Conshohocken Borough

BOROUGH OF CONSHOHOCKEN

PLANNING COMMISSION

1 WEST 1^st AVENUE

SUITE 200

CONSHOHOCKEN, PA 19428

Anita Barton, Chair 610/828-1092 (FAX) 610/828-0920

23 March 2010

Mr. Paul McConnell, President

Conshohocken Borough Council

Conshohocken Borough Hall

1 West First Avenue, Suite 200

Conshohocken, PA 19428

RE: Planning Commission 2009 Annual Report

Dear Mr. McConnell:

The 2009 Annual Report summarizes the accomplishments and activities of the Planning Commission during the past calendar year and documents the Commission’s progress toward the achievement of goals related to land use and development. The document contains five sections: 1) Changes and Accomplishments; 2) Ongoing Activities; 3) Summary of Development Proposals and Proposed Zoning Amendments; 4) Issues and Concerns; and 5) Conclusions.

PART I: Changes and Accomplishments

During 2009, the Planning Commission was served by four representatives, Ms. Anita Barton as Chair, David Bertram as Vice-Chair, Ralph Webb, and Brian Tobin. The coming year will have a full Commission with the new appointment of Scott Freda. Mr. Webb continued to sit on the Design Review Committee in 2009.

The Borough submitted a grant application to update its 2002 Revitalization Plan to the Montgomery County Planning Commission. While the application was approved, funding was not available. The Borough then submitted an application to the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission for funding through the Transportation and Community Development Initiative (TCDI) program. Decisions for funding through TCDI will be made in February 2010.

The Shade Tree Commission was reactivated, and Ms. Christine Stetler, the Borough’s Zoning and Community Development Officer, attends the Commission’s monthly meetings. This Commission revised the Borough’s Shade Tree List, and reference to that list is made to Applicants on the zoning and land development applications.

PART II: Ongoing Activities

Throughout 2009, individual Commission members attended monthly Council work sessions and reported on Commission meetings and activities. The Commission believes that this involvement has improved communication between both groups, and participation in Council meetings is something that the Commission will continue.

PART III: Summary of Development Proposals and Proposed Zoning Amendments

In 2009, the Planning Commission reviewed one zoning amendment; four subdivision and/or land development proposals, and one sketch plan. The zoning amendment considered the rezoning eight properties on Harry Street from Borough Residential-1 to Borough Commercial Street. Four subdivision and land development applications resulted in recommended approval for the demolition of four single-family detached houses for subsequent subdivision into seven new lots with attached and semi-detached single-family dwellings. The sketch plan review considered the demolition of a single-family house (now used for offices) on Fayette Street for the construction of a bank with a drive-through.

1. Zoning Amendment Proposal for Eight Harry Street Properties

In June 2008, Borough Council sought to reclassify 115 Harry Street and 120 Spring Mill Avenue from Borough Residential 1 (BR-1) to Borough Commercial (BC). All of the Commissioners were in agreement to recommend rezoning of those two parcels, and recommended the rezoning of eight additional surrounding parcels on Harry Street from BR-1 to BC. In its August 2008, Council decided that the initial amendment would be limited to the two properties; however, the surrounding properties would be pursued at a later date. Ms. Stetler, in the meantime, was directed to collect parcel and other pertinent information so that Council could amend the zoning for the surrounding properties.

Recommendation: In May 2009, when the issue came before the Commissioners again, they were unanimous in their decision to recommend that eight properties be rezoned from BR-1 to BC, which is consistent with the recommendation of the Borough’s Comprehensive Plan. These eight properties included 106, 108, 110, 119, 205, 207, 209, and 211 Harry Street.

2. 212 Wood Street/Hammer’s Junkyard

Final Major Land Development Plan

This proposal appeared before the Commission in February and November 2008. Originally, the proposal called for establishing a Specially Planned District 4 to construct multi-family building at 212 Wood Street, which falls within the BR-1 District, and a 10’ wide portion of the adjacent property at 130 Wood Street, which falls within the BR-2 District. Article 18 of the Zoning Ordinance codifies the Multi-Family Dwelling Overlay District, which permits modern multi-family buildings in the BR-1 and BR-2 Districts to provide a mix of housing types and options; however, the Applicant explained that the density permitted was not great enough to construct the proposed building. Using Article 18 as a base, the Applicant crafted new language for a Specially Planned District 4 to accommodate the needs of this project.

Between the February and November meetings, the Applicant worked with the Borough to proceed with the multi-family building with stipulations under the existing zoning classifications. In November, the Applicant appeared before the Commission with preliminary plans for review and comment. This proposal called for the construction of a 30-unit apartment building with underground and lot parking facilities. An existing alley, located along the northern tract boundary, was to be reconstructed and connected to Maple Street to permit vehicular access. The grading and installation of piping for a stormwater culvert was to occur on the eastern side of the tract to eliminate the steep grades between the tract and the adjoining Borough park.

The Applicant appeared before the Commission again in March 2009 to present the final major land development plan. Seven of the units would be age-restricted.

Recommendation: Final approval of the major land development application was conditioned upon several items including noting the size of the units and the location of a bicycle rack; working with the Borough’s solicitor to develop a marketing plan for the age-restricted units; recalculating the required number of parking spaces; providing a demolition plan; and conducting a field survey of the existing stormwater detention basin that is to be located downstream of the building.

3. 225 West Fifth Avenue

Minor Subdivision and Land Development Plan

This proposal called for the demolition of the existing one-story dwelling, garage, and concrete sidewalk; the existing stone retaining walls at the east and west property lines would be retained. The existing lot measured approximately 53’ x 140’, and the Applicant proposed to subdivide it into two (2) lots of the same size for the construction of one semi-detached 2 ½ story dwelling on each lot.

Recommendation: All Commissioners were in agreement to approve this minor subdivision and land development plan, contingent upon verification of the setback and the provision of the detailed impervious coverage calculations.

4. 312 West Fourth Avenue

Minor Subdivision and Land Development Plan

This proposal called for the demolition of the existing c. 1840s Greek Revival free-standing, single-family dwelling and walkways leading to the house. The lot would then be subdivided into two lots of the same size for the construction of one semi-detached dwelling on each lot. Each building would have a front porch, a rear deck, and a detached garage.

Recommendation: All Commissioners were in agreement to approve this minor subdivision and land development plan.

5. 440 Old Elm Street

Minor Subdivision and Land Development Plan

This proposal called for the demolition of the existing single-family detached dwelling, garage, and walkways situated on the 80’ x 100’ lot. Upon demolition, the Applicant proposed to subdivide the lot into three parcels and construct attached dwellings on the lots. Lots 1 and 3 would measure 30’ x 100’ and Lot 2 would measure 20’ x 100’. All dwellings would be set back 25’ from the sidewalk, measure approximately 20’ x 40’, and have a rear deck. Each house would have a garage entered at the front of the building, which had received approval from the Zoning Hearing Board prior to a presentation to the Commission.

Recommendation: While not required by the Municipalities Planning Code, the Commissioners were united in their opinion that the Planning Commission should review applications before they go to the Zoning Hearing Board to ensure that the best site design possible is presented. The Commissioners were also in agreement that garages should not be permitted in the front of the building. Despite these issues the Commissioners agreed unanimously to approve this minor subdivision and land development application.

6. 528 Fayette Street

Sketch Plan Review

This proposal called for demolishing the existing single-family detached building at the southwest corner of 6^th Avenue and Fayette Street for the construction of a Continental Bank building with a drive-through. The Applicant came to the Commission seeking advice on potential zoning variances related to the front setback and parking. A variance was needed for the number of parking spaces, and the extent of the variance needed was related to the front setback. There were two options: 1) place the building at the sidewalk with no setback and have 21 parking spaces, which does not meet the Borough’s minimum requirement of 27 spaces; or 2) set the building back 9’ to reflect the setbacks on that side of the street and have only 16 parking spaces. The attorney stated that even 16 spaces are more than needed for the bank, but to set the building back as far as the adjacent building to the south would not leave enough room at the rear for the ADA ramp. The 9’ foot setback would serve as a compromise – the setback made sense for this section of streetscape, and it reserved some of the green space that is present with the existing building.

Recommendation: The Commissioners were unanimous that the 9’ front setback is preferred to no setback with the understanding the modern bank practices require fewer parking spaces than required by the Borough’s ordinance. They requested that the Design Review Committee consider the following additional issues: roof material, treatment of the wall facing the drive-through, and that any lighting proposed be non-intrusive to neighboring buildings.

PART IV: Issues / Concerns

The Commissioners expressed their deep regret over the potential loss of 528 Fayette Street – a building that was recommended as historically significant in the Borough’s 1989 Historic Resource Survey – for the construction of Continental Bank. They recommended that the Borough develop design guidelines for new construction.

The Commissioners recommended that the Borough undertake a market study for the Borough Commercial district, including its potential for expansion. Should the Borough receive funding to update its Revitalization Plan in 2010, that planning process could identify parcels for acquisition and assembly, identify other needed zoning changes for expanding the commercial district, and identify what buildings could be retrofitted for mixed or commercial uses.

PART V: Conclusion

The Planning Commission meets at 7:00 pm on the 4^th Tuesday of each month. Meetings are held in Council Chambers at 720 Fayette Street and are open to the public.

The Commission looks forward to working with Council over the next year. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

<signed>

Anita Barton

Chair, Conshohocken Planning Commission

cc: