SWARTHMORE PLANNING COMMISSION (SPC)
Minutes of April 23, 2003 Meeting
7:30 p.m., Swarthmore Borough Hall Council Room

Members Attending: Joan Apt, Tim Kearney, Steve Laxton, Leslie Price, Tom Shaffer, Jay Woolford (chair), Susan Wright

Guests:
For Swarthmore Borough Solicitor: Peter LaVan
Swarthmore Borough Council Liaison: Lisa Aaron
For Swarthmore College: Stuart C. Hain, Swarthmore College Facilities Planning Director; Christopher D. Burkett, Gilmore & Associates, Inc.
For Swarthmore Co-op: Jack Cavanaugh, President and Manager; Jay Shoemaker; Robert McCauley, architect.
For Borough Engineer: Eileen Mulvena, NDI Assoc.

Jay Woolford called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM.

Swarthmore College Final Land Development Plan and Conditional Use Application — New College Dormitory:
Jay Woolford reviewed the College's application process as it has proceeded so far. He stated that Jane Billings, Borough Manager, had submitted a checklist for the final plan and application (copy attached), and she stated that the application was complete. Jay also reviewed inputs from NDI Associates (Borough Engineers), the Delaware County Planning Commission, and Swarthmore College (copies attached).
Lighting plan: Jay Woolford asked about the interior lighting plan for the new dormitory, and reviewed the lighting cut sheets. There was discussion among Commission members and College representatives about an exterior lighting plan; the anticipated level of the exterior lighting is not clear from the plan. The College will ask their lighting consultant to try to better define the level of exterior lighting contributed by the wash of the interior lighting coming through the window glass on the first floor of the new building.
Landscaping plan: Mr. Burkett of Gilmore & Associates distributed copies of the landscaping plan to Commission members.
Timing of Phase 2: Jay Woolford asked when the College planned to execute Phase 2 of the Plan. Stuart C. Hain, Swarthmore College Facilities Planning Director, stated that Phase 2 should be executed within the next five years; Phase 2 is dependent on additional donors at this point.
Fire access lane/pad: Susan Wright asked if the College had answered the fire marshal's question concerning the marking of the fire access lane/pad to the new dormitory. Jay Woolford responded that the College had not, but that a response was being worked on.
Traffic: Susan Wright asked if the College had written a letter guaranteeing that the construction and occupation of the new dormitory would result in no appreciable increase in traffic on Chester Road. Mr. Hain stated that such a letter had not been written due to a lack of data from PennDot re: Chester Road traffic.
Traffic study waiver: Susan Wright suggested that the College's reasons for requesting a waiver from the requirement for a traffic study (the waiver had been granted) be added to the Final Application in the interest of completeness. Mr. Hain agreed.
Motion: Tim Kearney made a motion to recommend to Borough Council approval of Swarthmore College's Final Application/Plan for the new college dormitory, subject to the conditions (1) stated in the Borough Engineer's letter (Eileen Mulvena of NDI Associates) dated 4/21/03; (2) that the sidewalk connecting the new dormitory to Chester Road, indicated on the Final Plan as part of Phase 2, be included in Phase 1 of construction; and (3) that the College devise a suitable way to mark the fire access lane/pad that satisfies the Borough Fire Marshall. The motion was seconded, and passed unanimously.

Swarthmore Co-op Preliminary Land Development Application:
Review: Jay Woolford reviewed the waivers being requested by the Co-op:
(1) Traffic impact study waiver
(2) Storm water management plan waiver
Jay also reviewed inputs from the Borough Manger, the Borough Engineer, the Delaware County Planning Commission, and the Swarthmore Environmental Advisory Council.
Handicapped access ramp: Discussion was held concerning the construction of a handicapped access ramp. Co-op representatives stated that a "temporary" ramp is to be built by the Co-op first to access the main entrance. After the present Co-op building is demolished, the permanent ramp will be built by the Borough as part of the "Lafayette Court" development. The question of a requirement for an easement for the permanent ramp was asked. The Borough Solicitor's opinion was that the requirement for an easement depends on which organization, the Co-op or the Borough, becomes responsible for the maintenance of the permanent ramp. The Borough Solicitor agreed to development a maintenance and liability agreement to be used on an interim basis.
Stormwater maintenance: The Co-op wishes to postpone a Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan until the Final Application. This plan will be done in concert with the Borough as part of the Lafayette Court development and construction. Susan Wright questioned the Borough Solicitor as to whether a Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan waiver is allowed by the Borough Code. The Solicitor stated that he would research this issue. Jay Shoemaker agreed to have the Co-op amend the Preliminary Plan to refer to the applicable provision of the Subdivision Ordinance, section 1286.08(f), to comply with the requirements of section 1296.01(b) of the waiver provision of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Motion: A motion was made by Tim Kearney and seconded to recommend that the requirement that the Co-op submit Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan a as part of the Preliminary Land Development Plan be waived, contingent upon (1) the interpretation by the Borough Solicitor that a waiver is allowed under the Borough Code; (2) the Co-op agreeing to submit a Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan as part of their Final Land Development Plan in conjunction with the Borough's Lafayette Court Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan. The motion was passed unanimously.
[Note: Later in the meeting, the Borough Solicitor's representative stated that the Planning Commission did have "jurisdiction" to recommend granting a waiver for the Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan, despite the language in Section 503 B (p. 24) of the Stormwater Ordinance.]
Traffic study waiver request: Susan Wright stated that she believed that the Co-op's projected daily increase in round trips to the Co-op (11) may be low, given the new Co-op's increased retail space and the desire of the Co-op to attract new customers with a new facility. Mr. Cavanaugh and Mr. Shoemaker stated that the figure of 11 additional round trips was for the evening peak rush hour, not for the whole day, and agreed to clarify that in their plan description. Steve Laxton asked whether there was any plan to make traffic on Meyer Ave. one-way, as had been mentioned at a previous Co-op presentation. Mr. Shoemaker and Mr. McCauley stated that, although that option had been discussed, it had been decided that it would not be a good idea, and it was not part of the present plan. Jay Woolford also re-emphasized the necessity of the Planning Commission reviewing the Subdivision and Land Development traffic study requirements at some point in the future, as some of the requirements may not be applicable to Swarthmore.
Motion: A motion was made by Leslie Price and seconded to recommend approval of the traffic study waiver requested by the Co-op. Passed unanimously.
Lighting plan: Jay Woolford stated that there was no lighting plan in the Application. He also pointed out that this discrepancy was noted in the letter from the Borough Engineer. Tim Kearney suggested that the lighting for the temporary handicapped ramp was particularly important and should be specified. Jay Shoemaker noted this omission and requested that the ramp and lighting plan issues be made contingent upon the Final Plan Application.
Historic district issue: Jay Woolford pointed out that an 11/12/02 letter from the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission stated that the site for the new Co-op is not part of a historic district, and thus is not subject to any historic district requirements or legislation.
Borough Engineer's letter of 4/22/03:
Item #2 — Interpretation of Section 1268.04(a) of the Zoning Code: Upon questioning, the Borough Solicitor advised the Planning Commission that the phrase "after review by the Planning Commission" in Section 1268.04(a) of the Zoning Code refers only to timing, i.e., in the present instance, after the review of the Co-op's Preliminary Land Development Application by the Planning Commission, not to any requirement for a review of parking by the Planning Commission.
Item #3 — Sewerage: this issue to be addressed on Final Plan Application.
Item #5 — Loading dock utilizes Meyer Ave. right of way: not applicable; Borough Code does permit this.
Item #6 — Requirement for demolition plan: this is an "FYI" note by the Borough Engineer for the Co-op management; no requirement for these issues to be addressed in the Preliminary Plan Application. Lisa Aaron noted that the Borough does not have substantive list of requirements for demolition, and that such a list needs to be developed.
Delaware County Planning Commission letter of 4/17/03: Jay Woolford noted that this letter made many of the same comments as the Borough Engineer's letter. Jay Woolford also addressed the criticism of the DCPD underlying it recommendation of disapproval — that the plan does not comply with the Borough zoning ordinance, that the granting of the variances severely undermined the zoning ordinance and did not satisfy the requirements of MPC Section 910.2 for granting variances, and that there had been ample time to amend the zoning code to implement appropriate area and bulk regulations for a commercial/business district — by stating that taking the action to amend the zoning ordinance suggested by the DCPD was not an appropriate use of resources at this time, when the Borough was about to rewrite its comprehensive plan, and so the DCPD's criticisms were not compelling.
"Green Roof": Tom Shaffer asked if any consideration had been given to installing a green roof on the new Co-op. Jay Shoemaker stated that it was considered, but the cost was prohibitive.
Drainage easements: Susan Wright raised the question of the necessity of some sort of drainage easements over Lafayette Court. The Borough Engineer's representative indicated that such easements would be required, per Section 1286.08(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance, and should be made part of the Co-op's Final Development Plan Application.
Motion: A motion was made by Tom Shaffer and seconded to recommend approval of the Swarthmore Co-op's Preliminary Development Plan Application, subject to the following conditions:
(1) The following will be submitted as part of the Co-op's Final Development Plan Application: (a) stormwater maintenance plan; (b) design for temporary and permanent handicapped access ramps; (c) lighting plan, including plan for lighting the temporary and permanent handicapped access ramps.
(2) Approval is subject to the comments in the Borough Engineer's letter of 4/22/03.

Proposed Amendment to Sign Ordinance:
Review: Lisa Aaron reviewed the request for an amendment to the Borough Sign Ordinance which would allow business owners to have relatively small neon sign stating whether the business was "open" or "closed." She also reviewed the history behind this request and the history of the development of the Borough Sign Ordinance.
"Sunset" provision: Susan Wright expressed concern that there was no "Sunset" provision in the proposed amendment, that the proposed amendment provides for only "limited time" (one year only) permits. Lisa Aaron responded that 1) a "Sunset" provision alone would be insufficient to protect the Borough from permanent neon signs being created during the term of the ordinance, as neon signs allowed under the ordinance while it was in effect could then be grandfathered if it was later deemed appropriate to continue the ban on neon (all present agreed that the limited time permit was required even if the ordinance had a "Sunset" provision); 2) it was thought that the fact that the permit was only for one year put sign applicants on sufficient notice that their license was not permanent, and that the borough might decide not to allow neon signs in the long run; and 3) one year seemed an appropriate time limit for the permit as Council expected the sign ordinance review to be done within a year. Therefore, the proposed amendment to the sign ordinance was deemed appropriate despite its lack of a "Sunset" provision.
Motion: A motion was made by Joan Apt and seconded to recommend that Borough Council approve the proposed amendment to the Borough Sign Ordinance. Passed unanimously.

March 2003 Meeting Minutes:
Modify reference to 11.2 to include sentence prior to the one referenced in the minutes.
Modify reference to 11.3 to substitute "development of the site" in place of "construction of the Inn."
March minutes were approved as amended.

Draft Framework for Adjustment in Zoning for the Inn Property (DFAZIP):
The following modifications to the DFAZIP document were discussed and adopted:
Section 1.1, line 2: revise to read "proposed inn, meeting rooms."
Section 5.2: cannot be amended, jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board.
Section 5.3: discussion of whether 150 was the total for the inn and the meeting rooms together, or just the total for the meeting rooms alone. Discussion of what is a "realistic" number for the meeting rooms. Traffic and parking is the issue — was the traffic engineer given 150 as a total for the inn and the meeting rooms? Jay Woolford referenced the P.C.'s February 2002 memo: 150 "guests" for "conference and banquet facilities." The conclusion is that the 150 number is for meeting rooms alone.
Section 7.1: Agreed to restore Jay Shoemaker's original language re: viewshed.
Section 7.2: No change required.
Section 12.2, line 3: Delete all after "see attached."
Section 12A (in general): Add notes to recommended zoning ordinance, recommendation "that traffic calming and redirection methods be employed prior to the changes to be created by the stoplight to discourage vehicular traffic from becoming habituated to using residential streets for cut-through traffic."
Section 12B: Remove the traffic turnaround northeast of the proposed inn from the map that will be part of the DFAZIP document. This is an issue that the inn developer should solve. Jay Shoemaker will have the revised map prepared for the Planning Commission.
Section 3.1: Revise "see attached map" to read "see attached map entitled 'DFAZIP attachment A.' "
Section 4.6: Spell out "LEED" as "Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design". Add as a footnote to the recommended zoning ordinance.
Section 4.5: No changes required.
Legal issues: Planning Commission agreed to create a memo listing legal issues regarding DFAZIP that need to be addressed by the Borough Solicitor. Jay Woolford assigned this task to Susan Wright.

Further discussion of the DFAZIP will be held at the Planning Commission's May 2003 meeting.

Report of the Historic Resources Committee to the Swarthmore Planning Commission, dated 4/16/03: distributed to Planning Commission members without comment.

Other Old Business — None.

New Business: Jay Woolford announced that Ed Heller has resigned from the Planning Commission. All P.C. members recommended that the Chair send Ed a letter thanking him for his many years of service to the community.

Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Stephen B. Laxton

Attachments:

Swarthmore College Final Land Development Application, New Dormitory:
Swarthmore Borough Manager Memo, re: Swarthmore College Final Land Development Application.
NDI Associates letter dated 4/21/03.
Delaware County Planning Commission letter dated 4/17/03.
Swarthmore Co-op, Preliminary Land Development Plan Application, New Store:
Swarthmore Borough Manager Memo, re: Preliminary Land Development Application, Swarthmore Co-op Food Market.
NDI Associates letter dated 4/22/03.
Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission letter dated 11/12/02.
Delaware County Planning Department letter dated 4/17/03.
Swarthmore Environmental Advisory Council letter dated 4/12/03.
Proposed amendment to Swarthmore Borough Sign Ordinance
Report of the Historic Resources Committee to the Swarthmore Planning Commission, dated 4/16/03.