PC Packet 4-18-16 - West Whiteland Township

Transcription

WEST WHITELAND TOWNSHIP
Planning Commission
Agenda
Monday, April 18, 2016
7:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
REVIEW OF MEETING MINUTES
1. Approval of Meeting Minutes: March 14, 2016
PUBLIC COMMENT/CONCERNS/QUESTIONS
PLANS
1. Health and Wellness Suites of Exton
Address: 545 Thomas Jones Way
First Review: Land Development
Request: To develop a two-story transitional care facility with associated site improvements.
2. Roberts Automall
Address: 421 W. Lincoln Highway
Second Review: Land Development
Request: Building expansion to provide additional service bays along with associated site
improvements. Paving proposed for the rear inventory storage area.
3. Marquis at Exton
Address: 301 W. Lincoln Highway
First Review: Land Development
Request: Construction of 240 apartment units in six buildings and a clubhouse in the seventh
building.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Discussion regarding reorganization of the Commission.
ADJOURNMENT
Next Meeting: May 2, 2016
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
April 15, 2016
Planning Commission
John R. Weller, AICP
Director of Planning and Zoning
SUBJECT:
Health & Wellness Suites of Exton
Land development and lot consolidation plan
Applicant:
MS Exton, LLC
14390 Clay Terrace Blvd., Ste. 205
Carmel, IN 46032
Site Address:
501-545 Thomas Jones Way
Exton, PA 19341
Tax Parcels:
41-4-31.31 and 41-4-31.32
Zoning:
Description:
Expires:
I-1, Limited Industrial, subject to the provisions of the Institutional Overlay District
Construction of an 80,565 sq.ft. transitional care facility in a single building on a vacant tract in the Oaklands Business Park with a total gross area
of 5.67 acres. Conditional use approval granted on April 13, 2016.
June 14, 2016
Background
The project site is comprised of two adjoining vacant parcels with a total gross area of 5.67
acres in the Oaklands Business Park; the plan includes combining these lots into a single lot.
The site has frontage on W. Lincoln Hwy., Oaklands Blvd., and Thomas Jones Way. There are
no steep slopes, wetlands, or floodplain areas on the site.
The Applicant is proposing a two-storey, 120-bed transitional care facility adjacent to the main
entrance of the Oaklands Business Park. The facility will accommodate individuals recovering
from major surgery on an in-patient basis. The typical stay is between 15 and 25 days, during
1
which they are cared for by skilled nurses, occupational therapists, and other staff as they transition from hospital to home. The Zoning Officer has determined that this use is permitted at
this location in the Limited Industrial (I-1) zoning district pursuant to the provisions of the Institutional (IN) district as found in §325-45.A and §325-45.B(5) of the West Whiteland Township
Zoning Ordinance (“Zoning”).
This project required review and approval as a conditional use pursuant to §325-124.A(1) of the
Zoning for the construction of a non-residential building with more than 20,000 sq.ft. of floor
area. The West Whiteland Township Board of Supervisors (“Board”) granted conditional use
approval on April 13, 2016, subject to conditions as stated in a Decision and Order (“D&O”).
Staff has provided an analysis reviewing compliance of this plan with the D&O as an attachment
to this memorandum.
Tonight is the Applicant’s first presentation of the land development plan to the Planning
Commission.
Consultant Reviews

SSM Group (“SSM”) review dated April 11, 2016. SSM reviews the various waiver
requests and notes the need for several minor revisions and corrections as well as some
supporting documentation. We note:
-
In response to comment #6, the Commission may recall our prior determination that
this project is not subject to the Township’s open space requirement.
-
The stormwater management provisions are considered in comments #8 through
#14. Comment #9 directs a modification to the design; the Commission should confirm that this is a “will comply” item for the Applicant. Comment #12 suggests clarification of the provisions from which waivers are requested. Staff does not see this as
a critical issue, and we note that SSM supports the request.

Theurkauf Design & Planning (“Theurkauf”) review dated April 6, 2016. The
Commission may recall that we have already discussed the matter of pedestrian accommodation (comment #1) with the Applicant and concluded that what is shown on the
plan is satisfactory. Comments #5 and #10 suggest minor design revisions, which the
Commission should confirm are “will comply” items for the Applicant. Comments #4, #7,
#9, and #11 direct additions and revisions to the plan details. Comments #3 and #12
indicate support for requested waivers.

Stubbe Consulting review dated March 23, 2016. Mr. Stubbe requests some additional details on the lighting; comment #3 expresses the same concern as Theurkauf
comment #9, directing the Applicant to confirm that there will not be any conflicts
between the lighting and the landscaping.

Traffic Planning and Design (“TPD”) reviews dated April 11, 2016. There are
two separate letters from TPD, one stating that the required Traffic Impact Fee is
$31,710.90 and the other providing their review of the project design. The “Plan
Review” section of the latter notes a variety of minor revisions and additional details that
should be included; the Commission should confirm with the Applicant that these are
“will comply” items. The “Traffic Study” section notes that the conditions anticipated for
when this facility is in operation are based upon a re-timing of the existing traffic signal
at the intersection of Oaklands Blvd. and Lincoln Hwy. It is our understanding that the
2
Applicant is pursuing this in cooperation with Collegium Charter School. The Applicant
should provide the Commission with an update on the progress of this work, and the
actual re-timing should be a condition of plan approval.

Fire Marshal memorandum dated April 6, 2016. Mr. Moses notes the adequacy of
the water supply to provide fire suppression service to this project. He also directs participation in our Knox Box program and requests that TPD to review the design to assure
accessibility by fire trucks.

Police Department memorandum dated April 11, 2016. Chief Catov’s has no
remaining concerns regarding this project.

Chester County Planning Commission reviews dated April 5, 2016. The County
has provided separate reviews for the land development and the lot consolidation aspects
of the project. Both reviews note that the project is consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan. Other comments are all issues raised by our consultants and resolved
to their satisfaction, except as may be noted in their individual reviews, with the exception of comment #6. That comment suggests that an ultimate right-of-way of 150 feet
be provided for Lincoln Hwy. rather than the 75-foot right-of-way shown. Staff finds this
comment confusing, as it appears that the Applicant has shown a 120-foot right-of-way
(Sheet 5 depicts this clearly); that is, 60 feet from the centerline of road. While we certainly would not object to an additional fifteen feet of right-of-way, it does not appear to
be a compelling need, and we note that such additional width may adversely affect the
stormwater management facilities for this project.
Staff Comment
While all of our consultants have identified outstanding concerns, Staff is of the opinion that they
are relatively minor. If the Applicant advises the Commission that these are ALL “will-comply”
items, then we would have no objection to Commission action on the plan tonight with the following motion:
To recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve the land development and lot consolidation plan for the Health and Wellness Suites of Exton as depicted on the 37-sheet plan set prepared by Chester Valley Engineers (dated March 14, 2016), GreenbergFarrow (dated February 1,
2016, most recently revised March 14, 2016), and RLPS Architects with Alderson Engineering
(dated March 14, 2016), with the following waivers and subject to the following conditions:
1. The plan is approved as a final plan, pursuant to §281-10.H of the Township Subdivision
and Land Development Ordinance (“S/LDO”).
2. Waiver of various provisions of §270-20 of the Stormwater Management Ordinance such
that stormwater infiltration need not be provided in recognition of the potential for sinkholes in this area, pursuant to comment #8 of the SSM review dated April 11, 2016.
3. Waiver of §270-29.A.4.a and §270-29.A.4.d of the Stormwater Management Ordinance
to allow the basin design as shown, pursuant to comment #12 of the SSM review dated
April 11, 2016.
4. Waiver of §281-32.C of the S/LDO to allow curbing with a minimum reveal of six (6)
inches, pursuant to comment #1 of the SSM review dated April 11, 2016.
3
5. Waiver of §281-33.C(6)(c) of the S/LDO such that no plant growth diagrams need be
provided, pursuant to comment #12 of the Theurkauf review dated April 6, 2016.
6. Waiver of §281-35.E(3) and §281-35.F(4) of the S/LDO to allow the perimeter and basin
buffers as shown on the plan, pursuant to comment #3 of the Theurkauf review dated
April 6, 2016.
7. Any other waivers as may be agreed to in the course of tonight’s meeting.
8. The Applicant shall perform the work necessary to re-time the traffic signal at the intersection of Oaklands Blvd. and Lincoln Hwy. to the satisfaction of the Township. Such retiming shall be completed and in effect prior to the issuance of a Use and Occupancy
Permit for this facility.
9. The Applicant shall execute and provide to the Township a recordable, notarized copy of
a memorandum containing a metes-and-bounds description of the property and stipulating the terms and conditions of the conditional use approval and shall consent to the
recording by the Township in the office of the Recorder of Deeds of Chester County at
the time of recordation of this land development plan.
10. Prior to Board approval, the Applicant shall resolve all remaining consultant concerns to
the satisfaction of the Township, including specifically but not limited to comments #7,
#9, and #21 through #25 of the SSM review dated April 11, 2016; comments #4, #5,
#7 and #11 of the Theurkauf review dated April 6, 2016; comments #1 and #2 of the
Stubbe Consulting review dated March 23, 2016; and comments #1 through #6 of the
“Plan Review” section of the TPD review dated April 11, 2016.
11. Payment of a Transportation Impact Fee in the amount of $31,710.90, pursuant to
Township Ordinance No. 427 and the TPD review dated April 11, 2016, such fee to be
paid in full at or before application for the first building permit for this project.
12. TPD shall confirm the adequacy of the design to accommodate the Township’s fire
department apparatus, pursuant to comment #3 of the Fire Marshal’s memorandum
dated April 6, 2016.
13. The Applicant shall review the landscaping and lighting plans to confirm no landscaping
creates a potential hazard by unduly shading proposed lighting.
14. Any other conditions as may be deemed necessary in the course of tonight’s meeting.
15. Execution and recording of the Township’s Stormwater Facilities Maintenance Agreement
and Landscaping Restrictive Covenant, pursuant to Township practice.
16. Execution of a Developer Agreement and a Financial Security Agreement pursuant to
Township practice. The amount of such security shall be based upon construction cost
estimates for the site improvements, including landscaping, to be provided by the Applicant, which shall be reviewed and deemed sufficient by SSM and Theurkauf.
17. Payment of all outstanding Township invoices within thirty (30) days of the date of final
plan approval or at time of application for a building permit, whichever comes first.
Attachments
1.
2.
3.
SSM review dated April 11, 2016.
Theurkauf review dated April 6, 2016.
Stubbe Consulting review dated March 23, 2016.
4
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
TPD reviews (2) dated April 11, 2016.
Fire Marshal memorandum dated April 6, 2016.
Police Chief memorandum dated April 11, 2016.
Chester County Planning Commission reviews (2) dated April 5, 2016.
D&O compliance analysis, dated April 15, 2016.
Plan set dated March 14, 2016, no revisions.
H:\Plans\NOPQ\Oaklands Mainstreet\Weller PC memo dated 4-15-16.doc
5
MEMORANDUM
TO:
John Weller, AICP, West Whiteland Township Director of Planning and Zoning
Claudia Wade, Township Planning Secretary
Ryan Clark, MS Exton LLC
Ryan Whitmore, P.E., Chester Valley Engineers, Inc.
FROM:
Edward A. Theurkauf, RLA, ASLA, APA
DATE:
April 6, 2016
SUBJECT:
REVIEW COMMENTS – HEALTH AND WELLNESS SUITES OF EXTON
PRELIMINARY LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATED 3-14-16
Please note our review comments pertaining to the following documents, which we received on 3-1816, and to a site visit on 12-30-15:

Land Development Plan consisting of 37 sheets; and

Letter from Chester Valley Engineers, Inc. dated 3-16-16 in response to previous consultant
comments.
P a g e |2
April 6, 2016
1.
Pedestrian Accessibility – In accordance with section 281-31.A of the subdivision and land
development ordinance (SLDO), the plan should promote effective pedestrian accessibility as
follows:

A five foot minimum width sidewalk should be provided along Lincoln Highway.

The proposed Oaklands Boulevard sidewalk to the bus stop should be extended along the
entire road frontage, to facilitate a pedestrian connection from the residential development
across Lincoln Highway to the Corporate Center and to Chester Valley Trail.

Pedestrian crosswalks and curb cuts should be provided at sidewalk intersections with
Oaklands Boulevard, Lincoln Highway, and Thomas Jones Way.
If the Township elects not to require these pedestrian connections, a fee in lieu should be
considered for other areas in the Township where a more critical need exists.
2.
Screen Buffer – A screen buffer is required along Lincoln Highway per section 281-35.D (SLDO),
to be landscaped as follows:
Buffer/Length
Plant Type
Lincoln Hwy./540 LF
Shade Trees
Evergreen Trees
Large Shrubs
Required Qty. Proposed Qty.
11
22
54
11
22
54
This issue has been resolved.
3.
Perimeter Buffer – Landscaping is required and proposed along 25 foot wide perimeter buffers
in accordance with section 281-35.E.3 (SLDO) as follows:
Buffer/Length
Plant Type
Oaklands Blvd./355 LF Shade Trees
Evergreen Trees
Large Shrubs
4
7
18
4
7
18
East boundary/350 LF Shade Trees
Evergreen Trees
Large Shrubs
4
7
18
4
7
18
P a g e |3
April 6, 2016
Buffer/Length
Plant Type
Tho. Jones Way/515 LF Shade Trees
Evergreen Trees
Large Shrubs
5
10
26
5
10*
26
West basin/350 LF
Shade Trees
Evergreen Trees
Large Shrubs
4
7
18
4
7
18
North basin/280 LF
Shade Trees
Evergreen Trees
Large Shrubs
3
6
14
3
6
14
*Includes credit for 14-inch evergreen tree and 16-inch evergreen tree
to remain (8 trees).
Basin buffers are of insufficient width, with only 10 feet proposed between the west basin and
Oaklands Boulevard, and 6 feet between the north basin and proposed parking. In accordance
with sections 281-35.E.2 and 281-35.F.4 (SLDO), naturalistic basins with 4:1 or shallower side
slopes and 100% native landscaping can be installed without the required buffer width. The
north basin complies, but the west buffer has 2.5:1 side slopes.
However, it is noted that the required buffer vegetation has been provided and the basin
interiors are vegetated in 100% native plants. In light of this, we would have no objection to a
waiver on buffer width for the west basin. If this waiver were granted, we would consider this
issue resolved.
4.
Basin Planting Specification – It is noted that an acceptable native planting mix (Ernst ERNMX
127) is specified on the E&S Plan, and the project landscape architect has stated that native
plugs will also be proposed. In accordance with section 281-33.C.5 (SLDO) seeding and plug
specifications should be incorporated on the Landscape Plan.
5.
Street Trees – In accordance with section 281-36 (SLDO), one street tree is required for each 50
feet of road frontage, as follows:
P a g e |4
April 6, 2016
Frontage (Length)
Required Trees
Lincoln Hwy. (540 LF)
Oaklands Blvd. (405 LF)
Thomas Jones Way (565 LF)
Proposed Trees
11
8
11
11
8
36*
*Includes credit for (9) 12-inch to 20-inch deciduous trees to remain
along Thomas Jones Way (36 trees).
However, shade trees are proposed beneath overhead wires along Lincoln Highway and shall be
relocated or replaced with smaller species in accordance with PECO guidelines. Acceptable
small species for the proposed location include Dogwood, Crabapple, Serviceberry, or
Hawthorn.
6.
Building Area Landscaping – Section 281-37.D (SLDO) requires plantings between parking areas
and building façades as follows:
Façade/Length
Plant Type
North/340 LF
Shade Trees
Small Shrubs
7
85
7
85
East/65 LF
Shade Trees
Small Shrubs
1
16
1
16
South/230 LF
Shade Trees
Small Shrubs
5
58
5
58
7.
Tree Protection – Section 281.34.D (SLDO) specifies required tree protection methodologies to
prevent disturbance within the tree’s critical root zone, which extends from the tree trunk a
distance equal to 12 times the trunk diameter or to the tree’s drip-line, whichever is greater.
The tree protection detail states the requirement for fencing at the drip line only and shall be
revised accordingly.
8.
Tree Removal and Compensatory Planting – In accordance with section 281-34 (SLDO), existing
mature trees that are removed shall have replacement trees planted as mitigation. Trees to be
P a g e |5
April 6, 2016
removed, the calculation of required compensatory trees, and the locations of proposed
compensatory trees shall be indicated on the landscape plan.
Based on site inspection and the plan, the following mature trees would be removed:
(1) 24-inch Pear
(1) 22-inch Pear
(1) 16-inch Pear
(1) 12-inch Maple
Total caliper inches removed
Total replacement inches required
Total 3-inch Compensatory Trees required
74
41
14
The plan indicates more than 14 trees in addition to other ordinance requirements. This issue
has been resolved.
9.
Lighting and Tree Conflicts _ Section 281-33.C.5.h requires that landscaping not interfere with
safe lighting environment. Lighting fixtures shall be indicated on the Landscape Plan so that any
such conflicts can be resolved.
10.
Plant Species Selection - In accordance with sections 281-33.C.4 and 281-33.C.5 (SLDO), the
following proposed plantings are inappropriate and shall be revised:
a. Callery Pear is an invasive species and shall not be used.
b. Sugar Maple has poor salt tolerance and should not be used in areas where snow would be
plowed, including along streets or parking lots.
c. White Pine is too large for interior courtyard areas.
d. Sugar Maple is too large for interior courtyard areas.
11.
Tree Planting Details – The following revisions shall be made in accordance with section 28133.C.8.g (SLDO):
a. Tree root balls shall not rest on planting mix as depicted, but on undisturbed or compacted
subgrade.
P a g e |6
April 6, 2016
b. The tops of root balls for plantings shall be no more than 1-2 inches above surrounding
grade.
12.
Plant Growth Rate Diagrams - We would have no objection to a waiver from the requirement for
plant growth diagrams in accordance with section 281-36.C.6.c (SLDO).
13.
Conclusion – The Township shall consider the following prior to approval:



A fee in lieu of required pedestrian accommodations to fund critical walkability projects
elsewhere in the Township (comment 1).
A waiver on buffer width for the west basin (comment 3).
A waiver on plant growth diagrams (comment 12).
Aside from these items, the plan shall be revised in accordance with the comments 4, 5, 7, 9, 10
and 11.
Please contact this office with are any questions.
COMMISSION INTERNATIONALE DE L'ÉCLAIRAGE
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ILLUMINATION
INTERNATIONALE BELEUCHTUNGSKOMMISSION
John E. Kaufman, Past President
CIE(USA)
1752 Newfield Avenue
Stamford, CT 06903-5130
TEL: 203-322-6210
FAX: 203-322-9260
E-Mail: [email protected]
Phone: 610 972-9803
FAX: 610 326-1402
S TUBBE C ONSULTING LLC
IES
1438 Shaner Drive
Pottstown, PA 19465
[email protected]
March 23, 2016
Mr. Ed. Theurkauf, ASLA
1240 Elbow Lane
Chester Springs, PA 19425
Subject: Health and Wellness Suites of Exton, Prelim Land Devel., West Whiteland Twp.
Exterior-Lighting Review
Dear Ed:
On March 16, 2016, West Whiteland Township Planning Office transmitted a plan set, Sheets
00 - 37, Rev. 0 dated 03/14/16, for the proposed Health and Wellness Suites of Exton
Preliminary Land Development, and requested review of proposed exterior lighting.
Proposed exterior lighting, contained on Sheet E012, Electrical Site Plan specifies the use of
3000K LED full cutoff luminaires pole mounted at 15' AFG and facade mounted at 12' AFG.
Poles supporting luminaires located directly behind parking spaces are mounted on 30"
concrete pedestals.
The following comments and recommendations are offered for Township consideration, in
accordance with the requirements contained in SLDO Section 281-48. [Amended 12-8-1998 by
Ord. No 277] and reasonable and customary engineering practices:
1. Section 281-48.C.(3)(c) requires that information with respect to lighting control be included
on Plan. Plan is absent of a proposed control scheme information.
It is recommended Applicant be requested to document on Plan method of control of
site lighting, which specific luminaires, if any, are proposed for dusk-to-dawn site
safety/security lighting and the proposed hour for extinguishing non-safety/security
lighting.
2. Section 281-D. requires the inclusion of, on lighting plans, catalog cuts of all specified
luminaires.
It is recommended Applicant be requested to provide, on lighting plan, catalog cuts
of all specified luminaires.
3. Landscaping - There are a number of locations where it is judged that at tree maturity or
before, tree foliage will likely block the intended light intensity and result in illuminance
values below Township minimum requirements.
It is recommended Applicant be requested to plot proposed luminaire locations on
landscaping plans, review plans for potential tree/luminaire conflicts and take
appropriate corrective action.
If there are questions or concerns with this review and its recommendations, please advise.
Sincerely,
Stubbe Consulting LLC
C. Stanley Stubbe
Copy: John Weller
Claudia Wade
April 5, 2016
John R. Weller, AICP, Director of Planning & Zoning
West Whiteland Township
101 Commerce Drive
Exton, PA 19341
Re:
#
Preliminary/Final Subdivision - Health and Wellness Suites of Exton
SD-3-16-13483 - West Whiteland Township
Dear Mr. Weller:
A preliminary/final subdivision plan entitled "Health and Wellness Suites of Exton,” prepared by Chester
Valley Engineers, Inc., and dated March 14, 2016, was received by this office on March 21, 2016. The
plan is reviewed by the Chester County Planning Commission in accord with the provisions of Section 502
of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code. We offer the following comments on the proposed
subdivision for your consideration.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
Location - the southeast corner of West Lincoln Highway (Route 30) and Oaklands Boulevard
Site Acreage - 5.67 acres
UPI - 41-4-31.31, 41-4-31.32
Landscapes2 Designation - Suburban Landscape
Watersheds Designation - Valley Creek (West) subbasin of the Brandywine Creek watershed
PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes the consolidation of two parcels into one parcel. The project site, which will be
served by public water and public sewer, is located in the I-1 Limited Industrial and Institutional Overlay
zoning districts.
The applicant also proposes the construction of a two-story 80,565 square foot 120 bed skilled nursing facility
(aka transitional care facility) and 146 parking spaces on the 5.67 acre project site. This preliminary/final land
development is addressed by the Commission in a separate review (CCPC# LD-3-16-13484).
RECOMMENDATION: The Commission recommends that all West Whiteland Township
requirements be satisfied and the administrative issues raised in this letter be addressed before
action is taken on this subdivision plan.
COUNTY POLICY:
LANDSCAPES:
1.
The project site is located within the Suburban Landscape designation of Landscapes2, the 2009
County Comprehensive Plan. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the objectives of the
Suburban Landscape.
E-mail: [email protected]
●
www.landscapes2.org
●
Web site: www.chesco.org/planning
Page: 2
Re: Preliminary/Final Subdivision - Health and Wellness Suites of Exton
#
SD-3-16-13483 - West Whiteland Township
ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES:
2.
The plan depicts the location of twenty (20) foot wide water easements along the northern and
southern boundaries of the project site. The details of these easements should be incorporated into
the deed of the proposed lot.
3.
A minimum of four (4) copies of the plan should be presented at the Chester County Planning
Commission for endorsement to permit recording of the final plan in accord with the procedures of
Act 247, the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, and to meet the requirements of the
Recorder of Deeds and the Assessment Office.
This report does not review the plan for compliance to all aspects of your ordinance, as this is more
appropriately done by agents of West Whiteland Township. However, we appreciate the opportunity to
review and comment on this plan. The staff of the Chester County Planning Commission is available to
you to discuss this and other matters in more detail.
Sincerely,
cc:
Exton Development LTD
Mainstreet Property Group, LLC
Chester Valley Engineers, Inc.
Chester County Conservation District
Paul Farkas
Senior Planner
April 5, 2016
101 Commerce Drive
Exton, PA 19341
Re:
#
Preliminary/Final Land Development - Health and Wellness Suites of Exton
LD-3-16-13484 - West Whiteland Township
Dear Mr. Weller:
A preliminary/final land development plan entitled "Health and Wellness Suites of Exton," prepared by
Chester Valley Engineers, Inc., and dated March 14, 2016, was received by this office on March 21, 2016.
This plan is reviewed by the Chester County Planning Commission in accord with the provisions of Section
502 of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC). We offer the following comments on the
proposed land development for your consideration.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
Location - the southeast corner of West Lincoln Highway (Route 30) and Oaklands Boulevard
UPI - 41-4-31.31, 41-4-31.32
Landscapes2 Designation - Suburban Landscape
Watersheds Designation – Valley Creek (West) subbasin of the Brandywine Creek watershed
PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes the construction of a two-story 80,565 square foot 120 bed skilled nursing facility (aka
transitional care facility) and 146 parking spaces. Vehicular access will be provided from two driveway
entrances on Thomas Jones Way. The project site, which will be served by public water and public sewer, is
located in the I-1 Limited Industrial and Institutional Overlay zoning districts.
The applicant also proposes the consolidation of the two parcels that comprise the project site into one
parcel. This preliminary/final subdivision is addressed by the Commission in a separate review (CCPC#
SD-3-16-13483).
RECOMMENDATION: The Commission recommends that the issues raised in this letter be
addressed and all West Whiteland Township requirements be satisfied before action is taken on this
land development plan.
COUNTY POLICY:
LANDSCAPES:
1.
The project site is located within the Suburban Landscape designation of Landscapes2, the 2009
County Comprehensive Plan. The objective of the Suburban Landscape is to promote new
●
www.landscapes2.org
●
Page: 2
Re: Preliminary/Final Land Development - Health and Wellness Suites of Exton
#
development to accommodate anticipated population and employment growth, using appropriate
density, sustainable design, and smart transportation principles. Additionally, Landscapes2
supports infill development and redevelopment efforts in the Suburban Landscape based upon
infrastructure capacity and environmental constraints. The proposed land development is
consistent with the objectives of the Suburban Landscape.
WATERSHEDS:
2.
Watersheds, An Integrated Water Resources Plan for Chester County and Its Watersheds, is the
water resources component of Landscapes2. Watersheds indicates that the proposed development
activity is located within the Valley Creek (West) subbasin of the Brandywine Creek watershed.
The highest priority management objectives identified in Watersheds for consideration in land
development and land use planning within the Brandywine Creek watershed include: reduce
stormwater runoff, restore water quality of “impaired” streams, and protect vegetated riparian
corridors. These concerns and conditions should be taken into consideration in final site design
decisions. Specific strategies for implementation to effectively address these items can be found in
Part 8 of Watersheds. A more detailed listing of water resources management needs and resources
to be protected within the Brandywine Creek watershed can be found in Part 10 of Watersheds.
Watersheds can be accessed at www.chesco.org/water through the “Water Information (Online
Maps and Publications)” link.
PRIMARY ISSUES:
3.
The Transportation Impact Assessment, prepared by McMahon Transportation Engineers & Planners
and dated December 21, 2015, was included with the plan submission to the County Planning
Commission. The Township engineer should review the findings specified on page 10 of the report.
Page: 3
#
4.
We endorse the installation of sidewalks, which are an essential design element in the Suburban
Landscape. The Township should ensure, in its long-term planning efforts within the Oaklands
Corporate Center, that sidewalks be provided on all lots in order to ensure safe pedestrian access
amongst all facilities within the Corporate Center, including transit facilities (it is identified on page 3 of
the Transportation Impact Assessment that Krapf A bus services is provided within the Corporate
Center).
5.
The applicant should clearly identify whether any paratransit facilities will be provided for this
development. The primary objective of the Chester County Public Transportation Plan, adopted
in 2014 as an element of Landscapes, is to provide an affordable, reliable, and accessible public
transportation network to offer mobility, encourage favorable land use patterns, sustain the
environment, and alleviate congestion within designated growth areas. The Plan is available online
at: http://www.landscapes2.org/publications/transportation/PubTransPlan.cfm.
6.
The site plan identifies an existing 75 foot wide right-of-way for this section of the West Lincoln
Highway (Route 30). The 2015 Multi-Modal Circulation Handbook by the Chester County
Planning
Commission,
which
is
available
online
at
www.landscapes2.org/transportation/circulation/ch1-intro.cfm, classifies this section of Route 30 as
a major arterial road. The Handbook (page 193) recommends a 150 foot-wide right-of-way for
major arterial roads in suburban areas to accommodate future road and infrastructure improvements.
We recommend that the applicant and the Township contact PennDOT to determine the appropriate
right-of-way to be reserved for this section of Route 30.
7.
The site is underlain by carbonate geology in which the presence or potential may exist for formation
and/or expansion of solution channels, sinkholes and other karst features. These features can
present risk of collapse and groundwater contamination that often can be overcome and avoided with
careful stormwater management design. The location, type, and design of stormwater facilities and
best management practices (BMPs) should be based on a site evaluation conducted by a qualified
licensed professional that ascertains the conditions relevant to formation of karst features, and the
PA BMP Manual or other design guidance acceptable to the Municipal Engineer.
8.
In July 2013, the “County-wide Act 167 Stormwater Management Plan for Chester County, PA” was
approved by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Land disturbance
and land development activities that occur within Chester County must comply with the stormwater
management standards included in the approved Act 167 Plan and the requirements of the
municipality’s County-Wide Act 167 stormwater ordinance. Implementation of the Act 167 Plan
and ordinances will help reduce the impacts of stormwater and pollutant runoff to Chester County’s
streams and groundwater. The municipal engineer should thoroughly review the proposed plans to
ensure compliance with the applicable standards of the County-wide Act 167 Plan as incorporated
within the municipality’s Act 167 stormwater management ordinance.
9.
As of 2014, nearly every municipality in Chester County has at least one stream segment listed as
impaired by the Pennsylvania Department of Environment Protection (DEP) and not meeting the
applicable state water quality standards. The municipal engineer and the applicant should review
the DEP information regarding the locations, sources and causes of listed water body impairments to
ensure that the proposed activity will not increase the pollutant loading to an impaired water body.
Information regarding listed impairments for Chester County water bodies can be found at
www.chesco.org/water through the “TMDLs/Water Quality Improvement” link.
Page: 4
#
10.
The proposed activity is located within a watershed for which one or more Total Maximum Daily
Load (TMDL) pollutant load reduction requirements have been established by PA Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP). The municipal engineer and the applicant should review the
TMDL report(s) for this watershed to determine if any requirements are applicable to this location,
and if so, ensure that the proposed activity will not increase the relevant pollutant loading to the
water body, and that the proposed activity achieves any applicable pollutant load reductions that
may be required by municipal or state regulations, to the extent practicable. Information regarding
TMDLs for Chester County water bodies can be found at www.chesco.org/water through the
TMDLs/Water Quality Improvement link.
11.
The applicant is requesting two waivers from design standards in Article IV of the Township
Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance, and two waivers from the stormwater management
provisions in Section 270 of the Township Code. Waiver requests should only be considered
following the determination that the proposed project either meets the purpose of these requirements
or does not create the impacts that these provisions are intended to manage.
ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES:
12.
The applicant should contact the office of the Chester County Conservation District (CCCD) for
information and clarification on erosion control measures. The provisions of the Commonwealth
Erosion Control Regulations may apply to the project and may require an Earth Disturbance Permit
or a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit for discharge of stormwater from
construction activities.
13.
Commission for endorsement to permit recording of the final plan in accord with the procedures of Act
247, the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, and to meet the requirements of the Recorder of
Deeds and the Assessment Office.
review and comment on this plan. The staff of the Chester County Planning Commission is available to
you to discuss this and other matters in more detail.
Sincerely,
Paul Farkas
Senior Planner
cc:
Exton Development LTD
Mainstreet Property Group, LLC
Chester Valley Engineers, Inc.
HEALTH and WELLNESS SUITES of EXTON
COMPLIANCE WITH DECISION AND ORDER
April 15, 2016
Staff has prepared the following analysis of the conditions established by the Decision and
Order (“D&O”) granting conditional use approval on April 13, 2016 for the construction of a
80,565 sq.ft. transitional care facility on a 5.7-acre tract at 501-545 Thomas Jones Way in the
Oaklands Business Park. The conditions of the D&O are provided below verbatim and are
shown in italics; Staff evaluation of compliance with the condition immediately follows and is
shown in plain text; our conclusion is in bold.
1. The Applicant shall demonstrate compliance with §270-20 of the Stormwater Management
Ordinance, infiltration requirements, or seek a waiver from that section to the satisfaction of
the Board of Supervisors, as advised by the Township Engineer, the SSM Group, based upon
receipt by SSM of required documentation.
The SSM review dated April 11, 2016 documents their support for waivers from three (3)
separate elements of §270-20, noting that infiltration presents a danger of sinkhole formation at this site.
This condition has been met.
2. The Applicant shall be required to pay a traffic impact fee pursuant to Township Ordinance
No. 427.
The TPD review dated April 11, 2016 states that a fee of $31,710.90 is to be paid by the
Applicant at or before the time they apply for their first building permit relative to this
project. The Applicant has indicated to Staff that this is acceptable.
This condition should be carried forward as a condition of final plan approval.
3. The Applicant shall perform the work necessary to re-time the traffic signal at the intersection of Oaklands Boulevard and Lincoln Highway to the satisfaction of the Board of
Supervisors.
It is our understanding that the Applicant is pursuing this work in cooperation with Collegium Charter School. Staff suggests that the completion of this work should be made
a condition of issuing the Use & Occupancy Permit for this facility in light of the fact that
the traffic impact study for this project presupposed such re-timing.
This condition should be carried forward as a condition to be met prior to
issuance of the Use & Occupancy Permit.
4. The Applicant shall execute and provide to the Township a recordable, notarized copy of a
memorandum containing a metes and bounds description of the Property in question and
stipulating the terms and conditions of this approval and shall consent to the recording by
1
the Township in the office of the Recorder of Deeds of Chester County at the time of
recordation of the land development plan for the Development.
As noted in the language of the condition, this should be carried forward as a condition
of final plan approval.
5. Within 30 days of the date of this Decision and Order, the Applicant shall pay in full all fees
charged by Township consultants for review of the Application of the Applicant and plans
and preparation of this Decision and Order.
The Township Finance Department advises that the Applicant is current on all Township
invoices; however, we note that there may still be additional invoices relative to the
conditional use application and that the 30-day period cited has not yet elapsed.
Satisfaction of this condition is premature at this time.
6. Applicant shall express to the Board in writing delivered to the Township Administrative
offices within 10 days of the Applicant’s receipt of this Decision its full and complete consent
to the conditions specified herein above or the Application of the Applicant is denied; the
Board expressly finding and concluding that the Application of the Applicant, in the absence
of compliance with the said conditions, is inconsistent with the standards, criteria, purposes
and policies codified in Code §325-124.C.
As of this writing, the 10-day period cited has not yet elapsed.
Satisfaction of this condition is premature at this time.
This concludes the conditions attached to the D&O.
SUMMARY and CONCLUSION
In the opinion of Staff, of the six (6) conditions attached to the D&O, one (1) has been met and
five (5) are either premature or should be carried forward as conditions of final plan approval.
2
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
April 15, 2016
Planning Commission
SUBJECT:
Roberts Automall
Preliminary/final land development plan
Applicant:
Park Lane II, LP
c/o BET Investments, Inc.
200 Witmer Rd., Ste. 200
Horsham, PA 19044
Site Address:
Tax Parcel:
Zoning:
Description:
Expires:
421 W. Lincoln Hwy.
Exton, PA 19341
41-5-3.4
O/C – Office/Commercial
Construction of a 4,140 sq.ft. addition to the existing Roberts Chevrolet
dealership building, additional parking and vehicle storage areas, and new
driveway accesses to the proposed Waterloo Blvd. extension.
April 30, 2016
Background
The subject property is the Roberts Chevrolet dealership along W. Lincoln Hwy. opposite the
intersection of Campbell Blvd. The dealership is a legally non-conforming use in the O/C
Office/Commercial zoning district. The Staff memorandum dated March 11, 2016 included a
detailed review of the applicable zoning regulations and the Zoning Officer’s determinations that
this project (1) did not require conditional use review, (2) did not worsen any existing aspect of
non-conformity, and (3) did not create any new aspect of non-conformity with the Zoning
Ordinance.
1
The Applicant is proposing a 4,140 sq.ft. addition to the exsiting building, additional paving to
accommodate both customer parking and inventory storage, and two (2) new driveways to
access the planned extension of Waterloo Blvd. The area of the lot will be increased by 8,149
sq.ft. (0.187 acre) through the addition of property between the current western property line
and the new right-of-way for Waterloo Blvd.
In 2011, the Township approved plans for a 6,586 sq.ft. addition to the building and other site
improvements, resulting in the current conditions on this lot. At that time, conditional use
review was required for projects proposing more than 5,000 sq.ft. of additional non-residential
floor space,1 so the approval of that project included a Decision and Order (“D&O”) dated March
30, 2011 with thirty (30) conditions. Such conditions exist in perpetuity, so Staff reviewed the
D&O relative to the current project, concluding that most of the conditions were fulfilled during
the land development stage for that project and therefore now superfluous. Following the
review of the current plan set, Staff has determined that only four (4) conditions remain valid:

Conditions #8 and #9 regarding snow removal;

Conditions #18 regarding display of vehicles; and

Condition #27, which prohibits unloading of vehicle carriers on the property.
The Applicant first presented this project to the Commission at the meeting of March 14, 2016,
but the Commission took no action at that time due to the number and extent of consultant concerns. Tonight is the Applicant’s second presentation of this project to the Township Planning
Commission.
Consultant Reviews


1
SSM Group (“SSM”) review dated April 11, 2016. SSM has no significant remaining
concerns, but we note the following issues:

Comments #2, #3, #4, and #6 are issues that are typically addressed following
Township action and prior to recording of the plan. None of these are reason to
delay action on the plan.

Comment #5 notes that there will be a discharge of stormwater onto an adjoining
property. The Commission may recall discussing this with the Applicant at the March
14 meeting, at which time they stated that the necessary easement agreement to
allow this was forthcoming.

Comments #4 through #10 review the stormwater management facilities. SSM indicates support for a number of waivers from the provision of the Stormwater Management Ordinance in comment #7 and a minor design revision in comment #8.
Theurkauf Design & Planning (“Theurkauf”) review dated April 7, 2016. Comments #2, #4, and #10 indicate support for various waivers; comments #2, #3, and #5
recommend revisions to the landscaping design. The Commision should review with the
Applicant whether these are “will comply” items or if they are requesting additional waivers. Staff is of the opinion that comment #9 is a recommendation, not a requirement, so
no waiver is necessary.
The current threshold is 20,000 sq.ft., so no conditional use review is required for the current project.
2

Stubbe Consulting review dated April 4, 2016. Mr. Stubbe has no remaining concerns regarding the lighting design, but recommends (comment #3) that the completed
project be inspected to confirm that there is no light trespass.

Traffic Planning and Design (“TPD”) review dated April 11, 2016. TPD recommends an additional sign.
Earlier correspondence noted that this project is subject to the Transportation Impact
Fee requirement in the amount of $13,416.15.
The prior reviews from from the Fire Marshal, the Chief of Police, and the Chester County Planning Commission indicated no remaining concerns. For this reason, we did not request new
reviews from any of them.
Staff Comment
Staff is of the opinion that the remaining consultant concerns are minor. We have no objection
to Commission action on this plan tonight, subject to the following waivers and conditions:
1. The plan is approved as a final plan, pursuant to §281-10.H of the Township Subdivision
and Land Development Ordinance (“S/LDO”).
2. Waiver of §270-20 of the Stormwater Management Ordinance such that stormwater
infiltration need not be provided in recognition of the potential for sinkholes in this area,
pursuant to comment #1e of the SSM review dated April 11, 2016.
3. Waiver of various provisions found in §270-29.A of the Stormwater Management Ordinance to allow the basin design as shown on the plan, pursuant to comment #7 of the
4. Waiver of §281-32.A and §281-32.B of the S/LDO such that no curbing shall be required
in addition to what is shown on the plan, pursuant to comments #1b and #1c of the SSM
review dated April 11, 2016.
5. Waiver of §281-32.C of the S/LDO to allow curbing with a minimum reveal of six (6)
inches, pursuant to comment #1f of the SSM review dated April 11, 2016.
6. Waiver of §281-33.C(6)(c) of the S/LDO such that no plant growth diagrams need be
provided, pursuant to comment #10 of the Theurkauf review dated April 7, 2016.
7. Waiver of §281-35.E of the S/LDO to allow the perimeter and basin buffers as shown on
the plan, pursuant to comment #2 of the Theurkauf review dated April 7, 2016.
8. Waiver of §281-37.C of the S/LDO to allow the removal of the plantings from the parking
lot divider strip, pursuant to comment #4 of the Theurkauf review dated April 7, 2016.
9. Waiver of §281-37.C of the S/LDO to allow the smaller trees over the subsurface basin as
shown on the plan, pursuant to comment #11 of the Theurkauf review dated December
28, 2015.
10. Any other waivers as may be agreed to in the course of tonight’s meeting.
11. The following provisions of the Decision and Order for this property dated March 30,
2011 are hereby confirmed and made conditions of this approval:
3
a. No snow melting machines shall be used to accelerate the natural rate of snowmelt
on the property. (Condition #8)
b. Snow and ice removed from vehicle inventory storage and custormer parking areas
the property in general shall not be pushed, dumped, or deposited on
green/landscaped area or onto landscaping materials. (Condition #9)
c.
No vehicles shall be displayed or parked beyond the boundaries of the property,
including within the Route 30 right-of-way or on adjoining properties. No vehicles
shall be displayed above the current grade level. (Condition #18)
d. All vehicle loading and unloading shall be done off-site. Under no circumstances shall
vehicle loading and unloading occur on-site or on public rights-of-way, with the sole
exception of a vehicle brought in to the property or removed from the property by a
tow vehicle. (Condition #27)
12. Prior to Board approval, the Applicant shall resolve all remaining consultant concerns to
the satisfaction of the Township, including specifically but not limited to comments #5,
#6, #8, #9, and #10 of the SSM review dated April 11, 2016; comments #2, #3, and #5
of the Theurkauf review dated April 7, 2016; and comment #3 of the TPD review dated
April 11, 2016.
13. Payment of a fee in lieu of open space pursuant to §281-47.C(2)(a) of the S/LDO, such
fee to be paid in full at or before application for the first building permit for this project.
14. Payment of a Transportation Impact Fee in the amount of $13,416.15, pursuant to
Township Ordinance No. 427 and the TPD review dated January 15, 2016, such fee to be
pain in full at or before application for the first building permit for this project.
15. Any other conditions as may be deemed necessary in the course of tonight’s meeting.
16. Execution and recording of the Township’s Stormwater Facilities Maintenance Agreement
and Landscaping Restrictive Covenant, pursuant to Township practice.
17. Execution of a Developer Agreement and a Financial Security Agreement pursuant to
Township practice. The amount of such security shall be based upon construction cost
estimates for the site improvements, including landscaping, to be provided by the Applicant, which shall be reviewed and deemed sufficient by SSM and Theurkauf.
18. Payment of all outstanding Township invoices within thirty (30) days of the date of final
plan approval or at time of application for a building permit, whichever comes first.
Attachments
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Stubbe review dated April 4, 2016.
TPD review dated April 11, 2016.
Plan set dated December 23, 2015, most recently revised March 28, 2016.
U:\Plans\RST\Roberts Auto\2016 revn\Weller PC memo dated 4-15-16.doc
4
MEMORANDUM
TO:
John Weller, AICP, West Whiteland Township Planning Director and Zoning Officer
Christopher W. Jensen, P.E., T & M Associates, Inc.
FROM:
Kelsey P. Stanton, Assoc. ASLA
DATE:
April 7, 2016
SUBJECT:
REVIEW COMMENTS – ROBERTS AUTOMALL
PRELIMINARY/FINAL LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATED 3-28-16
Please note our review comments pertaining to the following documents that we received on 3-30-16
and to a site visit on 1-11-16:
•
•
Letter dated 3-28-16 from T & M Associates, Inc. responding to consultant comments
Comments that have been addressed are so noted. New comments are in bold.
Page |2
April 7, 2016
1.
Screen Buffer – In accordance with sections 281-35.A and 281-35.D of the subdivision and land
development ordinance (SLDO), landscaping is required and proposed as follows:
Buffer/Length
Plant Type
North/380 LF
Shade Trees
Evergreen Trees
Large Shrubs
Required Qty. Proposed Qty.*
8
15
38
8
15
38
* including material from previously approved landscape plan dated 12-1-11
2.
Perimeter Buffers – In accordance with section 281-35.E (SLDO), 25 foot wide perimeter buffers
are required along the east property line where improvements are proposed, and around the
stormwater management basin, to be landscaped as follows:
Buffer/Length
Plant Type
East/140 LF
Shade Trees
Evergreen Trees
Large Shrubs
1
3
7
1
3
7
Basin/180 LF
Shade Trees
Evergreen Trees
Large Shrubs
2
4
9
2
4
7*
* Includes (5) small shrubs which are equivalent to (2) large shrubs at a ratio of 2:1.
The plan has been revised to widen the east buffer to 24 feet, and to include the missing
buffer plantings. The Applicant is seeking a waiver to permit the 24 foot wide perimeter
buffer. These revisions represent an improvement over the previously approved plan, and so
we would not object to the Township granting this waiver request.
The Applicant is seeking a waiver from the basin perimeter buffer width due to site
constraints, and is unable to provide the shallow side slopes required for a naturalistic basin
without buffers due to basin volume requirements. If the plan is revised to provide the
required quantity of basin buffer shrubs along the site perimeter, either by replacing the (5)
small shrubs along the basin perimeter with 36-inch shrubs, or by adding (3) more small
shrubs to the basin perimeter, we would not object to the Township granting this waiver
request.
Page |3
April 7, 2016
3.
Site Element Screens – The paved inventory lot qualifies as a vehicular storage area that requires
a yard screen in accordance with section 281-35.G.1.c (SLDO). Other buffer plantings may
comprise part of the requirement as long as an effective, continuous screen is maintained.
Landscaping is required and proposed as follows:
Screen/Length
Plant Type
North/340 LF
Evergreen Trees
Large Shrubs
23
68
23
61*
East/90 LF
Evergreen Trees
Large Shrubs
6
18
6
18
West/75 LF
Evergreen Trees
Large Shrubs
5
15
5
15**
* Includes material from previously approved landscape plan and (17) small shrubs which are
equivalent to (8) large shrubs.
** Includes material from previously approved landscape plan dated 12-1-11
The plan shall be revised to include the deficient shrub plantings along the north side of the
inventory lot.
4.
Parking Lot Divider Strip – The removal of the divider strip plantings necessitates a waiver. The
plan has been revised to replace the existing required (4) shade trees and (9) large shrubs
elsewhere on the property, and so we would not object to the Township granting this waiver.
5.
Parking Lot Island Landscaping - In accordance with section 281-37.B (SLDO), each parking lot
landscape island shall include (1) shade tree. Two islands next to proposed
employee/customer parking are missing the required shade trees. The plan shall be revised to
relocate (2) of the proposed shade trees in the offsite landscape easement to these islands.
6.
Building Façade Plantings – Section 281-37.D (SLDO) requires plantings between parking areas
and building façades as follows:
Facade/Length
Plant Type
East/59 LF
Shade Trees
Small Shrubs
1
15
1*
15
* (1) tree proposed along north façade, as water tanks preclude tree plantings on east façade.
Page |4
April 7, 2016
Facade/Length
Plant Type
West/22 LF
Shade Trees
Small Shrubs
0
6
0
6
We consider this issue resolved.
7.
Existing and Previously Approved Landscaping – The CUDO for the previous plan required
landscaping as shown in lieu of strict compliance with certain ordinance requirements. The plan
has been revised to include the deficient landscaping; a note to replace any previously
required landscaping that has died, per section 281-33.E.7 (SLDO); and to differentiate
between existing and proposed plantings and between existing plantings by type. We consider
this issue resolved.
8.
Plan Error – This issue has been resolved.
9.
Plant Cultural Requirements – American Holly (Ilex opaca) is sensitive to wind burn and road
salt. We recommend that it be replaced in the east and west buffer areas with evergreen trees
better suited to site conditions, such as Western Arborvitae (Thuja plicata), Austrian Pine
(Pinus nigra), or Norway Spruce (Picea abies).
10.
Plant Growth Diagrams – We have no objection to a waiver from the plant growth rate diagrams
requirement of section 281-36.C.6.c (SLDO).
11.
Cost Estimate – A landscape cost estimate will be required upon final plan approval in
accordance with section 281-33.C.6.i (SLDO).
12.
Conclusion – Prior to plan approval, the Township shall consider its position on the following
issues:
•
•
•
•
Waiver on east perimeter buffer width (comment 2)
Waiver on basin perimeter buffer (comment 2)
Waiver on existing parking lot divider strip plantings (Comment 4)
Waiver on plant growth diagrams (Comment 10)
Comments 2, 3, 5, and 9 will require plan revision for compliance.
Please contact this office with any questions.
Phone: 610 972-9803
FAX: 610 326-1402
1438 Shaner Drive
Pottstown, PA 19465
[email protected]
April 4, 2016
Theurkauf Design & Planning LLC
1240 Elbow Lane
Subject: Roberts Automall Addition, West Whiteland Township
Site Lighting Review
Dear Ed.,
On 03/28/16, West Whiteland Township Planning & Zoning Dept. transmitted plans dated
12/23/15, last revised 3/28/16, for the Roberts Automall Addition Preliminary/Final Land
Development Application, and requested review of the revised site lighting. Also transmitted
was a 03/28/16 letter from T&M to John Weller, P. 11 of which contained responses to this
office's 03/04/16 review letter.
Exterior lighting information was found on Sheet 10, " Lighting Plan," and 20, "Landscape and
Lighting Details." Proposed is the use of 4 4000K LED luminaires pole-mounted at 20' AFG on
30" concrete pedestals. Lighting Note 7. on Sheet 10 states: "Existing site and building
mounted lighting shall remain except for; one (1) wall light on rear of existing building and two
(2) inoperable light standards at NE & NW corners of site which will be replaced by lighting
proposed here."
The following remaining concerns and recommendations, based on the requirements contained
in Township SLDO Section 281-48. Lighting Control, and reasonable and customary
engineering practices are carried over from previous review along with Applicant's responses.
1. Lighting Control - Section 281-48.C.(3)(c) requires that lighting is to be extinguished each
evening within 1 hour of the close of business or 11 p.m. and where all-night safety or
security lighting is deemed necessary, the after-hours lighting intensity levels shall not
exceed 25% of the levels normally permitted. Plan Note 1. states that lighting is to be
controlled by existing on-site controls.
It was recommended Applicant be requested to specify the device to be used to accomplish
the 75% dimming.
Applicant Response: " A note has been added to the lighting plan to specify the light
dimming control.
Note 1. has been revised to specify the catalog number of the dimming device. No
further action judged necessary.
2. Building Mounted Lighting - Section 281-48.D. requires the submission of all exterior lighting
for Township review and approval. If other exterior lighting, e.g., building-mounted on the
addition, is proposed, it was recommended Applicant be requested to submit it for Township
review and approval as a part of the land development application.
Applicant Response: Will comply. Applicant will submit building mounted lighting for
approval if proposed. .
There being no additional building-mounted lighting proposed at this time, no further
action is judged necessary at this time.
CIE(USA)
TEL: 203-322-6210
FAX: 203-322-9260
3. Back-Light Shields - A note on Sheet 10 has been added and states: "Proposed light
fixtures to be installed with internal/external shields to cut light off at property line with
values no greater than 0.1 footcandles." It was recommended Applicant be requested to
demonstrate that such an "internal/external shield" is available for the specified luminaire by
listing the device nomenclature on Lighting Plan.
Applicant Response: Will comply. We are coordinating with lighting manufacturer who has
advised that shield for the specified luminaire is available as a special option. We are
awaiting additional nomenclature on the specifications for the shield which will be provided
upon receipt. A note has been added to the lighting plan to indicate that shielding is
available for the fixture from the manufacturer.
It is recommended this open issue be revisited at the time of the post-installation
lighting inspection, when light trespass can be measured.
4. Lighting Note Cross Reference - It was recommended Applicant be requested to add a note
to Sheet 10 cross-referencing the lighting detail on Sheet 20.
Applicant Response: The plans have been revised accordingly.
Note 10 has been added to Sheet 10. No further action judged necessary.
It is now judged that all previously open lighting issues have been satisfactorily resolved and
that therefore the lighting is judged to be in compliance with the requirements contained in
Township SLDO Section 281-48. Lighting Control. It is therefore recommended
consideration be given to approval of the lighting information contained on Sheets 10
and 20, Rev. 2 dated 03/28/16.
If there are questions regarding this review and its recommendations, please advise.
Sincerely,
C. Stanley Stubbe
cc: John Weller - West Whiteland Township
2
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
April 15, 2016
Planning Commission
SUBJECT:
Marquis at Exton
Land development plan
Applicant:
The Hankin Group
707 Eagleview Blvd.
Exton, PA 19341
Site Address:
301 W. Lincoln Hwy.
Exton, PA 19341
Tax Parcel:
Zoning:
Description:
Expires:
41-5-30.5
TC – Town Center
Construction of 240 apartment units in six (6) buildings and a clubhouse
in a seventh building on a 21.5-acre tract fronting both Lincoln Hwy. and
Waterloo Blvd. The only existing buildings on the site are “Ivy Cottage,” a
Class I historic resource (#205), and its associated structures. The Board
of Supervisors approved the conditional use application for this project on
January 4, 2016.
June 26, 2016
Background
The subject property, historically referred to as the Chandler Tract, lies between the Otto’s Mini
automobile dealership and the Whiteland Towne Center shopping center. It has frontage on
both Lincoln Hwy. and Waterloo Blvd. and is bisected by a stream known as Lionville Run. The
only structures on the property are a now-vacant dwelling known as “Ivy Cottage” and some
associated building, including a large barn, a gazebo, and a spring house. The dwelling is a
1
Class I historic resource and has been on the National Register of Historic Places since September 1984.
The project proposes the construction of 240 apartment units in six buildings. A clubhouse and
recreational center will be accommodated in a seventh building. The existing house, barn, and
spring house are to be retained and adaptively re-used. The plan also features approximately
935 linear feet of new public road that will connect Waterloo Blvd. and Lincoln Hwy. along the
western side of the property. The Commission should note that this road segment is featured on
the Township’s Official Map and its construction is therefore consistent with long-standing Township policy.
Due to the presence of historic resources on the site, this land development plan must be
reviewed by the Township Historical Commission; the plan is on the Commission’s agenda for
their meeting of May 5, 2016. In the course of the Commission’s review of the conditional use
application for this project, they indicated that they were pleased that the Applicant would be
maintaining and adaptively re-using Ivy Cottage and the other historic structures. Their only
recommendation for the conditional use approval was that the Applicant provide an amendment
to the Historic Resource Impact Study previously prepared for this site, updating the Study to
better address this particular project. This amendment has been provided and will be discussed
by the Historical Commission at the May 5 meeting.
Tonight is the Applicant’s first presentation of the land development plan to the Planning
Commission.
Consultant Reviews

SSM Group (“SSM”) review dated April 11, 2016. SSM advises (comment #6) that
insufficient information has been provided for them to comment on the stormwater management provisions; also, comments #7 and #8 indicate that the Applicant has not
demonstrated compliance with the requirements of the carbonate area district as found
in §325-77 and §325-78 of the Township Zoning Ordinance (“Zoning”). The sanitary
sewerage provisions are reviewed in comments #9 through #22. It appears that the
design of this system is generally satisfactory, but SSM notes the need for a number of
additional plan details and clarifications. Finally, comment #23 indicates that not all of
our standard plan notes are included on the drawings.

Theurkauf Design and Planning (“Theurkauf”) review dated April 11, 2016.
Comment #1 reviews the pedestrian accommodations at some length, indicating that it is
generally satisfactory although some revisions are suggested. The Commission should
review this aspect of the plan with the Applicant and provide them with clear direction on
the recommendations. Regarding the mulch path referred to in comment #1d, the
Commission should note that Staff and the Applicant have made numerous attempts to
contact the owner of the adjoining Whiteland Towne Center property in the interest of
providing a vehicular connection and adjacent walkway between this site and the shopping center, as required by Condition #11 of the D&O. It is our understanding that this
mulch path would be eliminated in the event that such a connection is allowed. We also
note the following issues:

Comment #3 is similar to SSM’s comment #5, noting that the Applicant will need to
satisfy the architectural design standards of the Town Center zoning district. While
2
nothing in this plan suggests that these standards cannot be met, the Commission
should confirm the Applicant’s commitment to adhere to them.

Comment #7 describes deficiencies in the perimeter buffer landscaping, including the
landscaping associated with the various stormwater management facilities. The
Commission may wish to review with the Applicant how they intend to resolve these
concerns.

Comments #8, #9, and #10 describe various minor landscaping deficiencies. The
Commission should confirm whether the plan will be revised to be brought into compliance (our preference) or if the Applicant will be requesting waivers.

Comment #12 lists revisions to be made to the tree protection standards.

Comment #13 reviews the appropriateness of various landscaping elements as
shown. Staff is of the opinion that these recommendations cannot be required, but
the Applicant should be encouraged to consider the revisions as suggested.

Stubbe Consulting review dated April 4, 2016. Most of Mr. Stubbe’s comments
recommend minor revisions or request additional details. Staff concurs with comment
#1, which directs the Applicant to review the plan and make changes as may be necessary to eliminate conflicts between landscaping and lighting. In comment #4 Mr. Stubbe
supports a higher level of illumination overnight in the interest of public safety. Staff
notes that the language of §281-48.C(3)(c) of the Township’s Subdivision and Land
Development Ordinance (“S/LDO”) is such that this is not actually a waiver, but requires
that this be an intentional decision of the Township.

Traffic Planning and Design (“TPD”) reviews dated April 11, 2016. There are
two separate letters from TPD, one stating that the required Traffic Impact Fee is
$185,386.80 and the other providing their review of the project design. Many of the
comments direct the inclusion of additional details or plan notes, but we note the following in particular:

The Commission may recall that the Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance allows
developers to receive a credit against the fee owed in exchange for road improvements that could not be required as part of the normal land development process.
TPD has advised Staff that the cost of the “Proposed (Loop) Road” will be well in
excess of the required fee. The Commission may wish to discuss whether you would
support a credit against the impact fee for this improvement.

Comment #2 discusses the access to the adjacent Whiteland Towne Center property
and is consistent with comment #1d of the Theurkauf review.

Comment #3 recommends the provision of additional right-of-way along both Lincoln
Hwy. and Waterloo Blvd. The Commission may wish to discuss this possibility with
the Applicant.

Fire Marshal memorandum dated April 6, 2016. Mr. Moses requests that the emergency access road provide access to Whiteland Towne Center as well as this project. We
note that TPD and Theurkauf both expressed similar comments.

Police Department memorandum dated April 11, 2016. Chief Catov notes that
there is no signage prohibiting left turns from the eastern part of the project onto Lincoln
Hwy. Staff notes that this prohibition will not go into effect unless a proposed traffic signal at the intersection of the Proposed Loop Road and Lincoln Hwy. is not installed and
3
operational. While we may hope that such signage will not be needed, we concur that it
should be indicated at this time in order to allow review by TPD.

Chester County Planning Commission review dated April 13, 2016. The County
advises that this project is consistent with the County Comprehensive Plan, although they
also indicate concerns about how the environmentally sensitive areas of the property will
be accommodated. Most of the remaining comments raise concerns that have already
been noted by our consultants.
Staff Comment
Due to the extent of our consultants’ comments, Staff suggests that action on this plan is premature at this time. In addition, Staff is not satisfied that the Applicant has documented that the
open space shown is sufficient to meet the minimum requirement of §281-47 the S/LDO. While
Sheet 2 identifies what open space is being provided, the information shown is not sufficient to
show compliance. We concur with the Applicant’s statement that the requirement for this project is 480,775 sq.ft. (11.04 acs.). However, §281-47.D(6) and §281-47.D(9) provide quality
standards for the open space, limiting the amount of environmentally constrained land that may
be counted toward the requirement. Specifically, not more than 25% of the requirement
(120,193.75 sq.ft. or 2.76 acs.) may be in floodplain or wetland areas, utility easements, or
slopes in excess of 15%. The critical concern for this property is the extensive floodplain area
associated with Lionville Run. The Applicant must demonstrate that at least 360,581.25 sq.ft.
(8.28 acs.) of the area to be set aside as permanent open space is not constrained. Should this
requirement not be met, we could accept a fee pursuant to §281-47.B(2) of the S/LDO for the
unmet portion of the requirement.
In addition to this issue, the Commission may wish to review the following concerns with the
Applicant, as noted above:
1. Whether the Applicant intends to dedicate the Proposed Loop Road to the Township;
Staff is of the opinion that it should be so dedicated.
2. The pedestrian circulation system, as described in the Theurkauf review.
3. Whether the Applicant should receive a credit against their traffic impact fee for the construction of the Proposed Loop Road.
4. Any other items of concern to the Commission.
Attachments
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Stubbe Consulting review dated April 4, 2016.
TPD reviews (2) dated April 11, 2016.
Fire Marshal memorandum dated April 6, 2016.
Police Chief memorandum dated April 11, 2016.
Chester County Planning Commission review dated April 13, 2016.
D&O compliance analysis, dated April 15, 2016.
Plan set dated March 21, 2016, no revisions.
Plans\ABC\Chandler Tract\Weller PC memo dated 4-15-16.doc
4
MEMORANDUM
TO:
John Weller, AICP, West Whiteland Township Planning Director and Zoning Officer
Ted Gacomis, P.E., EB Walsh & Associates, Inc.
Neal Fisher, Hankin Group
FROM:
Kelsey Stanton, Assoc. ASLA
DATE:
April 11, 2016
SUBJECT:
REVIEW COMMENTS – THE CHANDLER TRACT
LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATED 3-21-16
Please note our review comments pertaining to the following documents and to site visits on 10-19-15
and 2-4-16:


Conditional Use Decision & Order dated 1-4-16.
Page |2
April 11, 2016
1.
Pedestrian Access – Section 281-69 (SLDO) establishes criteria for sidewalks and crosswalks in
the Town Center district.
The following shall be addressed for compliance:
a.
Section 281-69.C.3 (SLDO) requires that sidewalks be placed along both sides of all
streets and drives within the limits of a property. In addition, the Official Map indicates
sidewalks along Lincoln Highway and the Loop Road as six feet wide, and section 28169.C (SLDO) requires that sidewalks serving commercial and mixed uses be six feet wide.
We would not object to a waiver to permit sidewalks on only one side of driveways as
proposed.
The plan shows a five foot wide sidewalk along Lincoln Highway. Since Lincoln Highway
is a mixed use corridor, it is recommended that the sidewalk be increased to six feet
width along that frontage. This width would be consistent with the most recently
constructed Lincoln Highway sidewalk at Aldi.
b.
Per section 281-69.C (SLDO), 11 foot wide walkways are required between parking areas
and commercial buildings. The proposed walkways for the proposed commercial use in
cluster 1 are only 6 feet wide.
The Applicant requests a waiver from the 11-foot sidewalk in front of the building,
which we would support in light of the historic context of the Chandler house.
c.
Section 281-69.C.4 (SLDO) requires that 20% of all sidewalks have a have a decorative
textured/colored surface. Decorative pavements are proposed for plazas/courtyards
only, and a waiver will be requested to the extent that decorative pavements are less
than 20% of the total.
d.
A mulch path is proposed between Cluster 3 and the shopping center. It is
recommended that the path alignment be shifted to the driveway, so that pedestrians
do not have to navigate between parked cars. In addition, a gravel or paved surface
would create a better walking surface.
e.
The open space path system should fully integrate all components of the development,
specifically Cluster 1 (Office), which has no proposed accessibility to the path system.
Page |3
April 11, 2016
2.
Multi-modal Access –Section 281-68.E (SLDO) requires that any development with 100,000 or
more square feet of gross leasable area provide a bus stop with shelter. Although the sidewalk
links to an off-site bus shelter, it is 0.3 miles from the farthest residential building, and 0.4 miles
from the office use by way of the proposed walkway system. Further, it is noted that parking at
the Exton train station is drastically inadequate so a bus connection is desirable. The Applicant
should work with SEPTA to determine feasibility of an additional bus stop to serve the
development.
3.
Building Relationship to Streetscape – Section 281-67.A.2 (SLDO) requires compliance with Town
Center Architectural standards. It is noted that (4) of the proposed apartment buildings have
side and/or rear elevations oriented and in close proximity to adjacent streets.
The Applicant shall provide elevations which indicate the character of the side and rear building
facades on the streetscape.
4.
Exton Town Center Streetscape and Site Furnishings – Section 281-68 (SLDO) describes
requirements for benches, bike racks, bollards, trash cans, bus shelters, fencing, guide rails, and
street lights. None of these are shown on the plan, except the off-site bus shelter.
The plan shall be revised to include details for the required furnishings.
5.
Highway Frontage Site Element Screen – Section 281-70 (SLDO) requires a site element screen
along Lincoln Highway, with decorative walls and/or fencing encouraged, to reinforce the
corridor. Although fairly dense vegetative screening is proposed along buildings and parking,
the defining linear character of a site element screen is lacking.
We recommend that the plan be revised to include decorative walls and/or fencing to define the
Lincoln Highway corridor.
6.
Plazas, Squares, and Courtyards – The development shall have richly appointed public spaces in
accordance with section 281-71 (SLDO) including paved plazas with benches, fences, hedges,
walls, decorative vertical structures, and plantings. None of the required built features are
indicated except the paved surfaces.
The plan shall be revised to include the required built features.
7.
Perimeter Buffer – Section 281-35.E (SLDO) requires 25 foot wide perimeter buffers around
stormwater basins and along arterial streets. Perimeter buffer landscaping is proposed as
required except as follows:
Page |4
April 11, 2016
Buffer/Length
Plant Type
Basin 5/904 LF
Shade Trees
Evergreen Trees
Large Shrubs
9
18
45
9*
7
0
Basin 6/440 LF
Shade Trees
Evergreen Trees
Large Shrubs
4
9
22
4
7
27*
* Includes flowering trees applied toward requirement.
The required buffer width is not provided at basins 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7. It is noted that basins
near apartment buildings are not adjacent to dwelling units but ground level parking garages.
Naturalistic basins with side slopes graded at 4:1 or less and planted in 100% native vegetation
may be exempt from the 25 foot perimeter buffer requirement. Basins 3 and 5 comply.
However, basins 1, 6, and 7 have side slopes exceeding 4:1, and basins 1, 2, 6, and 7 do not have
the required native planting specification.
Basins 5 and 6 should be supplied with the missing buffer landscaping, and the herbaceous
plantings for basins 1, 2, 6, and 7 should be specified as 100% native. If these measures were
undertaken, we would not object to a waiver on the side slope requirement for naturalistic
basins 1, 6, and 7.
8.
Trash Facility Screening - The plan does not indicate whether the outside trash facilities will be
screened with decorative walls or fencing. Depending on the type of enclosure, they will require
screening with low or high site element screens in accordance with section 281-35.G (SLDO).
The plan shall be revised to include enclosure fence/wall detailing and the required screening
vegetation at cluster 3.
9.
Street Trees – In accordance with Section 281-36 (SLDO), one street tree is required for each 50
feet of road frontage, to be located within the road ROW as follows:
Page |5
April 11, 2016
Frontage (Length)
Required Trees
Lincoln Highway (940 LF)
Loop Road (870LF)
Waterloo Boulevard (645 LF)
Proposed Trees
19
17
16
24*
16
17
* Includes (3) 6-12” existing trees and (2) 12-30” existing trees = 14 trees
The plan should be revised to show the one additional required street tree on the Loop Road.
10.
Parking Lot Shade Trees - In accordance with section 281-37.B.4 (SLDO), each parking lot
landscape island shall have a shade tree. The plan shall be revised to correct the following
deficiencies:


(1) tree is needed in the island near Building 1
(1) tree is needed in the island near Building 5
Sidewalks should be removed or islands widened to make the required accommodation.
11.
Tree Removal and Replacement – In accordance with section 281-34.G (SLDO), compensatory
tree plantings are required for mature trees to be removed as follows:
Tree Size
Inches To be Removed
Required Compensatory Inches
618
328
540
618
110
90
24-inch +
12-24 inch
6-12 inch
Total required Compensatory Tree inches
Total required 3-inch Compensatory Trees
818
273
The following surplus plantings in excess of other requirements apply:
Surplus trees
(57) 3½-inch shade trees
(126) 8-foot flowering trees
(169) 8-foot evergreen trees
Total Compensatory Trees
Compensatory Tree Equivalent
75
73
136
284
Page |6
April 11, 2016
The plan complies with the compensatory tree requirements. However, removal of additional
trees as noted in comment 12 may require additional compensatory plantings.
12.
Tree Protection – Section 281-34.A (SLDO) requires that measures be undertaken to protect
trees to remain. The plan shall be revised to correct the following:







Tree protection details shall be provided in accordance with section 281-34.A (SLDO).
The erosion & sedimentation plan shall be revised to show the location of tree
protection fencing for all trees to remain near proposed disturbance.
The construction sequence notes on the E&S plan shall be revised to require placement
of tree protection fencing prior to any site disturbance.
(1) 36-inch Sugar Maple and (2) 24-inch Oak Trees would be removed due to grading for
drainage near the existing spring house. Alternatives to preserve these trees should be
investigated.
Excavation for a drainage pipe from Basin 2 to Lionville Run should be changed to avoid
root injury to a 36-inch Walnut near the stream, or the tree should be noted as
removed.
(1) 55-inch Tilia east of Basin 2 will be damaged by proposed grading and should be
noted as removed.
Grading for the Ivy Cottage parking circle will impact (4) existing trees shown within the
circle. The 30-inch Sugar Maple and the 28-inch Hemlock are sensitive to compaction
and will not survive construction, and should be noted as removed. The (2) Sweetgums
should be protected from compaction within their critical root zones by orange
construction fence.
Most importantly, a specimen 48-inch Swamp White Oak would have significant root zone
impacts due to construction of basin #6. This tree is the most notable specimen tree on the
property. The basin configuration and grading should be revised to ensure this tree’s survival.
13.
Plant Cultural Requirements – Section 281-33.C.4 (SLDO) requires landscaping to be culturally
appropriate to conditions. We offer the following recommendations on plant species:
a.
White Oak has a massive spreading form and should not be placed near buildings, within
parking lots, on in locations where they will crowd other landscaping.
b.
Itea virginica should not be placed on south or west-facing building walls, as these
locations will be too sunny and drought prone.
Page |7
April 11, 2016
c.
Shade tree species and locations shall be adjusted to minimize conflicts with lighting. In
cases where conflicts cannot be eliminated, small leaved open form tree species such as
Honey Locust should be utilized.
14.
Planting Specifications – In accordance with section 281-33.D.4 (SLDO), small shrubs shall be 24
inches minimum height and large shrubs shall be 36 inches minimum height. Most of the shrubs
are incorrectly specified and shall be revised accordingly.
15.
Plant Growth Diagrams – We have no objection to a waiver from the plant growth rate diagrams
requirement of section 281-36.C.6.c (SLDO).
16.
Graphic Conflicts and Omissions – The planting plan is difficult to read in places, as there are
numerous conflicts between plant identification text and other plan information. In addition, it
appears that a number of plant identification labels are missing. The plan should be revised
accordingly.
17.
Landscape Plan Preparation – Section 281-33.C.7 (SLDO) requires that landscape plans be
prepared and sealed by a Pennsylvania registered landscape architect. The plan lacks the
required signature and seal and shall be revised accordingly.
18.
Cost Estimate – A landscape cost estimate will be required upon final plan approval in
accordance with section 281-33.C.6.i (SLDO).
19.
Conclusion – Prior to plan approval, the Township shall consider acceptability of the following:






Pedestrian access (Comment 1)
Waiver to permit sidewalks on only one side of entry drives (Comment 1.a)
Waiver on decorative sidewalk surface treatments (Comment 1.c)
Public transportation accessibility (Comment 2)
Waiver on side slopes for naturalistic basins (Comment 7)
Waiver to not require plant growth diagrams (Comment 15)
In addition, plan revisions are required to address the other comments.
Please contact this office with any questions.
Phone: 610 972-9803
FAX: 610 326-1402
1438 Shaner Drive
Pottstown, PA 19465
[email protected]
April 4, 2016
1240 Elbow Lane
Subject: Marquis at Exton Land Development, West Whiteland Township
Exterior Lighting Review
Dear Ed:
West Whiteland Township Planning Office transmitted a plan set, Sheets 1 - 14, Rev. 0
dated 03/21/16, for the proposed Marquis at Exton Land Development, and requested
review of submitted exterior lighting.
Lighting information is presented on Sheet 8, Lighting Plan, and consists of 21 4000K
LED post-top luminaires mounted at nominally 18' AFG to illuminate vehicular and
pedestrian traffic surfaces and parking areas. 30% of luminaires are designated to
remain on all night for site safety/security.
The following comments and recommendations are presented in accordance with the
requirements contained in SLDO Section 281-48. [Amended 12-8-1988 by Ord. No.
277, and reasonable and customary engineering practices.
1. Tree/Luminaire Conflicts: There are several locations in the Cluster 2 portion of the
site where there is potential conflict between tree and luminaire locations that at tree
maturity or before could potentially result in illuminance levels below Ordinance
required minimums.
It is recommended Applicant be requested to take steps to review plans for
potential reduction in tree/luminaire conflicts in Cluster 2.
2. Luminaire Photometrics: The listed IES file could not be found in manufacturer's
offerings.
It is recommended Applicant be requested to verify the accuracy of the name
of the IES file listed on plan or take corrective action.
3. Light Loss Factor: A light loss factor of 1 was documented as having been used to
calculate the plotted illuminance values. A light loss factor of 1 for the specified
luminaire and light source is judged to be overly ambitious unless very judicious
luminaire maintenance is proposed.
It is recommended Applicant be requested to justify the use of a unity light
loss factor or take corrective action.
4. .All-Night Lighting: 30% of the luminaires are proposed to remain on from dusk until
dawn nightly. Ordinance limits all-night lighting to 25% of the total number of
luminaires. .
CIE(USA)
TEL: 203-322-6210
FAX: 203-322-9260
In consideration of the fact that this is a residential use, it is recommended
Township consider waiving the 25% requirement to allow for the proposed
30%.
5. LED Source Color Temperature: A 4000K LED source is specified.
In consideration of the fact that this is a residential use, it is recommended
Applicant be requested to specify a 3000K source to reduce potential glare
consequences.
6. Lighting Fixture Detail: Lighting Fixture Detail lacks a value for the pedestal height
AFG.
It is recommended Applicant be requested to dimension the pedestal height
AFG.
7. Lighting Control. All luminaires are specified to be photocell controlled but there is
no indication as to the device or devices to be used to extinguish those luminaires
that are to be turned off by 11 p.m. each evening.
It is recommended Applicant be requested to specify on lighting plan the
device/devices to be used to extinguish the non-all-night luminaires.
If there are questions regarding this review, please advise.
Sincerely,
C. Stanley Stubbe
cc: John Weller
Claudia Wade
2
April 13, 2016
101 Commerce Drive
Exton, PA 19341
Re:
#
Preliminary Land Development - Marquis at Exton
Dear Mr. Weller, AICP:
A preliminary land development plan entitled “Marquis at Exton,” prepared by Edward B. Walsh and
Associates, Inc., and dated March 21, 2016, was received by this office on March 24, 2016. This plan is
reviewed by the Chester County Planning Commission in accord with the provisions of Section 502 of the
Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC). We offer the following comments on the proposed
land development for your consideration.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
Location - between the West Lincoln Highway (Business Route 30) and Waterloo Boulevard, east of North
Whitford Road
UPI - 41-5-30.5
Landscapes2 Designation - Suburban Center and Natural Landscapes
Watersheds Designation - Valley Creek (West) subbasin of the Brandywine Creek watershed
PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes the construction of six apartment buildings containing 240 residential units, a
clubhouse, 900 linear feet of public roadway, and the adaptive reuse of existing historic structures (this issue is
further discussed in comment #4). The plan indicates there will be two five-story apartment buildings and
four four-story buildings. While vehicular access to the apartment buildings in the western portion of the site
(Cluster No. 2) will be provided from the Loop Road and Waterloo Boulevard, vehicular access to the
buildings in the eastern portion of the site (Cluster No. 3) will be provided from a single driveway entrance on
the Lincoln Highway, with a 10 foot wide emergency access path provided along the eastern boundary of the
project site. The Parking Requirements table on Sheet 1 identifies that 417 parking spaces will be provided for
the apartment units, along with 13 additional spaces provided for the historic building cluster. The Phasing
Plan (Sheet 7) identifies the project will be constructed in three phases, with the Loop Road constructed as part
of Phase 1. The project site, which will be served by public water and public sewer, is located in the TC Town
Center Mixed Use zoning district.
RECOMMENDATION: The Commission recommends that the issues raised in this letter be
addressed and all West Whiteland Township requirements be satisfied before action is taken on this
land development plan.
●
www.landscapes2.org
●
Page: 2
Re: Preliminary Land Development - Marquis at Exton
#
COUNTY POLICY:
LANDSCAPES:
1.
The project site is located within the Suburban Center Landscape and Natural Landscape
designations of Landscapes2, the 2009 County Comprehensive Plan. The objective of the
Suburban Landscape is to promote new development to accommodate anticipated population and
employment growth, using appropriate density, sustainable design, and smart transportation
principles. Additionally, Landscapes2 supports infill development and redevelopment efforts in
the Suburban Landscape based upon infrastructure capacity and environmental constraints. As
an overlay of the basic landscapes, the objective of the Natural Landscape is to encourage the
preservation and restoration of sensitive and natural resources. While the proposed land
development is consistent with the objectives of the Suburban Center Landscape, careful
consideration of the proposed development activity is required due to the extensive environmental
constraints, which are discussed in comments #12 through #17.
WATERSHEDS:
2.
Watersheds, An Integrated Water Resources Plan for Chester County and Its Watersheds, is the
water resources component of Landscapes2. Watersheds indicates that the proposed development
activity is located within the Valley Creek (west) subbasin of the Brandywine Creek watershed.
The highest priority management objectives identified in Watersheds for consideration in land
development and land use planning within the Brandywine Creek watershed include: reduce
Page: 3
#
stormwater runoff, restore water quality of “impaired” streams, and protect vegetated riparian
corridors. These concerns and conditions should be taken into consideration in final site design
decisions. Specific strategies for implementation to effectively address these items can be found in
Part 8 of Watersheds. A more detailed listing of water resources management needs and resources
to be protected within the Brandywine Creek watershed can be found in Part 10 of Watersheds.
Watersheds can be accessed at www.chesco.org/water through the “Water Information (Online
Maps and Publications)” link.
PRIMARY ISSUES:
Conditional Use Decision:
3.
The site plan indicates on Sheet 2 that conditional use approval was granted for this project on January
4, 2016, with 15 conditions of approval. Prior to granting final plan approval, the Township should
verify that all applicable conditions of approval have been incorporated into the final plan.
We note condition #4 of the conditional use decision states the applicant shall provide to the
Township an amendment to the historic resource impact study for this site pursuant to the direction
of the Township Historic Commission at its October 22, 2015 meeting and Section 325-92 of the
Township Zoning Ordinance. The Township’s 2009 Historic Resources Inventory identifies that
the project site (301 West Lincoln Highway) contains a Class 1 Historic Resource (Historic
Resource ID# 41-205), and a plan note on Sheet 2 identifies the existing dwelling, barn and spring
house are Class I historic resources. While the Parking Requirement table on Sheet 1 states that the
barn will be used as a maintenance facility for the apartment complex, the applicant should clearly
identify whether the dwelling will solely be utilized for ancillary use(s) to the apartment complex
(we note General Note 9 states the historic structures will be used for office and storage space, and
the Parking Requirements table on Sheet 1 states that the historic building cluster will contain 1,550
square feet of refurbished floor area).
Overall Site Design/Consistency with Lincoln Highway and Whitford Road Corridors Plan:
4.
The project site is located within Character Area 4 of the Lincoln Highway and Whitford Road
Corridors Plan, which was adopted in 2015 as an amendment to the Township Comprehensive Plan.
The Township should ensure that the overall site design is generally consistent with the
recommendations set forth in the Corridors Plan for Character Area 4, particularly the infrastructure
recommendations specified on page 80.
Access and Circulation:
5.
The applicant proposes the construction of the Township Loop Road along the western portion of the
project site, which will have a 50 foot wide right-of-way. The Transportation Impact Assessment for
this project, prepared by McMahon Transportation Engineers and Planners and dated March 21, 2016,
identifies that the proposed traffic improvements specified on Pages 14 and 15 of the Assessment also
includes the installation of a traffic signal at the proposed Lincoln Highway/Loop Road intersection, a
right-turn lane on westbound Lincoln Highway at its intersection with the Loop Road, and a left-turn
lane on eastbound Lincoln Highway at the Building Cluster No. 3 driveway entrance. Both the
Township engineer and PennDOT should review the findings of the Traffic Impact Assessment. We
acknowledge the Loop Road is identified in both the Township’s Official Map and the Lincoln
Highway and Whitford Road Corridors Plan. Consideration should be provided for the development
of a closed loop signal system along the Lincoln Highway corridor in the immediate vicinity of the
project site.
Page: 4
#
6.
We endorse the installation of sidewalks, which are an essential design element in the Suburban
Center Landscape, along with the construction of an 8 foot wide multi-use trail on the east side of the
Loop Road. We also endorse that the proposed sidewalk network will be extended along the north side
of the Lincoln Highway to connect with the existing Krapf A bus stop to the immediate east of the
project site.
7.
While the site plan depicts the location of a five foot wide trail extending from Building Cluster No. 2 to
Building Cluster No. 3, which includes a proposed 40 foot bridge across Lionville Run, no design
details for this trail are provided. We recommend that all trail corridor location and design details be
incorporated into the final plan, and that any trails be constructed prior to the Township issuing any
building occupancy permits for this development. We also recommend that the applicant and
Township consider utilizing all-weather materials in the construction of this trail corridor, which
will accommodate a wider variety of uses, and be handicapped-accessible.
8.
The Township should determine whether the potential five foot wide mulch path extending to the
adjoining Whiteland Towne Center shopping center to the east should be relocated in order to permit
direct pedestrian access to the adjoining center (the plan appears to depict that this path will be located
directly behind the existing buildings). We recommend that the applicant and Township consider
utilizing all-weather materials in the construction of this pedestrian pathway, which will
accommodate a wider variety of uses, and be handicapped-accessible.
9.
The site plan identifies an existing 60 foot wide right-of-way for Waterloo Boulevard. The 2015
Multi-Modal Circulation Handbook by the Chester County Planning Commission, which is
available online at www.landscapes2.org/transportation/circulation/ch1-intro.cfm, classifies
Waterloo Boulevard as a major collector road. The Handbook (page 193) recommends an 80
foot-wide right-of-way for major collector roads in suburban areas to accommodate future road and
infrastructure improvements. We suggest the Township determine whether any additional
right-of-way should be reserved for Waterloo Boulevard as part of this project.
10.
The site plan identifies an existing 75 foot wide right-of-way for this section of the West Lincoln
Highway (Route 30). The 2015 Multi-Modal Circulation Handbook by the Chester County
Planning Commission classifies this section of Route 30 as a major arterial road. The Handbook
(page 193) recommends a 150 foot-wide right-of-way for major arterial roads in suburban areas to
accommodate future road and infrastructure improvements. We recommend that the applicant and
the Township contact PennDOT to determine the appropriate right-of-way to be reserved for this
section of Route 30.
11.
The state bridge carrying the Lincoln Highway over Lionville Run appears on the 2015 Chester
County Planning Commission Transportation Improvement Inventory (TII) as State Bridge #28.
The PennDOT bridge key for the structure is 10557. The County Planning Commission
recommends that the applicant and Township coordinate with PennDOT on the condition of the
bridge and any plans for improvement as part of this project.
Natural Features Protection:
12.
The project site is bisected by a stream (“Lionville Run”), and the plan depicts the location of the
100-year calculated floodplain. The Township engineer should review the applicant’s calculated
floodplain boundary findings. The applicant should be aware that FEMA and the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection regulate filling or development in the floodplain.
Page: 5
#
Development within a floodplain can increase the magnitude and frequency of normally minor
floods, and present health and safety problems. The Township should request documentation of
any permit(s) required for this project prior to granting final plan approval.
13.
The site is underlain by carbonate geology in which the presence or potential may exist for formation
and/or expansion of solution channels, sinkholes and other potentially dangerous karst features and
the associated risk of groundwater contamination. These features present significant risks and
challenges that often can be overcome and avoided with careful stormwater management design.
The location, type, and design of stormwater facilities and best management practices (BMPs)
should be based on a site evaluation conducted by a qualified licensed professional that ascertains
the subsurface soil, rock and groundwater conditions that are relevant to formation of karst features,
and the PA BMP Manual or other design guidance acceptable to the Municipal Engineer. Where
site conditions preclude achieving the required stormwater infiltration or water quality volume,
other conservation development design techniques and BMPs should be used to reduce as much as
possible the total volume and pollutant load of stormwater released to streams.
14.
The site contains areas of hydric (wet) soils (Ho Holly) which have limitations to development.
These limitations include drainage problems due to low permeability, low runoff rates and
sub-surface saturation. When construction takes place on these soils, it interferes with the natural
drainage of the land. If construction occurs on this site, on-site alterations to existing drainage
patterns should be carefully inspected by the Township Engineer to insure that off-site drainage
conditions are not negatively affected.
15.
In July 2013, the “County-wide Act 167 Stormwater Management Plan for Chester County, PA” was
approved by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Land disturbance
and land development activities that occur within Chester County must comply with the stormwater
management standards included in the approved Act 167 Plan and the requirements of the
municipality’s County-Wide Act 167 stormwater ordinance. Implementation of the Act 167 Plan
and ordinances will help reduce the impacts of stormwater and pollutant runoff to Chester County’s
streams and groundwater. The municipal engineer should thoroughly review the proposed plans to
ensure compliance with the applicable standards of the County-wide Act 167 Plan as incorporated
within the municipality’s Act 167 stormwater management ordinance.
16.
As of 2014, nearly every municipality in Chester County has at least one stream segment listed as
impaired by the Pennsylvania Department of Environment Protection (DEP) and not meeting the
applicable state water quality standards. The municipal engineer and the applicant should review
the DEP information regarding the locations, sources and causes of listed water body impairments to
ensure that the proposed activity will not increase the pollutant loading to an impaired water body.
Information regarding listed impairments for Chester County water bodies can be found at
www.chesco.org/water through the “TMDLs/Water Quality Improvement” link.
17.
The proposed activity is located within a watershed for which one or more Total Maximum Daily
Load (TMDL) pollutant load reduction requirements have been established by PA Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP). The municipal engineer and the applicant should review the
TMDL report(s) for this watershed to determine if any requirements are applicable to this location,
and if so, ensure that the proposed activity will not increase the relevant pollutant loading to the
water body, and that the proposed activity achieves any applicable pollutant load reductions that
may be required by municipal or state regulations, to the extent practicable. Information regarding
TMDLs for Chester County water bodies can be found at www.chesco.org/water through the
TMDLs/Water Quality Improvement link.
Page: 6
#
Waiver Requests:
18.
The applicant is requesting two waivers from the design standards in Article IV of the Township
Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance, and one waiver from the stormwater management
provisions in Section 270-29.B of the Township Code. Waiver requests should only be considered
following the determination that the proposed project either meets the purpose of these requirements
or does not create the impacts that these provisions are intended to manage.
ADMINISTRATIVE NOTES:
19.
While the Open Space Area Calculation table on Sheet 2 identifies that 13.5 acres of gross open space
area will be provided, General Note 10 on Sheet 2 states that the proposed open space will contain both
active and passive recreation facilities. The applicant should clearly identify the proposed active
recreation facilities, along with identifying whether any active recreation facility may be made available
for public usage.
20.
A Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) permit is required for new or revised
access and should be identified on the final plan as required by Section 508(6) of the Municipalities
Planning Code.
21.
The applicant should contact the office of the Chester County Conservation District (CCCD) for
information and clarification on erosion control measures. The provisions of the Commonwealth
Erosion Control Regulations may apply to the project and may require an Earth Disturbance Permit
or a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit for discharge of stormwater from
construction activities.
22.
Commission for endorsement to permit recording of the final plan in accord with the procedures of Act
247, the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, and to meet the requirements of the Recorder of
Deeds and the Assessment Office.
review and comment on this plan. The staff of the Chester County Planning Commission is available to you to
discuss this and other matters in more detail.
Sincerely,
Paul Farkas
Senior Planner
cc:
The Hankin Group
Edward B. Walsh & Associates, Inc.
Matthew Miele, District Permits Manager, PennDOT
Francis J. Hanney, P.E., PennDOT
MARQUIS at EXTON / CHANDLER TRACT
COMPLIANCE WITH DECISION AND ORDER
April 15, 2016
Staff has prepared the following analysis of the conditions established by the Decision and
Order (“D&O”) granting conditional use approval on January 4, 2016 for the construction of a
240 apartment units in 6 buildings and related improvements and facilities on a 21.5-acre tract
at 301 W. Lincoln Hwy. The conditions of the D&O are provided below verbatim and are shown
in italics; Staff evaluation of compliance with the condition immediately follows and is shown in
plain text; our conclusion is in bold.
1. The Applicant shall resolve all remaining concerns to the satisfaction of the Township in the
course of the land development review process, including but not limited to those issues
specifically identified by the Township consultants in the most recent review letters.
All of our consultants have described remaining concerns regarding this project.
This condition is not met.
2. Subject to compliance with the conditions of this Decision and Order, the Board shall consider during the land development review process a waiver of §281-37.D of the S/LDO such
that no façade plantings need be provided for Ivy Cottage or its barn, as per comment #15
of the Theurkauf review dated November 2, 2015 (Exhibit A-16).
The conditions of this D&O have not yet been fully satisfied.
A determination on this condition is premature at this time.
3. Subject to compliance with the conditions of this Decision and Order, the Board shall consider during the land development review process a waiver of §281-34.G of the S/LDO such
that plantings other than shade trees may be counted toward compensatory planting
requirements, as per comment #16 of the Theurkauf review dated November 2, 2015
(Exhibit A-16).
The conditions of this D&O have not yet been fully satisfied.
4. The Applicant shall provide to the Township an amendment to the Historic Resource Impact
Study for this site, pursuant to the direction of the Township Historical Commission at its
meeting of October 22, 2015 and §325-92 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The Applicant provided the required amending document as part of the land development plan submission, but the Township Historical Commission has yet to determine
whether it is satisfactory.
1
5. The “athletic field” shown along Waterloo Boulevard near the northwestern corner of the
site shall be replaced with lawn or meadow area suitable for passive and/or informal
recreation.
The current plan is consistent with this condition.
This condition is met.
6. Pedestrian and bicycle accommodations shall be provided at least to the extent shown on
the undated “Multi-Modal Plan” provided by the Applicant and reviewed by the Planning
Commission on November 16, 2015, specifically including public sidewalk along the entire
frontage of both Lincoln Highway and Waterloo Boulevard.
7. The access drive from Lincoln Highway shall be properly aligned with the driveway for 222290 West Lincoln Highway, as presented to the Planning Commission on November 16,
2015.
8. The design shall accommodate additional right-of-way as may be necessary to provide dedicated turn lanes from westbound Lincoln Highway and westbound Waterloo Boulevard on
the “Proposed (Loop) Road,” although the Applicant shall not be required to construct such
turn lanes as a condition of approval, pursuant to comment #1 of the TPD review letter
dated November 13, 2015 (Exhibit A-17).
Comment #3 of the review by Traffic Planning and Design dated April 11, 2016 indicates
that additional right-of-way width is necessary to satisfy this condition.
This condition is not met.
9. The Applicant and the Township will work together to obtain PennDOT approval to install a
new traffic signal at the intersection of “Proposed (Loop) Road” and Lincoln Highway,
including pedestrian crossings across Lincoln Highway and the Proposed Loop Road (“Proposed Signal”). In addition to paying all costs associated with the construction of the intersection to accommodate the Propose Signal (i.e., constructing curb, sidewalk, road, stormwater, landscaping, etc.), the Applicant shall also bear the cost of (a) providing the necessary information to PennDOT documenting the need for the Proposed Signal; and (b)
designing the Proposed Signal. The Township shall bear the cost of purchasing and
installing the Proposed Signal (i.e., installing the wiring, concrete signal base, the light pole,
signal head, etc.) and coordinating signal timing with the existing signals along Lincoln
Highway between and including the Whitford Road and Pottstown Pike intersections.
2
The Applicant and the Township are continuing to work on this requirement.
10. No left turn egress from the eastern driveway onto Lincoln Highway shall be permitted until
the Proposed Signal is installed and operational. In the event that any dwelling unit in the
eastern cluster of buildings is available for occupation prior to the Proposed Signal becoming
operational, the Applicant shall provide a structural deterrent to the prohibited left turns
satisfactory to the Township prior to the occupancy of any unit in that cluster. Such deterrent may be removed by the Applicant upon the Proposed Signal becoming operational.
This condition represents a contingency in the event that the Proposed Signal is not
operational at the time that the affected dwelling units are occupied.
11. An emergency access shall be provided as shown on the revised Plan presented during the
hearing, or in the alternative, the Applicant shall provide a second access for both vehicles
and pedestrians from the parking lot serving the eastern cluster to the adjacent property of
Kimco KML Trust (“Kimco”), which is a portion of the Whiteland Towne Center property.
Should the necessary permission be received from Kimco prior to the approval of the final
land development plan for this project, the Applicant shall be responsible for the design and
construction of the said connecting access drive in its entirety. Should such permission not
be received prior to the approval of the final land development plan for this project, the
Applicant shall be responsible for providing an access easement to allow for a connection to
the Kimco property in the future. Notwithstanding anything above, the Applicant shall not
be responsible to purchase from Kimco any right-of-way required for the construction of the
access drive, or to reimburse the Township for its acquisition of the same.
The required emergency access has been included in the design as required, and we are
continuing to work with the Applicant to gain a satisfactory response from Kimco.
This condition is met insofar as possible at this time, but a final determination
on compliance is premature.
12. Subject to compliance with the conditions of this Decision and Order, the Applicant is
granted bonuses pursuant to §325-13.C, Attachment 7 of the Zoning Ordinance, to exceed
the maximum building height of 60 feet by an additional 10 feet to a maximum building
height of 70 feet for those buildings with indoor structured parking on the ground floor, and
to a 10% reduction in minimum parking requirements for a property within 1,000 feet of an
existing, scheduled bus stop.
3
13. The Applicant shall execute and provided to the Township a recordable, notarized copy of a
memorandum containing a metes and bounds description of the Property in question and
stipulating the terms and conditions of this approval and shall consent to the recording by
the Township in the office of the Recorder of Deeds of Chester County within sixty (60) days
following the date of this Decision and order.
We are in receipt of the required memorandum.
14. Within 30 days of the date of this Decision and Order, Applicant shall pay in full all fees
charged by Township consultants for review of the Application of the Applicant and plans
and preparation of this Decision and Order.
The Township Finance Department advises that the Applicant is current on all Township
invoices.
15. Applicant shall express to the Board in writing delivered to the Township Administrative
offices within 10 days of the Applicant’s receipt of this Decision its full and complete consent
to the conditions specified herein above or the Application of the Applicant is denied; the
Board expressly finding and concluding that the Application of the Applicant, in the absence
of compliance with the said conditions, is inconsistent with the standards, criteria, purposes
and policies codified in Code §325-124.C.
We received the required written acceptance from Mr. Michael P. Malloy, Esq., General
Counsel for The Hankin Group, on January 14, 2016.
This concludes the conditions attached to the D&O.
SUMMARY and CONCLUSION
In the opinion of Staff, of the fifteen (15) conditions attached to the D&O, seven (7) have been
met, five (5) remain premature, two (2) have not been met, and one (1) should be carried forward as a condition of final plan approval.
4

PC Packet 4-18-16 - West Whiteland Township

Transcription

Similar documents

I`m helping to end MS by participating in the 2016 Jayman BUILT MS

The Board of Directors of Qatar Fuel (WOQOD) is pleased to invite

DISCIPLESHIP TRAINING SCHOOL (DTS)

The Penn Township Campus Landscaping Beautification Project

5 `S` Training Program at ABV-IIITM, Gwalior on 21.07.2016

Porky Expo Flyer

Application Form for Degree in Absentia

The NeuLion Report

PDF Lot View

Sept 30-Oct 2, 2016 Nov 4-6, 2016 @Camp Tadmor