SWARTHMORE PLANNING COMMISSION
Swarthmore Borough Hall Council Room
7:30 P.M. March 17, 2004
Meeting Minutes

Attendees: Jay Woolford, Chair, Nancy Crickman, Joe Foglio, David Grove, Tim Kearney, Mike Peters, Leslie Price, Tom Shaffer, Susan Wright, Secretary (March)

I. Minutes of February 18, 2004: unanimously approved as amended.

II. Minutes of January 21, 2004: the correct spelling, "Hieb," of name of the member of the public designated"High," was duly noted.

III. Continuation of discussion on Conditional Use Permit: Bed and Breakfast at 301 N. Swarthmore Avenue (rear). Douglas and Lorraine Sanna, part owners of the applicant, Swarthmore Carriage House B&B, LLC, appeared before the Planning Commission to address questions.

A. Jay reviewed the provisions of § 1264.11 of the Zoning Code, which set forth the general standards for review for conditional uses, and asked if there were any concerns regarding whether the proposed bed and breakfast met these standards.

Mrs. Sanna clarified that 1) the number of bedrooms available for bed and breakfast use was currently one, but might eventually be expanded to two, and 2) the landscaping was scheduled for planting in April. She offered a copy of the written landscaping plan to the Planning Commission.

After considering that the intensity and impact on the neighborhood of the proposed use could easily be even less than that of a strictly residential use, and considering the buffering which would be provided by the proposed landscaping, the Planning Commission unanimously concluded that a bed and breakfast use was appropriate for this property under the evaluation criteria of § 1264.11.

B. Jacki Miller raised a concern about the lost opportunity of getting a neighbor when a property in a residential neighborhood is allocated to a business.

In response, Jay explained that this issue was exactly what the Planning Commission was struggling with in this application. He requested that the Planning Commission consider whether it could recommend specific conditions that might "isolate" this specific situation without establishing a harmful precedent.
Mrs. Sanna emphasized that there would be a resident in the property.

C. To address the concerns raised by the nonstandard nature of this application, Mrs. Sanna proposed a condition that the bed and breakfast property and 301 N. Swarthmore Avenue (front) both be owned by the Sannas.

The Planning Commission concluded that this condition would not address their concerns because the identity of who owned the adjacent property was not relevant to the bed and breakfast property's suitability as a bed and breakfast or to whether the bed and breakfast property was the principal residence of the owner of the bed and breakfast business.

D. The Planning Commission addressed the question of whether one could limit the granting of bed and breakfast applications to properties in which the owner of the bed and breakfast business owned the bed and breakfast property. Susan explained that, during the discussions about the proposed ordinance, this potential limitation had been considered and rejected. Such a provision would not withstand legal challenge under the ruling of the Kulak case, because the identity of the occupant has no relation to the legitimate zoning purposes of public health, safety and welfare. The Planning Commission agreed that adding a limitation that could not withstand legal challenge would be inappropriate.

E. David asked about the mission of the Planning Commission: should it guide applicants in revising their proposals so that they might receive a favorable recommendation or should it merely recommend rejection or approval of an application by Borough Council on the basis of what was submitted.

Susan noted that the Municipalities Planning Act indicates that education is a responsibility of planning commissions, and that educating applicants about how to address the problems in their applications is part of this responsibility. Jay added that the Planning Commission's approach has traditionally been to try to work with applicants to seek solutions instead of merely recommending the rejection of an application that is incomplete or otherwise unsatisfactory.

F. Mike noted that even were Mr. Childress to lease the bed and breakfast property, only one quarter of the owner of the bed and breakfast business (Mr. Childress would own one quarter of Swarthmore Carriage House B&B, LLC) would make his principal residence on the bed and breakfast property. The Bed and Breakfast Ordinance requires the owner of the business in its entirety to make the property its principal residence.

Mrs. Sanna explained that it was unacceptable to the Sannas to have Mr. Childress own the entire bed and breakfast business.

G. Mike expressed concerns about "nibbling around the edges" of the ordinance given the effort that went into creating it, indicating that the real question at issue was whether there was a way the Sannas could get what they wanted within the ordinance as drafted. Nancy observed that there was no real distinction between the present situation and someone buying a property that they weren't able to rent out and then applying for a bed and breakfast use for that property. David observed that the Bed and Breakfast ordinance had been drafted with the intent that natural persons be the owners of the bed and breakfast business. Leslie observed that the applicants are struggling with an ordinance created for the business to be incidental to the use of the property as residence, to expand the use of homes for their residents, and that the real issue here was that in the present case, the business is actually the primary use.

H. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that:

1. Because the bed and breakfast property is not the principal residence of the bed and breakfast business in its entirety, the application for a Conditional Use Permit filed by Swarthmore Carriage House B&B, LLC to operate a bed and breakfast at 301 N. Swarthmore Avenue (rear) does not comply with the requirement of Section III. B. (1) (a) of the Bed and Breakfast Ordinance, No. 968, that the bed and breakfast property shall be the principal residence of the owner of the business. Therefore the Planning Commission recommends that Council not approve the application.

2. The Planning Commission has reviewed the application under the standards set forth in § 1264.11 of the Zoning Code and finds that the proposed use complies with § 1264.11 (b) through (g); however, it does not fully comply with § 1264.11 (a) because it does not comply with Section III. B. (1) (a) of the Bed and Breakfast Ordinance.

IV. Update on Sketch Plan- Minor Subdivision at 84/86 Yale Avenue under the
Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance (the "Ordinance")

A. David stated that he will not be voting on this matter, nor will he contribute anything to the discussion save factual background. He further requested the Planning Commission to advise him if at any time they felt his comments strayed from his intent to contribute strictly factual input.

B. Ken Crowther, the applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission to answer questions and address issues raised during the January 2004 Planning Commission meeting discussion.

1. All present structures on the property are to be removed.
a. The brick garage
b. A concrete tunnel now coming out of the basement of the existing house
c. The building straddling the Seymour's property and Mr. Crowther's property.
Mr. Crowther has made an offer to Carol Seymour to pay for the entire demolition expenses to remove this building, which abuts a garage on the Seymour's property. This garage will remain. The building has a basement under the full structure, which would also be removed, and the foundation would be grubbed out. The building's basement is well built, but the upper portion is not.

2. Sewer variance [§ 1457.21 (b) (1) Floodplain Ordinance.]
a. Mr. Crowther has applied for a zoning variance to connect the sewer lines of the proposed development through the floodplain to the main 21" sewer line running underneath unopened Harvard Avenue. These connections will require digging trenches, thus disturbing the floodplain.

b. Leslie inquired about the condition of the existing sewer line. Mr. Crowther stated that this was one of the questions his engineer is to investigate. (Note: At the January meeting, the Planning Commission raised questions about the age, capacity, present problems with existing sewer line.)

c. David noted that by his property there are two man holes, raised 3 feet off the ground, giving access to two sewer lines, one 21 " and one 12, " which are believed to be at least 5 feet below surface of unopened Harvard. Both lines cross underneath Little Crum Creek near the intersection of Yale and unopened Harvard. Where sewer lines cross Little Crum Creek they are not too deep--during low water they can be seen. There have been two problems with this sewer line, one in perhaps the last 8 years in back of the Severeid house, and one in 1995 near Little Crum Creek Park. (Note: The former occurred on Dickinson and was a problem with the pipe crossing the creek to the connection with the large outfall sewer owned by Central Delaware County Authority. The latter was a break just off Cresson Lane. Here new pipe was installed the to replace the old pipe, which was quite disintegrated and thus not a candidate for slip lining.) Joe noted that slip lining has minimal impact on capacity--maybe .5 inches are lost. Nancy noted that Art McGarity's studies of Little Crum Creek have indicated problems with the condition of this sewer line, as every time it rains, sewage leaks out, evidenced by fecal counts.

3. Development variance. [§ 1457.21 (b) (1) Floodplain Ordinance.] Mr. Crowther has applied for a variance to develop in a floodplain. (The act of subdividing the property is considered development.)

4. Brush management. Mr. Crowther will meet with Chris Hansen, Chair of the EAC, and Jeff Jabco, of Swarthmore College, to review the present brush on the property to obtain advice on which areas of brush are undesirable invasives, better removed, and which areas/trees should be preserved. (EAC member Sue Kelly advised the Planning Commission that this was a followup to the EAC's questions about the existing vegetation on the property.)

5. § 1288.12 (a) waiver. Mr. Crowther will require a waiver 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. However, only two houses may use the same driveway under § 1288.12 (a) of the Ordinance. 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. Mr. Crowther noted that the proposed new driveway will be substantially the same as the existing driveway to his existing house.

6. § 1288.04 (g) (2) waiver.
a. Mr. Crowther will require a second 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 Dickinson, which two new houses are to share, is only 12 feet in width, presently paved with a 8 foot wide driveway, which is to be widened to 12 feet. 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. Access off Dickinson is preferred due to grading issues and problems with flooding on unopened Harvard.

b. The Planning Commission reviewed § 1288.04 (g) (2). Some members opined that the Ordinance required a 25 foot access strip for each house, i.e., a total of 50 feet for the access strip. There was some concern that the large discrepency between the 12 foot strip proposed and the 50 foot strip some felt was required by the ordinance was more appropriately addressed by a zoning variance than a waiver. Mr. Crowther stated that he was taking the waiver approach on the advice of Jane Billings. The Planning Commission advised Mr. Crowther to get an interpretation on whether a variance or waiver was the best approach.

9. Unopened Harvard Avenue
a. David observed that the question of who owns unopened Harvard has never been answered, and to do so would require an action to quiet title. The existing property owners have been using the 12 foot lane for 50 years. Bob and Mary Wood, the previous owners of the Groves' property, in their deed to the Groves stated that the interest in unopened Harvard would flow to the contiguous property if it was ever determined that the Borough's interest in the property had expired. The Borough is not claiming ownership as it doesn't want to maintain the road.

b. A variance to widen the 12 foot lane to 20 feet, which has since expired, was obtained during time of the subdivision proposal of the Seymour Estate. A major argument in support of the variance came from the Fire Company, which also wanted to be able to turn their vehicles around at the end of the lane and wanted to ease the crown and widen the outlet where unopened Harvard meets Yale. It is believed that the consent of the owner of the Yale property abutting this intersection would have been required for widening the outlet, but it is not known if that consent was ever obtained. (Note: Ownership of that property has changed since the time the variance was granted/expired.) The Seymour Estate subdivision proposal also included the addition of a water line through unopened Harvard and fire hydrant/s as it was easier than bringing a water line from Dickinson. Mike noted that there is a fire hydrant on Dickinson opposite the Dickinson access strip, and that the size of the proposed development would inform the Fire Company as to the equipment required to service a fire, and therefore what they need to get in and out.

c. In the event it is ever determined that the Harvard access is no longer available, the Groves and Carol Seymour also possess a contingent right for vehicular access and utility access to go over 84 Yale, Mr. Crowther's property, to Dickinson. Mike noted that because of the flooding problems, lack of vehicular access over unopened Harvard was a significant possibility. (The Woods had obtained a utility easement over 329 Dickinson for water, telephone and power lines. However, if a new gas line were run to serve the new houses, the Groves might want to also run a gas line using the utility access easement.) Mr. Crowther stated that the Final Plan will include these easements, but the easements have not been staked yet as he wishes to know more about what he would be permitted to do beforehand. There was some concern that at least one of the proposed new houses might impinge on the contingent easements; this will be addressed at such time as the contingent easements and improvements are staked.

The Planning Commission expressed concern about the vehicular access to all these properties in the event the unopened Harvard Avenue access is obstructed. After development, five properties would be sharing the 12 foot Dickinson access strip. Fire equipment access under such conditions also might be a big problem.

d. David opined that because previous development has increased runoff waters and changed the original course of Little Crum Creek, it is no longer contiguous with the boundary between Swarthmore and Springfield. There is also concern regarding the stream bank erosion into the 12 foot lane.

10. Mr. Crowther will comply with all the Stormwater Ordinance requirements, do percolation tests, and determine how best to channel water from roofs. (Note: At the January meeting, the Planning Commission stated they wanted information about the impervious coverage as the property now stands relative to the coverage for the proposed development, calculations about stormwater runoff from the new development into Little Crum Creek compared to present runoff.)

12. Mr. Crowther will adjust the plans so that the houses on prospective lots # 2 and # 3 will front on Dickinson. The house on prospective lot # 1 could also front on Dickinson, but will meet all set back requirements either way. One question that arises is that of protruding garages. Garages are to be set back 3 feet from the front of the house.

13. The Post Office will determine if the addresses are on Dickinson.

14. Fire access. (See also #9 above) Susan asked whether the Fire Chief has comments on the plans. Mr. Crowther responded that he was waiting until he knows whether he will get the zoning variances.

Mike stated that access to fire equipment will be critical to issues such as obtaining insurance for new properties. While Mr. Crowther noted that insuring the existing house has not been a problem, Mike felt there was a large distinction between the present 1,800 square foot structure and the 12,000 square feet of proposed new construction.

15. Nancy asked about the EAC concerns about a riparian buffer area and the possibility of establishing a conservation easement for the lower part of the property. Mr. Crowther replied he thought a deed restriction would be a better approach, but stated that, since he has sufficient room to build, he has no problems with allowing this area to stay natural.

C. Jay summarized the next steps in this process:
1) Zoning Hearing Board
2) EAC final review
3) Consultation with Fire Chief
4) Revision of plan by David Damon, Mr. Crowther's engineer

D. These minutes will serve as the Planning Commission's written comments to the applicant under the § 1286.04 (a) of the Ordinance.

V. Rotary Fun Fair Parade: Jay announced that all Swarthmore organizations were to participate in the 1:00 P.M. parade at the April 18th Rotary Fun Fair, this time with their own signs. Tim will be in charge of any Planning Commission sign. The Planning Commission took some care not to overshadow other Borough organizations with its presence in last year's parade, and there was some sentiment that a similarly discreet approach to this year's parade as well was most apropos to the Planning Commission's unassuming nature.

VI. Continued discussion on Sign Ordinance
Tim distributed his March 17 memo with proposals for the revision of the Sign Ordinance.

A. § 1266.03 (s)
1. Tim indicated that Susan's proposal to have a computer measure the percentage coverage seemed worthwhile. The Planning Commission agreed that it was not necessary to specify this measurement technique in the language of the revised ordinance.
2. Tim explained that the 25% figure for lettering coverage is a reasonable guesstimate. Joe was concerned that 25% may be too much, considering the impact of an opaque strip covering 25% of the total window space across the middle of the window. Jay felt that it would be good to have a more concrete understanding of what 20% or 25% opacity means visually. Tim will create sample signs to graphically illustrate examples of different opacity and will run tests on them to see if that figure is appropriate. Graphic designers, sign manufacturers or institutes, and shopping mall store leases were all proposed as possible resources to investigate appropriate coverage.
3. Nancy asked about translucent lettering. There was some discussion about whether 25% opacity would allow sufficient transparency for a film covering the entire window.
4. Nancy also inquired about some of the figures on the windows of Kerry's Kandies--such as bunnies--these turned out to be temporary.
5. Joe asked about logos. The language in the second sentence of § 1266.03 (s) will be revised to read "Graphics and [L]lettering that is applied. . . " to address this concern.
6. Tim and Mike explained the many factors that determine "transparency" beyond percentage opaque coverage: distance from "screening" (Tim used bus wraps as an example where the perforations which allow one to see outside the bus are relatively minor), where light is brightest--inside or outside, shadowing and shade, light direction, time of day. The biggest concern in crafting the sign ordinance revisions is the pedestrian view.

B. § 1266.03 (a)
Tim noted the 36 square foot maximum was chosen because it seemed like a reasonable number. Haddonfield also has this maximum. The majority of stores in Swarthmore have a 18 foot front. This revision gives them a third more signage. Of the signs that exist, Park Avenue Travel's lettering is larger. 36 feet should work even for Paulson's, which is in a different type of building, and Swarthmore Hair Studio, which is two frontages

C. David asked whether the sign standards should be varied depending on the audience? If people are driving down Park, they are going 5 mph, but down 320, they are going 40 mph, and would need a bigger sign.

The Planning Commission felt the stores that might benefit were very few in number, if any, that one should drive down Station Square at 5 mph anyway, that signage should be more geared to pedestrian and slow vehicular speeds, and distracting motorists on 320 with signage was probably not the best idea at the troublesome 320, Station Square and Rutgers Avenue intersection, although if a stoplight is installed at that intersection, the situation would change.

D. § 1266.03 (q) and (r)
Mike and Nancy suggested riders allowing limited sized internally lit and neon signs, such as the open sign at the Cheese Court, as of right.

E. § 1266.03 (x)
Jay requested that discussion of § 1266.03 (x) be postponed to the next meeting.

F. The sense of the Commission is that everyone is comfortable with § 1266.03 (a) and with separating window signage from fascia/awning signage, although David wishes to abstain for now.

VII. New Business

A. Leslie announced that on March 24th, there will be an open house at the Strath Haven Middle School auditorium, with parallel focus groups in different rooms, and invited the entire Planning Commission to come. Between 7:00 and 7:30, there will be a Power Point presentation. While this will be the first open house, there will be a followup "visioning," which will be the start of trying to put together a plan.

B. Susan asked for an explanation why there had been no Planning Commission representation on the focus group devoted to Housing and Historic Preservation two Wednesdays before, when the Planning Commission had been given the responsibility of developing a plan for historic preservation in Swarthmore. In light of the fact that a Council member specifically instructed the Planning Commission to look to the other communities to see how they are approaching this issue, and that focus group was the only forum at which such an interaction was likely, the exclusion of the Planning Commission from this group was particularly egregious.

Leslie stated that there were a limited number of persons who could be invited, and that there would also be focus groups on the same subjects at the March 24th meeting.

VIII. The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 P.M.

IX. The next PC meeting is on April 21, 2004. April's secretary is Nancy Crickman.

Respectfully submitted,
Susan L. Wright

Attachments:

March 17, 2004 Memo: Discussion Points, Swarthmore Borough
Sign Ordinance Revision