mr. Daniels stated that it was difficult to
assess the issue because of the applicant has not determined the use of the site.
Mr.
Reiter agreed with Mr. Todd’s evaluation of the situation, provided that one
handicapped parking space be made available on site. Mr. Vernon concurred. Mr. Daniels suggested an agreement or
easement might be drafted with the Township being a party thereto. Mr. Todd suggested that either the Township
Solicitor or the Zoning Hearing Board would have to address the issue.
Mr.
Fritsh then asked for Planning Commission approval of all but the parking
issue, with that matter being referred either to the Board of Supervisors or
the Township Solicitor. Mr. Taylor
voiced a concern that there were too many contingencies. Mr. Todd added that Planning Commission’s
responsibility is to approve plans as submitted, and he personally had a
problem with approving the application without resolution of the parking issue.
Planning
Commission
Page
Four
Mr.
Taylor suggested proceeding with the renovations for a proposed residential
use. The applicant may then continue to work
while pursuing the parking issue and come back before Planning Commission after
speaking with the Township Solicitor.
Planning
Commission members agreed to acquiesce to the Zoning Hearing Board on the
parking issue and would be supportive of a decision that split parking between
Planning
Commission members agreed that the Brandywine Conservancy may continue with
construction as a residential renovation.
The question of remote parking and credit for on street parking will be
presented to the Township Solicitor for comment.
Scott Dickinson presented an informal review of a lot
line change application that had been submitted to the Township regarding two
properties at 107 and
Upon
motion and second (Todd, Daniels) the meeting was adjourned at 854 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
MARYANN D. FURLONG
Planning Commission
Secretary