Swarthmore Borough Planning Commission
May 18, 2005
Swarthmore Borough Hall Council Room
Meeting Minutes

Attendees: Jay Woolford (Chair), Nancy Crickman, Joe Foglio, David Grove, Tim Kearney, Leslie Price, Susan Wright, Joanna Jacobs (Borough Council)

The chair called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.

1. March Meeting Minutes

The March 16, 2005 meeting minutes were approved. (Secretary’s note: The regular April meeting was cancelled as required public notice was not given for the major agenda item.) The chair recognized David Grove and Susan Wright for their efforts on the March minutes.

2. Omnipoint Application Note

David Grove moved to ratify the engagement on the PC’s behalf of Wendy McLean and her expert witnesses to present the recommendations of the PC in the Omnipoint application for Conditional Use. Joe seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.

3. IN-C Institutional Commercial Overlay Zoning District

(a) Borough Council has requested that the PC review the proposed Ordinance establishing the IN-C Institutional Overlay Zoning District. The Ordinance is based on the May 21, 2003 Planning Commission memorandum titled "Framework for Adjustment to Zoning for the Inn Property (FAZIP)". Joanna Jacobs explained the differences between the proposed ordinance and the FAZIP and was requesting PC’s comments on the ordinance as written. Joanna explained that the council’s intent was to create guidelines that compliment and fit in with the village of Swarthmore.

(b) After discussing the proper scope of review of the ordinance, it was decided 1) that it would be inappropriate to limit review to comments on the text of the ordinance, and 2) that the broader issues of concern to the Commission raised by the development enabled and/or encouraged by the overlay, which had not previously been addressed, should be now considered by the Commission. A wide ranging discussion followed that touched on topics such as the appropriateness of a large building on the site in question, what the traffic implications might be and whether zoning adjustment was necessary.

(c) Joanna confirmed the development process would require review by the Planning Commission and Borough Council.

(d) The view corridor outlined in FAZIP 7.1.1 and not present in the proposed ordinance was discussed. The PC felt strongly that it should be spelled out specifically. BC felt that the defined built-to line already ensured the view corridor.

(e) It was noted that the build-to line was located in what is now a public street. There was discussion about setting up an ordinance that would require removing the existing street. It was noted that the PC set the build-to line in FAZIP. Jay Woolford explained that the intention was to set the building line as close as possible to keep the "town feel" and to emphasize pedestrian access from the town to the site.

(f) Members of the PC commented on the maps attached to the proposed ordinance and felt they were inadequate and/or confusing.

(g) Traffic patterns were discussed. Joanna noted that any proposal under the proposed ordinance would have to address the traffic flow.

(h) The specifics of the proposed ordinance were discussed and the PC made the following recommendations:

1. In I.B., change the words "an essential component" to "Borough Council believes that…"…is a highly desirable component of the plan" or something along those lines:

2. Add II.G.1.d requiring that any displaced parking must be replaced as mentioned in I.F.

3. In A.2, clarify the definition of a coffee shop. Include other non-alcoholic drinks in the mix. PC recommends that the 50% requirement language be verified.

4. In A.4, state that the recreational facilities would be limited to guests of the inn. The PC also asks that BC review the stated definition of retail.

5. In II.A.4, review restrictions on office space. PC recommends that no office space be allowed on the ground floor.

6. The PC recommends that the maps be more accurately drawn, that the current exhibit A be removed and that the view corridor intention be defined by a line shown on the map and described in 2.a.v.

7. Under II.G.2, the PC feels that it is appropriate to restrict vehicular access to the site to the southeastern corner opposite Rutgers Avenue.

8. The PC recommends that Exhibit C be revised to re-position the traffic circle in order to maximize the pedestrian friendly area.

9. The PC recommends further consideration of the landscape linkages as depicted in FAZIP 4.3.

(i) Jackie Miller asked when and where the public would get a chance to comment on the effect of the development outside of the Town Center. Leslie Price indicated that Borough Council was the appropriate venue.

(j) David made a motion that the PC recommend that the BC should not adopt the proposed IN-C ordinance. David’s motion having been seconded, failed 2 votes to 5, David and Susan voting in favor and Jay, Leslie, Nancy, Joe and Tim opposing it.

(k) Jay then motioned that the PC recommend adoption of the ordinance subject to the PC’s recommendations. The motion was seconded and passed 4 votes to 3, Jay, Leslie, Joe and Tim in favor and Susan, David and Nancy opposed.

(l) It was then moved that if BC chooses to adopt the IN-C ordinance, the PC would recommend the changes outlined in 3.h above. The motion was approved unanimously.

The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 pm. The next meeting is scheduled for June 15, 2004 at 7:30 PM.

Respectfully submitted,
Tim Kearney

Attachments:

Draft IN-C Institutional Commercial Overlay Zoning District Ordinance

May 11, 2005 Memo from Joanna Jacobs, Chair, Swarthmore Borough Council Planning and Zoning Committee, to the Swarthmore Planning Commission re: IN-C Institutional Commercial Overlay Zoning District

September 7, 2004 Memo from Swarthmore Borough Council Planning and Zoning Committee to Swarthmore Borough Council re: Proposed Inn Ordinance

May 21, 2003 Memo from the Swarthmore Planning Commission to Swarthmore Borough Council Planning and Zoning Committee re: Framework for Adjustment to Zoning for the Inn Property (the "FAZIP")

05-18-05 Comments on IN-C Ordinance (used as discussion framework)