Swarthmore Planning Commission
December 17, 2003
7:30 pm
Swarthmore Borough Hall

MEETING MINUTES

Present: Tom Shaffer (acting chair), Joan Apt, Nancy Crickman, Joe Foglio, Tim Kearney, Michael Peters, Leslie Price, Susan Wright, Joanna Jacobs (Borough Council), Scott Richardson (Town Center, Inc.)

1. Minutes of November meeting were approved. Minutes of the April 20, 2002 meeting were reviewed by remaining surviving 2002 PC members and approved.

2. Election of PC officers for 2004: To be voted on at the January 21, 2004 meeting.
The following officers were nominated (nominations left open):

Jay Woolford—Chair
Tom Shaffer—Vice-chair
Secretary—The PC agreed to maintain the present monthly rotation of the Secretary position.

3. Update on Sign Ordinance Review by Tim Kearney.

Scott Richardson of Occasionally Yours attended and informally represented Town Center, Inc. ("TCI"). Mr. Richardson noted that TCI is a voluntary group composed of some Town Center business owners, the Co-op, representative from the College, and individual residents. TCI has a design committee that addresses signage among other issues.

The PC stated that it wants to hear from stakeholders in the community re: any proposed modifications to the ordinance, but needs to better understand which group or groups, if any, represents their interests.

a. Purpose of Ordinance: to establish minimum sign requirements to promote convenience, safety, property values and aesthetics; maintain and control character, minimize negative visual impacts, maximize fairness and equal protection—in short, to prevent worst case scenarios. Particularly important in the business district.

b. Present ordinance allows 12 sf of signage per property or 1.5 sf per lineal foot of frontage, whichever is less; with window signage not to exceed 25% of window area (compare to other sample ordinances which allow up to 25 sf).

c. Many present signs (approx. 80%) greatly exceed limits of present ordinance and are grandfathered until new signs are required. Many new signs flout present requirements but were not torn down (with some notable exceptions). New Co-op sign (above roof) greatly exceeds requirements—permitted by variance. Enforcement by borough manager. Present use of awning signs and brown-painted storefronts is due to "peer pressure," not design guidelines or ordinance.

d. Issue: Whether to modify present ordinance to balance present restrictive nature of ordinance with some flexibility for business owners, in order to promote upgrades and innovation (many present businesses won’t replace worn signs for fear of losing present non-complying signage).

e. Benefits of modified ordinance: Promote certainty (signage is expensive, no one wants to spend money and have signage disallowed), dialogue, innovation, and with this economic development and recruitment of new businesses to Town Center. Mr. Richardson related his experience with the present ad hoc approach to signage and design.

f. Suggested solution: "Two tier" approach with a base "as of right" level (with slightly less restrictive limits than present limits) and a secondary approval process for signage that exceeds those requirements.

Questions re: changes to the base level requirements:
--Separate window signage from building signage?
--Allow larger signage? (generally agreed that some increase is desirable)
--Change method of area calculation? (generally agreed)
--Allow neon and internally-illuminated signage?
--Allow projecting signage? (considered "more historical")

Questions re: secondary process:
--Who would review? PC, Borough Council, Town Center group(s)? SusanWright noted that because TCI is not a government agency, its actions would not be binding.
--Nature of presentation and review—drawings and/or mock-ups?
--Legally, would this require a conditional use? (not available in current scheme) Or variance? (hardship for signage = rare, hard to prove)
--Historic considerations (Main Street)

g. Residential District: signage for home based businesses (B&B) should be reviewed. Question: are current code requirements for professional offices and studios sufficient?

4. HRC Report to PC by Susan Wright

a. Introduction, draft Purpose Statement, and draft Goals were distributed at the July PC meeting. In response to comments from Lisa Aaron/Borough Council:
1) the HRC elaborated on economic benefits of historic preservation, and
2) added information about how municipalities can hold façade easements.
3) made suggested changes and passed out the revised Swarthmore Historic Preservation at November's meeting.
4) HRC intends to add illustrative photos to the document.

b. In response to questions from the last PC meeting:
--Lancaster’s historic district includes the entire city; Oley Township district includes most of township (copies of Lancaster ordinance available).
--Submitting the Resources Survey to the Bureau of Historic Preservation costs the Borough nothing; preliminary finding approximately 30 days after application.

c. Dec. 4, 2003 P&Z meeting: Susan Wright presented the draft purpose statement and goals, the key points of Swarthmore Historic Preservation, and the Planning Commission's recommendation regarding the determination of local historic district boundaries acceptable to Pennsylvania's Bureau for Historic Preservation.

P&Z wants to deliberate on PC’s recommendations at their next meeting. Questions centered on the legal basis of historic preservation in Pennsylvania and particulars of filling out the Resource Survey. Although the PC believes that a reasonable Swarthmore historic preservation ordinance would be upheld by Pennsylvania courts (no trend against HARBs or ordinances), there may be concerns about the expense of legal challenges. Also concerns were raised by P & Z as to whether such an ordinance would really work.

Joanna Jacobs has requested that P&Z meet with the PC to review the HRC recommendations, preferably at the January PC meeting.

Public attendees appeared receptive and positive about PC recommendations and report.

d. Update on proposed PA state tax credits for historic preservation. Two Pa tax credit bills, HB 951 & HB 952 are now in the Senate Finance Committee (integrated SB 820). Governor Rendell is supporting the bills, and the senate is more favorably disposed than in the past.

e. Comprehensive Plan/Historic Resources Plan: The HRC has reviewed outline, and can put together a formal document from materials already prepared when necessary. Survey recommendations and Process were reviewed. No adjustments in priorities were indicated.

f. Public education. On December 1, 2003, HRC made a Local History Grant application to support educational walking tour brochure. The Swarthmore Historical Society offered to apply for the grant as a matter of administrative convenience. HRC decided to go for a $5000 grant, rather than try to locate matching funds for a larger grant under time pressure. The HRC thanked all who helped get this application out, including: Maurice Eldridge, (College), Jennifer Vincent & Marty Speigel, (Swarthmore Town Center, Inc), Lisa Aaron, (Swarthmore Borough), and Mary Ann Jeavons, who supplied letters of support, Eck Gerner, Susanna Morikawa and Mary Ann Jeavons for collecting necessary tax and budget documentation and incorporation information, John Gibbons, for coordinating the final layout estimates, and to Mr. Wolensky of PHMC for reviewing the application on short notice.

h. Coloring book project. HRC obtained copies of Rutledge materials to review for possible WSSD elementary-level historic resources coloring book. Further work will be deferred until HRC meets with the new elementary curriculum director, Dr. Pittman. Tom Shaffer brought in a sample historic resources coloring book. Mike Peters will try to obtain elementary architectural education materials from the Foundation for Architecture "Architecture in Education" program, which could help sell the concept to the District. HRC has contacted Ms. Jocylin McMahon, the art director for WSSD, who is very enthusiastic about this project, and will be coordinating the project withWSSD..

5. Crum Creek Watershed Update by Nancy Crickman

a. Act 167 Stormwater Management Plan – Delaware County Planning Department

Phase I is complete and Phase II is underway. The scope of work for Phase II includes compiling existing watershed data, collecting new data (by EAC and borough engineers), and developing a model to predict the impacts of land development on stormwater runoff. The plan will only address new development and will not address existing problems. A large component of Phase II is the development of a model stormwater ordinance for the watershed, which every municipality in the watershed must adopt. As the plan development continues, there will be many opportunities for review and comment.

b. NPDES Stormwater Permit

Swarthmore Borough applied for coverage under DEP’s general permit for municipal separate storm sewer systems. Many of the permit requirements, including public education, are incorporated into the development of the Act 167 plan.

c. Rivers Conservation Plan – DCNR funding, project coordinated by Natural Lands Trust, Chester Ridley Crum Watershed Association and other partners

Natural Lands Trust and CRC hosted a kick-off meeting to present the scope of work for the plan. They are in the process of collecting information and are particularly interested in input from streamside residents. Projects identified in the plan will be eligible for funding from DEP, DCNR and other funding agencies so it is a good idea to let NLT know of any potential projects.

6. New Business
Joan Apt, who has served two terms (8 years) on the PC, announced that she will retire from the PC effective January 2004. The PC thanked Joan for her years of service and hard work.