WEST WHITELAND TOWNSHIP Planning Commission Agenda Tuesday, October 17, :00 P.M.

Transcription

1 WEST WHITELAND TOWNSHIP Planning Commission Agenda Tuesday, October 17, :00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER REVIEW OF MEETING MINUTES 1. Approval of Meeting Minutes: October 3, 2017 PUBLIC COMMENT/CONCERNS/QUESTIONS PLANS 1. Parkview at Oaklands Address: 350 & 385 Creamery Way First Review: Land Development Request: Proposed development of the property with four apartment buildings with a total of 291 units. 2. Aldi Grocery Store Addition (Revision) Address: 190 W. Lincoln Hwy. First Review: Land Development Request: To construct an addition to the existing grocery store. OLD BUSINESS 1. Landscaping Revisions to Requirements in SALDO ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT Next Meeting: November 14, 2017

2 MEMORANDUM DATE: October 13, 2017 TO: Planning Commission FROM: John R. Weller, AICP Director of Planning and Zoning SUBJECT: Parkview at Oaklands Land development plan APPLICANT: JAG / Oak Parkview Apartments, LLC c/o Jefferson Apartment Group, Inc Spring Hill Rd., Ste. 420 McLean, VA SITE ADDRESS: Creamery Way Exton, PA TAX PARCELS: and ZONING: O/R, Office/Residential DESCRIPTION: Construction of 291 apartment units in four buildings on a vacant tract comprised of two parcels separated by Creamery Way with a total gross area of 36.1 acres. The Board of Supervisors ( Board ) approved the conditional use application for this project on September 13, EXPIRES: December 14, 2017 Background The project site is comprised of two vacant parcels in the Oaklands Business Park. The site abuts the developed portion of the business park, the Festival shopping center, the Chester Valley Trail, and S. Whitford Rd. Creamery Way bisects the site and will provide access to the project. Valley Creek crosses the property, and there are significant floodplain areas associated with the creek on the site. The project comprises four buildings with a total of 291 apartment units. Multi-family residential development is permitted in the O/R district pursuant to B(9) and D(2) of the Township Zoning Ordinance ( Zoning ). The zoning data on Sheets 1 and 2 are correct. The maximum permitted building height is 40 feet, but D(2)(i)[1] allows an increase to 50 feet under certain conditions, which the Zoning Officer has determined are applicable in this case. In addition to the residential buildings there are accessory buildings containing garages; Buildings B, C, and D also include garage spaces. No new streets are proposed. The Zoning Officer has determined that the project complies with the applicable area and bulk standards of the Zoning.

3 The Commission will recall that this Applicant received conditional use approval for a similar project on this site on May 11, After that approval, the Applicant met once with the Planning Commission (on November 28, 2016) to discuss a land development plan based upon that approval before re-evaluating and eventually withdrawing the project. While the current plan is similar to the prior version, it accommodates fifteen additional dwelling units, so it required a new conditional use review. The Commission recommended approval of the revised conditional use application at the meeting of July 18, 2017, and the Board granted approved on September 13, Tonight is the Applicant s first presentation of the revised land development plan to the Planning Commission. Consultant Reviews SSM Group ( SSM ) review dated October 10, Most of the review concerns missing plan details, the need for supplementary documents and certifications, and various minor conflicts among the plan sheets. Comments #1 through #7 review the requested waivers, and SSM advises that they have no objection to those involving their area of expertise, deferring to our other consultant on the others. The most serious issues are raised in comments #13 and #14, which advise that the Applicant has not demonstrated compliance with our Stormwater Management Ordinance and that they cannot endorse the design of the stormwater facilities due to drawing errors and missing information. Stubbe Consulting review dated October 6, Mr. Stubbe directs the provision of more details regarding lighting controls and recommends an evaluation to assure that the landscaping does not interfere with the lighting. Theurkauf Design and Planning ( Theurkauf ) review October 6, The Theurkauf review includes of an extensive analysis of the proposed landscaping for compliance with our regulations. Comments #4, #5, #6, and #11 express support for various waivers; comments #3 and #8 identify minor revisions to address other aspects of noncompliance; and comment #10 lists minor errors to be corrected. Comment #5 also notes that one of the landscaped areas in the parking lot is narrower that required; the Applicant should advise if they can revise the design to meet the requirement or if they will be seeking a waiver from this provision. Comment #1 reviews the pedestrian and bicycle accommodations. The Commission will recall agreeing to waive the requirement for sidewalk along the full length of the Creamery Way and Whitford Rd. frontages in exchange for off-site sidewalks, including connections to the Chester Valley Trail and to Lincoln Hwy. The proposed sidewalks are shown on Sheet LP-7 of the landscaping plan. The Commission may wish to review this with the Applicant to confirm that the layout is consistent with what was agreed to in the course of the conditional use review. Theurkauf also has concerns about the ability of the design to accommodate bicycle traffic safely, suggesting the delineation of bicycle lanes on the roads. Traffic Planning and Design ( TPD ) review dated October 10, Comment #1 recommends that the intersection of Creamery Way, Campbell Blvd., and the driveway on the east side of Building D be a four-way stop; the Director of Public Works also states concerns regarding the stops signs. The Applicant should be directed to confer with TPD and the Director to resolve these concerns to the satisfaction of all. The remaining comments involve documentation of sight distance at intersections, 2

4 pavement markings, signage, handicapped ramps, and the location of the on-street parking spaces. While no single concern appears to require more than a minor adjustment to the design, Staff is concerned about their cumulative effect and recommends that these issues be more fully resolved before the Commission takes action on the plan. The TPD review dated June 6, 2017 stated that the transportation impact fee required for this project will be $217,097.70; this remains valid. Director of Public Works review dated October 10, Mr. Otteni has concerns about the design and maintenance of the decorative paving and of the segment of Creamery Way through the project site. Comment #3 involves signage, which should be resolved by the Applicant in coordination with TPD as described above. The design revision suggested in comment #4 was considered earlier in the process and found infeasible, but the Commission may wish to confirm this; the landscaping issue described in comment #5 was also noted in the SSM review. Fire Marshal review dated September 27, Mr. Moses notes that the Applicant will be required to participate in the Township Knox Box program. Staff will coordinate with TPD for a response to the question of accessibility by firefighting vehicles. Chief of Police review dated October 9, Chief Catov has concerns regarding signage similar to those expressed by the Director of Public Works and TPD. The Chester County Planning Commission reviewed the earlier version of this plan in correspondence dated November 17, Due to the similarity between that plan and the current submission, Staff determined that no further County review was necessary. Staff Comment Due to the number and extent of consultant comments, Staff is of the opinion that action on this plan is premature at this time. We are particularly concerned about comments #13 and #14 of the SSM review regarding the stormwater management provisions. Given the proximity of the site to Valley Creek and the extensive wetland areas, proper stormwater management is especially critical. In addition, we note that the Director of Public Works and TPD have both expressed concerns about the design of Creamery Way through the project and what traffic controls are most appropriate. In this case we recommend that the Applicant meet with Mr. Otteni and TPD to determine how best to address these issues. While it appears that the remaining consultant concerns may be readily resolved, Staff is concerned about the cumulative effect of so many changes and therefore recommends that the Applicant be directed to revise their plans to address these concerns as fully as possible and to resubmit the revised drawings for review and discussion. Staff notes that there are two areas where the Commission should provide the Applicant with guidance at this time. Condition 6 of the conditional use Decision and Order ( D&O ) requires that the project provide open space or pay a fee in lieu of such provision, pursuant to B of the Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance ( S/LDO ). The requirement is based upon the number of dwelling units, and the 291 units proposed here result in a requirement of 582,000 sq.ft., or acs. The fee allowed as an alternative is subject to an escalator clause to account for inflation and is currently about $3,350 per dwelling, resulting in a fee of $974,850. The condition specifically allows a combination of land and fee, which is consistent with our practice. 3

5 While much of the site will remain open, this is largely due to the extensive floodplain area on the site. It has been our practice to interpret D(6) of the S/LDO to allow up to 25% of the required open space (145,500 sq.ft. in this case) to be constrained as described in that section. The constrained area on this site is well in excess of 145,500, so the remaining requirement is 436,500 sq.ft. (10.02 acs.). The Applicant has not provided any calculation of area of the site that could be counted toward this requirement, but Staff expects it will be less than this amount. Staff notes that the Applicant is proposing areas such as the swimming pool south of Building B that are not simply open spaces but are improved for recreational use. We recommend that the Commission consider allowing the Applicant a credit toward the remaining fee based upon the cost of such improvements to the open spaces and recreational areas. If the Commission is amenable to this in concept, we can discuss the details of how it would be applied at the meeting. Secondly, the D&O notes several waivers to be considered in the course of the land development review. Our consultants have identified a number of additional waivers required to allow the design as shown (see comments #3 through #7 of the SSM review and comments #4 through #6 of the Theurkauf review). The Commission should review with the Applicant whether they intend to revise the design to comply with our regulations or if they will be seeking additional waivers. Attachments 1. SSM review dated October 10, Stubbe Consulting review dated October 6, Theurkauf review dated October 6, TPD review dated October 10, Director of Public Works memorandum dated October 10, Fire Marshal memorandum dated September 27, Chief of Police memorandum dated October 9, Plan set dated October 17, 2016, most recently revised September 21, 2017; Landscaping Plan dated June 12, 2017, most recently revised September 21, H:\Plans\NOPQ\Oaklands Parkview\Weller PC memo dated

6

7

8

9

10

11 STUBBE CONSULTING LLC IEEE 1438 Shaner Drive Phone: Pottstown, PA FAX: Mr. Ed. Theurkauf, ASLA Theurkauf Design & Planning LLC 1240 Elbow Lane Chester Springs, PA October 6, 2016 Subject: Parkview at Oaklands Land Development. W. Whiteland Twp. Lighting Review Dear Ed., On 10/17/16, West Whiteland Township Planning and Zoning Dept. transmitted a plan set, LP-1 - LP-13 and LI & LI2 dated 09/21/17 for the proposed Parkview at Oaklands, Lots 22, 23, 24 & 25A, Oaklands Business Park Preliminary Land Development, and requested review of the exterior lighting. Lighting, presented on Sheets LI-1 and LI-2, proposes parking-area lighting consisting of full cutoff 3000K LED luminaires with dimming capability pole-mounted at nominally 20' AFG, and pedestrian area lighting consisting of 3000K LED Type III luminaires with dimming capability and photo control by individual circuit, pole top mounted at nominally 14' AFG. Parking area lighting poles are mounted atop 30" high concrete pedestals. The following concerns and recommendations, based on the requirements contained in SLDO Chapter , Lighting Control, and reasonable and customary engineering practices, are offered for consideration: 1. Lighting On/Off Control - Section C.(3)(c) contains requirements for hours of luminaire operation and amount of after-hours site safety/security lighting allowed. Lighting control is described as "0 to 10 volt dimming" and "photocell control by individual circuit. Not specified is when and by what means shall dimming be effected, and which luminaires are to be dimmed and to what degree they are to be dimmed. It is recommended Applicant be requested to specify when and by what means area and pedestrian lighting shall dimming be effected, which luminaires are to be dimmed and to what degree they are to be dimmed, which luminaires are to be extinguished and at what time and which specific luminaires, if any, are proposed to remain on at full intensity all night for site safety/security. 2. Landscaping Conflicts - In the parking areas associated with Apartment Buildings C and D, there are locations where honey locust and Chinese elms, at tree maturity or before, would be likely to block the intended light distribution on the parking surfaces. It continues to be recommended Applicant be requested to review lighting and landscaping plans to correct potential tree/luminaire conflicts. If there are questions regarding this review and its recommendations, please advise. Sincerely, Stubbe Consulting LLC Helping municipalities insist on responsible outdoor lighting

12 C. Stanley Stubbe Copy: Justin Smiley 2

13 M E M O R A N D U M TO: John Weller, AICP, West Whiteland Township Planning Director and Zoning Officer Justin Smiley, AICP, Township Planner Neal Camens, P.E., Chester Valley Engineers Lisa L. Thomas, RLA, AICP, LEED AP FROM: Edward A. Theurkauf, RLA, ASLA, APA DATE: October 6, 2017 SUBJECT: REVIEW COMMENTS PARKVIEW AT OAKLANDS PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAN DATED Please note our review comments pertaining to the following documents that we received on , to the Conditional Use Decision and Order dated , and to a site visit on : Land Development Plan consisting of 63 sheets; and Photo Simulation Perspective dated

14 REVIEW COMMENTS PARKVIEW AT OAKLANDS PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAN DATED Page 2 October 6, Pedestrian and Multi-modal Access The Township has been working to improve pedestrian and multi-modal accessibility throughout the Exton Town Center and Lincoln Highway/Whitford Road Corridors areas, including links to the Whitford SEPTA Station. The 2015 Lincoln Highway and Whitford Road Corridors Plan shows the following connection that should be supported by this development: A 10-foot wide pedestrian and bike trail should connect the trail along the Waterloo Boulevard Extension to the Chester Valley Trail (CVT) and the Whitford Railroad Station. To the southeast, the Township has an easement for a 10-foot wide trail connecting Clover Mill Road to the Whitford Train Station, which would leave only the link between Clover Mill and the CVT left to design and construct. In accordance with Conditional Use Decision and Order (CUDO) Condition #4, sheet LP-7 indicates a sidewalk along Campbell Boulevard that connects to the CVT at the All Fill lot, approximately 900 feet from the apartments. In addition, a sidewalk north along Campbell Boulevard to Lincoln Highway is proposed. The proposed sidewalk would not accommodate bicycle accessibility as prescribed by the Corridors Plan. Therefore, it is recommended that the bicycle connection be indicated along the roads with signage and sharrow markings. Access to the CVT should be coordinated with Brian Styche of the Chester County Planning Commission. In addition, bus service on Krapf s Route A connects Oaklands to nearby shopping centers and to the Exton SEPTA/Amtrak station. The Applicant should investigate whether the bus route could be extended to the eastern side of Creamery Way for closer proximity to the proposed apartments. 2. Screen Buffer In accordance with section D (SLDO), 50 foot wide screen buffers are required between the proposed apartments and different land uses to the north, south/east, and west, to be landscaped as follows. Existing trees have been inventoried and applied to the requirement in accordance with section F (SLDO).

15 REVIEW COMMENTS PARKVIEW AT OAKLANDS PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAN DATED Page 3 October 6, 2017 Buffer/Length Plant Type Required Qty. Proposed Qty. North/545 LF Shade Trees 11 12* Evergreen Trees 22 22* Large Shrubs 55 63* South/East/1,905 LF Shade Trees 38 ** Evergreen Trees 76 94* Large Shrubs 191 ** West/537 LF Shade Trees 11 11* Evergreen Trees 21 21* Large Shrubs This issue has been resolved. * Includes credit for surveyed existing vegetation to remain * Requirement met by existing woods to remain. 3. Rain Garden and Basin Plantings Rain gardens and basins are proposed as naturalistic basins in accordance with section F.4 (SLDO), which requires 100% native vegetation of equivalent value to the buffer planting that would otherwise be required. In accordance with Condition #2 (CUDO), naturalistic basin side slopes may be steeper than 4:1. Plantings are required and proposed within basins and rain gardens as follows: Buffer (Length) Plant Type Required Proposed Existing Basin (440 LF) Shade Tree 4 4 Evergreen Tree 9 9 Large Shrub Rain Garden #1, 2, 3 (350 LF) Shade Tree 4 0 Evergreen Tree 7 0 Large Shrub Small Shrubs 0 54 #3 Grasses 0 179

16 REVIEW COMMENTS PARKVIEW AT OAKLANDS PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAN DATED Page 4 October 6, 2017 Buffer (Length) Plant Type Required Proposed Rain Garden #4 (460 LF) Shade Tree 5 0 Evergreen Tree 9 0 Large Shrub 23 0 Rain Garden #5 (340 LF) Shade Tree 3 0 Evergreen Tree 7 9 Large Shrub 17 0 Small Shrubs 0 13 #3 Grasses 0 76 Rain Garden #6 (500 LF) Shade Tree 5 1 Evergreen Tree 10 0 Large Shrub 25 0 Small Shrubs #3 Grasses #1 Perennials Rain Garden #7 (300 LF) Shade Tree 3 1 Evergreen Tree 6 0 Large Shrub 23 0 Small Shrubs 0 99 Rain Garden #8 (140 LF) Shade Tree 1 0 Evergreen Tree 3 0 Large Shrub 7 0 Small Shrubs 0 18 #3 Grasses 0 26 Rain Garden #9 (140 LF) Shade Tree 1 0 Evergreen Tree 3 0 Large Shrub 7 0 Small Shrubs 0 22 Rain Garden #10 (130 LF) Shade Tree 1 0 Evergreen Tree 3 0 Large Shrub 6 0 Small Shrubs 0 27

17 REVIEW COMMENTS PARKVIEW AT OAKLANDS PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAN DATED Page 5 October 6, 2017 Basin and rain garden landscaping shall be revised for compliance as follows: a. Rain Garden #4 The proposed lawn cover is not acceptable. The rain garden shall be in 100% native plantings as required. This would be approximately 250 small shrubs or the equivalent and native seed mix. b. Rain Garden #5 Native seed mix is required in addition to proposed plantings. c. Rain Garden #8 - The proposed Spirea shrubs shall be replaced with native species. d. Rain Garden #9 Four (4) additional small shrubs are required. 4. Parking Lot Shade Trees - In accordance with section B.4 (SLDO), each parking lot landscape island shall have a shade tree. a. The island near Rain Garden #1 has no tree, in order to accommodate a sidewalk. However, it is noted that a tree has been provided in close proximity to the island. Moreover, no island would be required in this location, except to accommodate the sidewalk. Therefore, we would not object to a waiver to allow the relocated tree. b. South of Building C Two (2) trees are required at the east end of the parking divider strip. However, this area is a rain garden and could not accommodate the trees. It is further noted that surplus trees are proposed elsewhere on site. Thus, we have no objection to not providing these (2) trees within the islands. 5. Parking Lot Divider Strips - Section C (SLDO) requires 10-foot wide parking lot landscaped divider strips placed every other bay of parking, with landscaping as follows: Strip/Length Plant Type Required Qty. Proposed Qty. Bldg B-C/135 LF Shade Trees 5 0 Large Shrubs 14 0 Small Shrubs 0 49 #3 Grasses 0 53 Bldg B-D/56 LF Shade Trees 2 0 Large Shrubs 6 0 Small Shrubs 0 30 #3 Grasses 0 31

18 REVIEW COMMENTS PARKVIEW AT OAKLANDS PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAN DATED Page 6 October 6, 2017 Strip/Length Plant Type Required Qty. Proposed Qty. Bldg D/108 LF Shade Trees 4 0 Large Shrubs 11 0 Small Shrubs 0 44 #3 Grasses 0 63 Bldg D/54 LF Shade Trees 2 0 Large Shrubs 5 0 Small Shrubs 0 30 #3 Grasses 0 39 In general, the proposed plantings are equivalent to the requirement, and thus we would not object to a waiver on planting types. However, the Bldg B-C divider strip is under-width at only (7) feet wide. In addition, (10) additional shrubs would be required to be equivalent to the planting requirement. The plan shall be revised for compliance or a waiver justified. 6. Building Façade Plantings Section D (SLDO) requires shade tree and shrub plantings between parking areas and building façades. a. Building A Plantings are required and proposed as follows: Façade/Length Plant Type Required Proposed* North/298 Shade Tree 6 6 Small Shrub East/100 Shade Tree 2 2 Small Shrub South/330 Shade Tree 7 7 Small Shrub West/118 Shade Tree 2 1 Small Shrub * Equivalent value based on proposed plantings

19 REVIEW COMMENTS PARKVIEW AT OAKLANDS PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAN DATED Page 7 October 6, 2017 Surplus shrubs on other facades and surplus trees on site compensate for the tree deficit on the west side. We would support a waiver to permit relocation of required façade tree planting. b. Building B Plantings are required and proposed as follows: Façade/Length Plant Type Required Proposed* North/300 Shade Tree 6 6 Small Shrub East/74 Shade Tree 1 1 NW wing Small Shrub West/63 Shade Tree 1 1 SW wing Small Shrub 16 3 Surplus shrubs on the north facade compensate for the deficits on the east and west sides. We would support a waiver to permit relocation of required façade tree and shrub plantings. c. Building C Plantings are required and proposed as follows: Façade/Length Plant Type Required Proposed* North/160 Shade Tree 3 3 Small Shrub East/72 Shade Tree 1 1 Small Shrub South/80 Shade Tree 2 1 Small Shrub West/68 Shade Tree 1 1 Small Shrub 17 28

20 REVIEW COMMENTS PARKVIEW AT OAKLANDS PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAN DATED Page 8 October 6, 2017 Surplus shrubs on other facades and surplus trees on site compensate for the tree deficit on the south side. We would support a waiver to permit relocation of required façade tree planting. d. Building D Plantings are required and proposed as follows: Façade/Length Plant Type Required Proposed North/134 Shade Tree 3 3 Small Shrub South/18 Shade Tree 0 0 Small Shrub 5 14 East/54 Shade Tree 1 1 Small Shrub West/70 Shade Tree 1 1 Small Shrub Tree Removal and Replacement In accordance with section G (SLDO), compensatory tree plantings are required for trees of (6) inches or greater DBH to be removed. Proposed mature tree removal would require the planting of (63) 3-inch compensatory trees. The plan indicates trees in addition to other landscaping requirements that may be credited toward compensatory plantings as follows: Surplus trees Compensatory Tree Equivalent (62) 3 -inch shade trees 62 (2) 3½ -inch shade trees 2 Total Equivalent Compensatory Trees 64 This issue has been resolved.

21 REVIEW COMMENTS PARKVIEW AT OAKLANDS PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAN DATED Page 9 October 6, Native Tree Species Requirements Sections D.1 and (SLDO) require that 60% of shade trees and street trees be native to the region. Native trees are required and proposed as follows: a. Shade Trees 152/206 native = 73.8% b. Street Trees 8/50 native = 16.0% Street trees shall be revised for compliance. 9. Courtyard Landscaping In accordance with section C.6 (SLDO), species, size, and quantities of courtyard plantings shall be specified. This is critical since some of this planting would be applied to meet landscaping requirements of the ordinance. 10. Plan Errors The following shall be corrected: a. On sheet LP-2, one tree at Rain Garden #1 is unlabeled. b. The LP-2 schedule lists (7) Hidcote Hypericum, but the plan indicates (3). c. On LP-3, (14) Clethra at Rain Garden #9 need a connector to the plant label. d. On sheet LP-3, Liriope proposed within parking islands are unlabeled. e. On sheet LP-4, a parking lot island tree west of the building is unlabeled. f. The LP-4 schedule lists (4) Zelkova trees, but the plan shows (2). g. On LP-5, there are (2) unlabeled trees near the garages. h. On LP-5 there is (1) unlabeled tree at the northeast building corner. i. On LP-5, the label for Rhododendrons at Rain garden #7 should point to the referenced plants. j. There is a label for (7) Bayberry at Rain Garden #5, but no plants are indicated. 11. Plant Growth Rate Diagrams - We would have no objection to a waiver from the requirement for plant growth diagrams in accordance with section C.6.c (SLDO).

22 REVIEW COMMENTS PARKVIEW AT OAKLANDS PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAN DATED Page 10 October 6, Conclusion Prior to preliminary approval, the following issues shall be addressed: Pedestrian and multi-modal accessibility. Rain Garden #4 planting. Parking lot shade tree waiver. Width of parking lot B-C divider strip. Waivers on façade plantings. Courtyard landscaping. Plant growth diagram waiver (comment 12). The other issues raised shall be addressed prior to final approval. Please contact this office with any questions.

23

24

25

26

27

28 MEMORANDUM DATE: October 10, 2017 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: John Weller, Director of Planning and Zoning Theodore D. Otteni, P.E. Director of Public Works Parkview at Oaklands I have reviewed the submission for Parkview at Oaklands, plans with a revision date of September 21, 2017 and offer the following comments: 1. Raised crosswalks and pedestrian platform: a. The material for the crosswalks should be a stamped asphalt with color integrally incorporated (all the way through). Concrete/brick pavers shall not be used. Consider an epoxy-based colored and stamped asphalt for the crossings. b. Maintenance of the pedestrian crossings along Creamery Way, from Campbell Boulevard to Whitford Road, should be provided by the applicant. c. Verify adequacy of drainage inlets with the location of the raised elements to prevent trapping of water. 2. Condition 9 of the Draft D&O states that the applicant will be responsible for snow removal of Creamery Way from Campbell Boulevard to Whitford Road. Clarification is needed regarding comprehensive winter maintenance activities including the application of road salt and anti-icing agents. Additionally, a determination needs to be made as to whether or not the Township retains any liability for the roadway since it is a Township-owned road. 3. With respect to Condition 8 of the Draft D&O, the installation of Stop signs should be in accordance with warrants as set forth in the MUTCD balanced with prudent engineering judgement. Too many and/or unwarranted signs can result in non-compliance issues, as well as, an increase of speeding by drivers to make up lost time. 4. The southern entrance to the Festival Shopping Center and the proposed driveway east of Building C should be lined up to create a single intersection. 5. The Landscape plans, sheets LP-2 through LP-5: a. Display the sanitary sewer and respective 20 ft. sewer easements on the plans. b. Any proposed trees within the proposed 20 ft. sewer easement should be relocated or means taken to prohibit intrusion of roots into the sanitary pipes.

29

30

31 MEMORANDUM DATE: October 13, 2017 TO: Planning Commission FROM: John R. Weller, AICP Director of Planning and Zoning SUBJECT: ALDI grocery store expansion - revised Land development plan APPLICANT: ALDI, Inc. (Pennsylvania) 2700 Saucon Valley Rd. Center Valley, PA SITE ADDRESS: 190 W. Lincoln Hwy. Exton, PA TAX PARCEL: ZONING: TC, Town Center DESCRIPTION: Construction of a 1,885 sq.ft. addition to the east side of the existing ALDI grocery store. EXPIRES: December 31, 2017 Background The Applicant is proposing a 1,885 sq.ft. addition to the east side of the existing ALDI grocery store at 190 W. Lincoln Hwy. The zoning data on Sheet 3 are complete and correct, and Staff is satisfied that the project complies with the applicable zoning regulations. This project was previously reviewed by the Planning Commission on February 28, The Board of Supervisors approved the plan at their meeting of March 8, 2017 subject to a variety of conditions. In the course of preparing the final drawings for signature, it became apparent that the Applicant could not satisfy the requirements of the Stormwater Management Ordinance. Since the approval did not include any waivers, it is necessary for them to re-apply for plan approval, including requests for needed waivers. The site is within 300 feet of four Township historic sites, and the prior plan was accordingly reviewed by the Township Historical Commission at their meeting on February 13, Following discussion with the Applicant, the Commission unanimously passed a motion supporting approval of the plan, advising that the project would have no impact on any Township historic site and that no Historic Resources Impact Study should be required. Since the configuration of the proposed building addition is unchanged, Staff determined that the prior review by the Historical Commission remained valid and that no new review was required.

32 Tonight is the Applicant s first presentation of the revised land development plan to the Planning Commission. Consultant Reviews Since the changes were limited to the stormwater management facilities, Staff requested reviews only from SSM Group, Theurkauf Design and Planning, and the Director of Public Works. The review by Traffic Planning and Design dated February 20, 2017 stated that the project is subject to payment of a Transportation Impact Fee in the amount of $14,635.80; this remains valid. The Chester County Planning Commission reviewed the prior plan in correspondence dated February 13, 2017, stating that they had no objections to the project. SSM Group ( SSM ) review dated October 12, The majority of the comments address the stormwater management provisions. Among the issues is the Applicant s requested waiver from the requirement to infiltrate run-off. Give the carbonate geology of the area, Staff agrees that infiltration is not appropriate and supports the waiver. The Commission will recall that it is our practice to support waivers from the stormwater management regulations where the Applicant can demonstrate that they have satisfied the intent of the regulations if not the letter. In their review, SSM advises that the Applicant has failed to show this and that they therefore are not at this time supporting some of the requested waivers. Comment #9 provides a detailed description of various deficiencies that must be addressed. Comments #1 and #2 describe outstanding issues relative to the requirements of the carbonate area district, and comment #3 notes that a fee in lieu of open space donation is required. Theurkauf Design and Planning ( Theurkauf ) review dated October 9, The landscaping plan is incomplete. Director of Public Works memorandum dated October 11, Mr. Otteni does not have any concerns regarding this plan. Staff Comment Principally due to SSM s comments regarding the stormwater management facilities, Staff is of the opinion that action on this plan is premature. Attachments 1. SSM review dated October 12, Theurkauf review dated October 9, Director of Public Works memorandum dated October 11, Plan dated January 23, 2017, most recently revised September 27, H:\Plans\ABC\ALDI\2017 exp\weller PC memo dated

33

34

35

36 M E M O R A N D U M TO: FROM: John Weller, AICP, West Whiteland Township Director of Planning and Zoning Justin Smiley, AICP, Township Planner Addison Wechter, EIT, SSM Group Kent Morey, P.E., SSM Group Wayne R. Kiefer, P.E., Bergmann Associates Edward A. Theurkauf, RLA, ASLA, APA DATE: October 9, 2017 SUBJECT: REVIEW COMMENTS ALDI STORE #17 EXPANSION LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATED Please note our review comments pertaining to the following documents that we received on , and to the Township Notice of Final Approval dated : Land Development Plan consisting of 7 sheets. 1. Landscape Plan Requirements The plan shall be revised to meet the landscape plan requirements of section C.6 (SLDO) as follows: a. It is not possible to determine where specific species of trees and shrubs are to be planted. The plan shall be revised to include key symbols on the plant list cross referenced to the plan in accordance with section C.6.e.1 (SLDO). b. The plant list shall be revised to indicate the common and botanical names of plants in accordance with section C.6.e.3 (SLDO). 2. Landscape Plan Preparation Section C.7 (SLDO) requires that landscape plans be prepared and sealed by a Pennsylvania registered landscape architect. The landscape plan contains only the seal of a professional engineer and shall be revised for compliance prior to final recording. 3. Cost Estimate The landscape cost estimate shall be revised to reflect current pricing as follows:

37 REVIEW COMMENTS ALDI STORE #17 EXPANSION LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATED Page 2 October 9, 2017 Item Quantity Unit Cost Total St. Gregory Hedge Maple, 3.5 inch cal. 1 ea. $ $ White Spruce, 7 foot ht. 3 ea. $ $ Red Sunset Maple, 3.5 inch cal. 1 ea. $ $ Scarlet Oak, 3.5 inch cal. 1 ea. $ $ Chicago Lustre Arrowwood Viburnum, 36 inch ht. 11 ea. $ $ Summersweet Clethra, #5 cont. 5 ea. $ $ Seeding 7400 sf $ 0.15 $ 1, Total $ 4, Conclusion The plan shall be revised to address the preceding comments prior to signature and recording.

38 MEMORANDUM DATE: October 11, 2017 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: John Weller, Director of Planning and Zoning Theodore D. Otteni, P.E. Director of Public Works Aldi Land Development Plan I have reviewed the submission for Aldi, plans with a revision date of September 27, I have no comments on the submission.