Swarthmore Borough Planning Commission
May 19, 2004
Swarthmore Borough Hall Council Room
Meeting Minutes

Attendees: Tom Shaffer (Acting Chair), Susan Wright, David Grove, Leslie Price, Michael Peters, Tim Kearney, Nancy Crickman, Joe Foglio, Joanna Jacobs (Borough Council)

The meeting began at 7:35 pm.

1. April Meeting Minutes

The April 21, 2004 meeting minutes were approved with the following corrections: Item 2, third bullet - change "Mark Damico" to "David Damon"; Item 2, last bullet - change the beginning of the first line to read "In lieu of widening the Dickenson right of way from 12 to 25 feet (the ordinance would require widening to 50 feet)…"; and, Item 4, third line - change "education" to "educate".

2. Final Plan Review - Minor Subdivision at 84/86 Yale Avenue

Kenneth P. Crowther (Developer) stated that as a result of his recent meeting with Jane Billings and his engineer (David Damon), the plans that were submitted to the PC last month would be revised and that those revisions had not been completed at this time. The PC’s recommendations are due to Borough Council within 90 days after the first regularly scheduled meeting of the PC in which the item was discussed. Next month would be the last time the PC would be able to discuss the issue and meet the requirements without asking for an extension.

Mr. Crowther indicated he wanted to update the PC with respect to the proposed revisions and obtain a list of items he would need to have completed as part of his resubmission. The issues discussed by Mr. Crowther are summarized below.

Because access to lots 2 and 3 would be off of Dickinson Avenue, which would be considered the front of the buildings, Mr. Crowther stated he was having trouble meeting the setback requirements. He proposed to either relocate the garages for lots 2 and 3 to the rear of the buildings or construct a 2-car detached garage. Relocation of the garages to the rear of the structures would likely reduce the width of the planned buildings to 40 feet and extend the driveway between the two structures. Mr. Crowther stated if he can design a layout that would accommodate three houses on the lots and meet the setback requirements, he would finalize the plans. PC indicated that any changes to the layout would necessitate recalculating the total impervious coverage per lot.

Mr. Crowther acknowledged the lower 8 to 10 feet of the property is classified as wetlands and will be indicated in the revised plans. He stated his intent was not to change the elevation in this area and would save as much ground cover as possible, but he was concerned that not doing improvements in this area would devalue the property by imposing a deed restriction on the lower half of the properties coupled with the easements on the upper half. He also stated, potential buyers wanted some yard space.

PC presented the following items that are required as part of his final plan submission. Susan Wright stated she would email a copy of her unofficial notes to Mr. Crowther for his use following the meeting.

The PC discussed the following items to be addressed by Mr. Crowther in his resubmission of the Final Plan.

Cross easements on the access to Dickinson Avenue.
Shared maintenance agreement for access to Dickinson.
Maintenance agreement for stormwater seepage beds.
Proposed deed restriction to protect the wooded area adjacent to the access road off of Yale Avenue if this alternative is to be included in the Final Plan.
Contingent access agreement for the Seymour property. (Mr. Crowther stated this agreement does not exist)
Indicate all utilities and easements on the Final Plan by metes and bounds on Final Plan.
Identify historically significant site adjacent to property on the plan (specifically, 315 Dickinson)
Identify the location of all existing trees within the property or any adjacent property. Will need a waiver if trees are not marked
Address all comments and concerns identified in the Delaware County Conservation District letter dated April 21, 2004 based on the proposed new changes. If plan significantly changed DCCD may consider re-review a new plan.
Access waiver from Dickinson onto lots 2 and 3 - existing statutes require 25’ width minimum, Mr. Crowther is proposing two lots share access through a 12’ wide strip. The new houses would have cross easements over the driveway. There is an easement for present utilities, but there would also be one for future utilities. The Swarthmore Fire Department has imposed the following conditions with this waiver: sprinklers should be installed in all three houses according to Fire Chief Hansen; and, the roadway base on the Dickinson Right of Way needs to be modified so that it is suitable for supporting the weight of current fire apparatus.
Verify if Mr. Schubert (315 Dickinson) who uses the existing driveway has a right to the Dickinson access. He has been using it during period in which he rented brick garage on Mr. Crowther's property pursuant to oral agreement with Carol Seymour.
Yale/unopened Harvard Access waiver - Mr. Crowther will require a waiver from the requirements of § 1288.04 (g) (2) of the Ordinance that the access strip of an interior lot be a minimum width of 25 feet for the entire depth of such access. The present access strip to Yale on unopened Harvard, is on average only 12 feet in width, varying from perhaps 9 to 18 feet in width. The Swarthmore Fire Department has imposed the following as a condition of this waiver: sprinklers should be installed in all three houses.
Yale/unopened Harvard Access § 1288.12 (a) waiver will be required to allow the new house to use unopened Harvard as its access to Yale. Presently there are three houses using this access, the Groves', the Seymour's and the house on Mr. Crowther's property. According to Section 1288.12 (a) of the Ordinance, only two houses may use the same driveway. When the existing house is demolished and another house constructed in its place, the access over unopened Harvard for the new house will not be in compliance with the ordinance.

Based on the proposed revisions discussed by Mr. Crowther, the outstanding items identified in the Delaware County Conservation District letter dated, April 21, 2004, discussion during the meeting, it was the general consensus of the PC members that revised plans are required for review. Mr. Crowther stated he would do this as soon as possible before the next PC meeting so the members would have an opportunity to complete their review.

Comments from local residents regarding the proposed subdivision are summarized below:

o Mr. Stephen Imbriglia of 321 Dickinson Avenue indicated he had major concerns regarding the proposed subdivision. He stated that nineteen children (age 13 and under) reside on Dickinson Avenue, not including those who live on the cul-de-sac. Because the street is essentially a dead end both children who reside on Dickinson and those who reside elsewhere but who come to play there use it heavily. He was concerned that adding two more substantial residential properties as flag lots, with access off of a single narrow driveway would essentially change the driveway into a street and significantly increase the chance of an accident. He also pointed out that an existing 9-foot high hedge located on 317 Dickinson adjacent to the existing driveway limits driver’s visibility, but it provides some privacy for the residential property. Mr. Imbriglia was also concerned that if Harvard Avenue became un-passable or un-useable for any period of time, access for the Groves, Lot 1 residents and the Seymour residence could be provided through this single driveway. Mr. Imbriglia stated it was his belief that allowing the subdivision to use this single driveway to access two lots would not benefit the public welfare and would adversely affect the safety of residents on Dickinson Avenue.

o Ms. Jill Clark of 310 Dickinson Avenue reiterated the sentiment expressed by Mr. Imbriglia and stated that the PC should be concerned about the safety of children who play on Dickinson Avenue. As the mother of 3 small children, she regularly observes a large number of on- and off-street residents playing on the street. Ms. Clark was also concerned that fire trucks and emergency vehicles would have sufficient access to the flag lots.

o Mr. Henry Brubaker, of 329 Dickinson Avenue reiterated some of the items expressed by Mr. Imbriglia, but also expressed concern regarding the construction access to the properties. Access would have to be either by the driveway off Dickinson or via the unopened Harvard Avenue. In addition to increased risk for the residents, damage to the road and sidewalk on Dickinson and the intersection of Yale and unopened Harvard Avenue would likely occur. Mr. Brubaker also expressed concern about the land disturbance and how long it would take for the storm system to become fully functional, protection of the existing slope onto the floodplain and sedimentation into the wetlands with the worst conditions occurring on Lot 1, preservation of 5 to 6 Holly trees at the transition line from level to the slope on Lot 1 would be difficult and he believed the usable space to accommodate the natural features of the land is too small.

o Mr. Michael Fishkow, of 313 Dickinson reiterated the problem with the narrow driveway, population of children who play on the street and poor visibility drivers would have as they exit the flag lots. He also expressed concern over the increased traffic density in the neighborhood as the existing driveway is currently only used by Mr. Schubert (315 Dickinson) to gain access to the garage.



3. Update on Sign Ordinance

Tim Kearney provided the PC with graphics illustrating examples of 1.0 square feet (SF) of copy area per 1.5 linear foot (LF) of property frontage and 1.0 SF of copy area per 1.0 LF of property frontage for wall, fascia or awning signs. The graphic were based on a typical commercial property in Swarthmore with 18 linear feet of frontage. Also depicted on the graphics were examples of window signage and the calculation of total area using differing methods. See attachment entitled " Swarthmore Planning Commission, Signage Review", dated May 19, 2004.

PC discussed sign ordinances of other local municipalities to determine if the proposed changes were similar. David Grove volunteered to do a legal search regarding sign challenges in Pennsylvania.

PC discussed the following:
o Incorporating figures, similar to the ones prepared by Tim, as an example in the revised ordinance.

o Revising the calculation of copy area available for wall, fascia or awning signs in Chapter 1266.02 (c) change "smallest rectangle" to "smallest geometric figure that would encompass bodies of text and graphics or the aggregate of geometric figures that encompass bodies of text and graphics".

o Revising 1266.03 (s) to read, "The area of permanent opaque window sign shall not occupy more than 20% of the total area of the individual window pane in which the sign is displayed. Graphics, and lettering that is applied as individual letters, are permitted as long as the window remains transparent and the graphics and/or lettering does not cover more than 10% of the total area of the window in which the sign is displayed. Applicant must submit shop drawings showing the layout of the lettering in the context of the entire window."

The PC elected to continue discussion on the sign ordinance at the next meeting.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 pm. The next meeting is scheduled for June 16, 2004 at 7:30 PM.

Respectfully submitted,
Joseph C. Foglio