Contents

THE PRESIDENT (Mary Zimmerman): We will go to public hearing number four. The public hearing is on the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance revising the height regulations in the Town Center Zoning District. Any public comment? Peggy?

MS. DAWSON-SCHMIDT: I am Peggy Dawson Schmidt. I am the Director of Commerce for the Borough of West Chester. As a Director of Commerce my primary responsibility has been the economic growth and viability of the Borough of West Chester. Over the past several months we have made some very big strides toward revitalization of our area, but we still face numerous challenges in regards to our economic future.

One of the biggest challenges my department faces is the lack of appropriate size spaces for both retail and office. The spaces we have are just too small. If a business is successful in West Chester and they want to expand there is just no place to put them and they have to leave the town. Retention of these existing businesses is essential to our continued efforts toward revitalization.

Not only do we need to keep our successful businesses but we need to keep the employees of these businesses in the Borough. One of the Commerce Department's biggest selling points to businesses that want to locate here is the amount of daytime pedestrian traffic we have.

By being able to expand our office space, more pedestrian traffic will be generated, making West Chester a more viable economic entity. Additional office space will also give us the opportunity to move existing first floor offices to other floors and create additional retail space. Retail on the first floor has always been part of my department's master plan. Additional retail space will service our area residents, provide a pleasant walking experience for our daytime traffic and create a more economically sound West Chester. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Peggy. Any other comment? Yes, sir? You will have to come to the microphone. Dallas.

MR. MATTHEWS: Good evening. Dallas Matthews, Executive Director with the Chamber of Commerce of Greater West Chester.

And I thought what I would do this evening is share with you some views that at least the members of the Chamber have regarding this regulation. We do not pretend to be town planners, okay, but we do want to share with you a concern that we would have and that we have been working with Peggy very closely. There has been a very strong working relationship with Peggy in terms of trying to recruit businesses into West Chester. We are seeing a growth, a progress that is occurring here, and we would like to see this progress continue. We want West Chester to grow and to be able to create jobs. This working relationship primarily from our standpoint has been a focus on Market and Gay Street, and that is where we consider what is called the downtown district and that's the one we have been focusing on.

And that when we look at that we are looking at really Market and Gay between Matlack and Darlington, and so that's the area that we have been focusing on in terms of watching business grow. We know there is interest there. There has been studies that have been done about this area. There is over a billion dollars in terms of a 20 minute drive from West Chester. University has made studies. So West Chester can become a very vital economic center.

And what we would like to see happen is that there would be some sort of relief in terms of what we call the downtown center in terms of growing up. Peggy has already mentioned and I will just repeat it and reenforce it, but provision of retail space right now is very limited, and it is very difficult to attract businesses into that small, those small locations.

So if you are going to be providing satisfactory space you have got to be in a position to do that and that might mean growing up instead of out. So in terms of long-term growth for downtown West Chester, the business people that I see, if they are going to expand, are going to have to expand up and that's what they tell us.

I believe there is a conseusus in the Greater West Chester area and in West Chester that they want to see West Chester be a vital economic center, a job creator, and, as a result of that, we might have differences of how that occurs, but I think everybody wants that to occur in one way or another. The Chamber would be glad to support any kind of vehicle that would allow people to come together to talk about how that ought to occur. But we do see it as, in that particular area as an area that is going to have to grow up in some way. The historic ambience, and we discussed this in the Chamber, that's a very positive of the West Chester area, and we would like to be able to retain that.

But we don't think that if people get together there can be a conflict in growing up and maintaining an historic ambience. That's done in other communities. ff you look at old Philadelphia, there is a lot of tall buildings in that particular area.

If we don't grow business it is going to become - if business sees it as a burden of being able to come in here, grow their businesses or not be able to establish, then they won't come. They will leave and they won't come. That means we will have, we will have more difficulty in trying to establish an economic center. The conclusion we believe would be that if height restrictions were eliminated in downtown West Chester it would enable the recruitment of business and the growing of business in that particular area. It would establish very vital economic center. The potential is there, and I think the Borough would see the return in increased revenues coming into it. So we would urge you to support a relief of the regulation that would enable the height of buildings to increase. Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Dallas. You just heard, for the audience's information, Peggy D. Schmidt, who is our Commerce Director, newly appointed this year, and Dallas is of course very, very active with the Chamber of Commerce, and it is a pleasure, it actually shows how close the Borough and the Chamber of Commerce work hand in hand, practically. We are very, very supportive of the Chamber and they are with us. So Dallas Matthews and Peggy Schmidt, l am very happy to hear you tonight. Any other discussion on the floor?

MR. PITCHERELLA: My name is Steve Pitcherella. I am a resident 231 North Church. I would like to say, first off, that I do support the idea of reviewing the height ordinance in order to accommodate the growing county courthouse need for more office and retail space to recruit and retain businesses, Peggy said, and what I see as West Chester's emerging role as a regional activity and recreation center. With that said, I do not support the specific amendments to the Zoning Ordinance as they are written, Section 112-31.

In general they cover too much area, the entire Town Center District. They don't specify any height limit and they don't specify enough criteria to prevent unwanted detrimental effect on the downtown. Other people may mention this, but since I am the first to hit it, just to be specific, the current ordinance, as I understand it, allows buildings of up to 80 feet within a height option overlay district, which in general is mostly on Market and Gay Street, between Walnut and Darlington. And that's as a conditional use, and there are some specific criteria, including parking provisions, green areas, and an impact assessment.

The proposed ordinance, as I understand it. allows building of limited height anywhere in the Town Center District, including some areas adjacent to residential neighborhoods. And just in general my understanding of the Town Center District is going up High Street from Patton Alley, which is approximately where the Pizza Box is, to Price Street, which is about where the Burger King is. On Gay Street it goes from New Street, from St. Agnes, all the way to Franklin, which is about where Sharpless Square is. Market Street goes from Wayne Street, which is about where the senior center is, to Franklin Street, which is about where Rubinstein's is. And I can't go into all the detail, but there are sections of New, Darlington, Church, Walnut, Matlack, Barnard, Union, so forth that are in the Town Center District. So I think we have to understand what the Town Center District is.

So the proposed ordinance, as I understand, allows building of unlimited height anywhere in the Town Center District and the only provisions are HARB review and a perimeter reduction, and that is a use by right and not a conditional use. My concern is that it will give the board little to no leverage to stop any unwanted use or negative impact. So I think to address this issue correctly we need to address not whether we want to change the height ordinance, that may be a given, but address more specifically where, how high, for what purpose, that is what is it that we want to encourage, how we avoid the negative impacts to our pedestrian environment, parking capacity, infrastructure and historic buildings, and how to have these buildings enhance the character of the downtown and attract uses that create activity and foot traffic.

A downtown zoning ordinance deserves careful attention and study and should be driven by overall planning goals of the Borough, and, I believe, just as we have taken the time with the Traditional Neighborhood Development ordinnnce, we should take the time to revise our ordinances in a thoughtful and informed way.

My recommendation is that the Planning Commission study this issue thoroughly, seek input from our Commerce Director, Chamber of Commerce, county government, downtown businesses, interested residents, HARB, Council, et cetera, and then develop well researched proposals and preferably with some consulting by professional planners familiar with the downtown height and design ordinances in other cities and towns. And this may even be an opportunity for us to step hack and maybe consider more comprehensive approach to dealing with overall downtown growth issues.

Our Comprehensive Plan, as I understand it, is nearly ten years old. no longer reflects many of the challenges we now face. We have to consider growing county courthouse, the need for more office and retail space, and the role as a regional transportation center.

So whatever approach you decide to take, keep in mind that the impacts of this type of ordinance can be far-reaching, even more far-reaching than the Traditional Neighborhood Development Ordinance we just reviewed, and will have a lasting effect on what downtown West Chester will be like in the future.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on the height issue? Roy?

MR. SMITH: My name is Roy Smith. I am the Chairman of the Historic Architectural Review Board. And I would like that my July 14th letter to Borough Council be included as part of the record. And, no, I did not give a copy of it to Steve Pitcherella, although the thoughts which are expressed in my letter are very slmilar to the ones which he just expressed. I will not go over them.

I would like to, however, correct a couple misinterpretations I think that have been formed by perhaps lack of some specificity in my letter, and that is that HARB is not recommending that it be the organization or people from HARB be the ones who do an outside study, who do the investigation, that the professional with the expertise in urban planning and design is someone such as the gentleman, Mr. Comitta, who spoke earlier. In addition, there are some specific documents that are outlined by the HARB, but, in addition to that, there are duties that could be empowered to the HARB by Borough Council, and one of which is to cooperate with and advise Council, Planning Commission and other Borough agencies in matters involving historically and architecturally significant sites and buiidings, such as appropriate land usage, park facilities, parking facilities and signs, as well as interior lot dimensional regulations and minimal structural standards.

We would very much like to do that. We have not been asked to do that. But it is in the matter of this letter that we are, in fact, requesting that we be a party to the discussions relative to height regulations and the effect that the broad range, sweeping height change for the entire Town Center would have on the historic character of the Borough. I agree with the previous comments that were made that the Borough has got to find ways in which to accommodate economic growth. I believe there are ways that those needs can be accommodated without sacrificing entirely the historic character of downtown West Chester. And I think that we need to look at that and see how we could plan the changes in the Borough, the structural changes in the Borough, over the course of the next few years, and do it in the context of the Borough as it exists today.

So that is what I would the point of clarification, we are not asking for any special consideration as HARB. We would like to see all agencies and organizations within the Borough who have an interest, either now or potential, to be part of the discussion, to be part of the planning, to be part of the process that brings to an ordinance, as opposed to being part of the process that reacts to a proposed ordinance. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Roy. I think a gentleman had his hand up. Would you come forward?

MR. WALSH: Tom Walsh, 318 West Miner Street in West Chester. I support the overall concept that you have before you. I support the concept of working with the county. As far as private enterprise building high-rise in the Borough of West Chester, that would be market driven. The most, the initial builder of a high-rise would most likely, of course, again be the county, and I am going to stress that I support that concept.

I presently have not reviewed your initial plan that is before us this evening. I would like to suggest that you get as much input as possible. As former chairperson of the Board of Historical Review and as a former Planning Commission member, I would like to say if you can take the time and get additional input from such groups, in alphabetical order, as the fire department, the HARB, which has already spoken to, the Planning Commission, of course, and the police department.

So the concept is worthwhile. I don't think we have to be in a rush to achieve it. And I would like to see us take as much time to get the most flexible and workable concept that we can. I thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Tom. Anyone else? All right. I will close the discussion - the hearing and I will entertain a motion on the floor. Yes, Councilman Royer?

MR, ROYER: For discussion purposes I ask that we adopt this ordinance outlined on the agenda.

THE PRESIDENT: That is your motion?

MR. ROYER: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: All right. Any second?

MS. COLLITON: Well, it is seconded for discussion purposes.

MR. ROYER: For discussion?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

MS. COLLITON: Do you want to start the discussion?

THE PRESIDENT: Since you mentioned it.

MR. ROYER: Just briefly, what I would like to see us do is have Council reject the ordinance that is proposed in the Town Center District and, instead, push forward and set a public hearing date and submit future plans to thc Borough and the County planning Commission for a revised proposal which was outlined at the planning and zoning committee meeting last week.

I think there are maps on the front, one over there and one here, which indicate two height option districts which we are proposing. One which is the green district does not have a height limitation. In the yellow district, which is more the town center, what I call the town center, would not have a height restriction on it. So what I would like Borough Council to do is reject the ordinance that we have now, and then hopefully entertain a motion to revise it, and then submit it to the two planning commissions for consideration.

THE PRESIDENT: All right.

MS. COLLITON: Mr. Royer, just by way of point of order, I suppose the motion should have been to reject the ordinance that is currently proposed.

MR. ROYER: Or we could defeat it.

MS. COLLITON: But in any event, we have, just for the purposes of the audience, so you don't get lost in the procedural aspects of this, Council has considered this at some length and it has gone through another committee meeting since this hearing was advertised. So there has been a lot of discnssion since it was originally proposed. And there was a committee recommendation from Planning, Zoning, Business, Industrial Development Committee, which is what Mr. Royer was referring to there. We sort of went back to the drawing board a number of times in discussion and takIng into account comments from individuals, and I don't want anyone here who has made comments to think that we haven't been listening to you, we have been. And I also, at the police and fire committee meeting I also did discuss it with the chief.

But just as a procedural matter, in order to be able to get an alternative proposal onto the floor what we need to do, since I think it is the consensus of Council not to simply eliminate the height restrictions, but rather to have a more thoughtful, more involved plan, I think it is the sense of Council generally, at least I get that impression, that probably the first ordinance wouldn't pass, I think we need to get out of the way the first ordinance and then move into a possible second ordinance and request advertising.

THE PRESIDENT: Councilman Whetstone.

MR. WHETSTONE: I am in agreement with rejecting this as it is written, but I would like to extend it a little bit further. In terms of everyone that has come forward to talk, as I have heard, basically in the message is don't rush. There is caution. Everyone is concerned about the viability of the downtown future business, that type of thing.

What you are doing, we spent a lot of time into doing the TND, and we have heard the word character. What we are proposing here, what is being entertained strikes at the very essence as the Borough of what it is, strikes at the very character of what it is. And I think we ought to take as much time as we need to come up with a correct procedure, correct recommendation, even bring in professional counselling or consultants into this piece to review, because I know there has been a lot of work put into it by other committees. I have seen some other kind of draft plans, that type of thing for suggestion. They can be entertained. I certainly think we ought to get a read from other individuals on this.

THE PRESIDENT: Miss Colliton?

MS. COLLITON: Yes, just to address what Mr. Whetstone is saying here, I think I may have been misunderstood. I am not suggesting that we vote this evening on the details of a plan. If that was what was taken by it, that is not the intent. Because this would be a major modification to the original proposed ordinance. What would be, what I would suggest this evening would be that we first vote on the initial proposal, which I think will probably be rejected, and which would eliminate all height restrictions, and then entertain a motion to advertise for public hearing and hold a second public hearing on the proposal that I would like to make this evening, so we would have an additional public hearing, so there would be additional time, and anybody who wants to consult can do so in the meantime.

THE PRESIDENT: Miss Carroll?

MS. CARROLL: I am in agreement with the first part, in terms of getting the ordinance that is currently proposed off the board. However, I would like to suggest a different process in terms of consideration of this ordinance and that in this case in particular we have advertised the Ordinance which is really not palatable to the majority of people, nor really palatable to anybody on this committee, as well as people who are listening, and I am wondering if our process of writing an ordinance ought not to be looked at.

In other words, before we advertise an ordinance for public hearing, I would rather see us put something into the (building?) of that ordinance. Otherwise, I think we may find ourselves in the same position of having a major modification and having to readvertise again. Every time we readvertise we cost the Borough a little bit of money and we also spend a lot of people's time, and eventually I think people get tired of coming to public hearings, and I would not want valuable input to be lost in that transition. So my suggestion for process for this would be that we send the concept, the concept back to committees with the available maps, that we seek input from all of the various committees, and that we even have a joint meeting of the committees who are working on this so that we all understand what one another are talking about.

I understand that there may be some reluctance in terms of time on that but I believe we have been given a major indicator that concept is something we do want to think about. believe that we have made the process move. I don't think it has to be a long process. And I would also throw into here that would really like to see some professional help, because I think this is an opportunity not simply to make a number change but to make a change that will affect and impact how things relate to one another.

The term desuburbanizing Town Center came up, and it is an opportunity. It is an opportunity to look at the way we do parking. It is an opportunity to actually plan those things. I believe in seizing the opportunities. And so I would encourage this Council to react in a thoughtful process and not take forever. There is some sense of urgency, but to do it in a deliberative manner, and I think that can best be done by holding off on advertising an ordinance until we get the concept straight, and then come up with an ordinance.

PRESIDENT: Thank you. Miss Colliton.

MS. COLLITON: I just, I respectfully disagree. I think that there are a number of factors that come into play here. First of all, I want to go back to the characterization. I think that although there may be a sense from Council not to eliminate the height requirement all together but I think that Council, I don't know of anyone on Council specifically who opposes the lessening of a height restriction and establishing a defined area.

I don't think that this is similar to the TND concept. There is a lot more complexity involved in that concept in terms of defining neighborhood and what a neighborhood looks like and so on. I know that some of those considerations also apply here, but I think that this is a matter of where there is more a difference of opinion and philosophy, which is something that is more subjective.

I think that, critically, that we cannot simply send a concept back to committee, because if we send a concept back to committee what I foresee, having worked with government for too many years and having worked with government studies for too many years, what I see is at least a five or six month delay, and I think that's much too long. If we were to retain a professional to review this, we would be talking about advertising that, going out for RFPs on that, bringing them back, discussing it, and, again, I think that ultimately the opinion would be largely subjective. I think that there are differences in philosophy. I believe that in order for West Chester to grow we need a strong, viable downtown, and I would adopt the opinions that have been voiced here this evening by our Commerce Director and by the Director of the Chamber of Commerce, that in order to grow business in West Chester we need to grow up.

We need to build and to increase the height, and I believe that if we establish a deadline, which would be the time of the advertising of the next ordinance, that by the time of that deadline that we would be able to consult with those individuals we need to consult with to come down to a final decision, which I don't think would be very much different from what we are proposing this evening.

You can't poll Council, but I have a sense of Council generally that we are moving in a certain direction,and I would hate to see that momentum be lost at this stage, and I believe that the momentum will be lost if we go back and discuss concepts. I think we need to have a specific proposal, a specific date. We schedule it for public hearing and then we are under the gun to produce by that date. I think that's very important.

THE PRESIDENT: Councilman Royer?

MR. ROYER:I agree with Miss Colliton, but I just like to point out, maybe it would be better if we go ahead and defeat this and propose the new proposal, and then start discussing the merits of that and how we want to set the public hearing process. So maybe it is time that we limit debate on this and go ahead and actually vote on the first one and get that out of the way so we can begin discussing the second alternative.

MS. COLLITON: Close discussion then.

THE PRESIDENT: We will close the discussion.

THE PRESIDENT: Councilman Hurford.

MR. HURFORD:I would like to say a few things. I am against this as it is written. I, like a lot of people in the audience, listened to the concept of this, I would have to respectfully disagree with Janet, the impact of something like this, if you look at the handful of buildings that they could build on some of the NC-1 zones we just talked about, one 20 story building would probably have greater impact than developing anything down by Dean Street and the golf course. So in terms of impact, this would have a much greater impact than the business we just took care of. So I would have to disagree with you on that.

So I think that we really need to take our time with this. I think maybe if we rush forward with this because of the county expressing an interest to build a building, but they have yet to come with any specifics, they just talk about the concept of the plan, so I think that we warn to try and work with them as much as we can, but I don't think we have to move forward at the rate of speed we are going.

I am a little skeptical about forcing this through, advertising for another hearing without getting professional help in this capacity. We had the luxury of interviewing some people for our Planning Commission and some of those were professionals, nearly all of them, and some of the feedback that we got from them just posing a question has brought me into the process. Someone mentioned build-out analysis. I would like to see a computer simulated build-out analysis.

Another person said what is public opinion. We had some of the public out here, but this is a handful of our 18,000 people in town. Looking in other areas, other similar towns, similar demographics, to see the effects, before and after. Thinking about historical significance of some of the properties in the area. I think that these are the types of things we need to do. I am not sure if we have done hardly any of those. But I would also like to cite the Philadelphia example, where initially everybody was concerned about going above Billy Penn's hat, and then we all look at Philadelphia now and admire the skyline.

I think you referenced that and several other people have referenced that in different meetings. So all the opposition I think to that was founded, in retrospect. But, anyway, my point is that we need to do a little more work. There is another issue nobody really talked about and that is bedrock. I mean we can zone whatever we want. lf we don't even have the ground to build high on that is going to be an issue. I don't know if an outside consultant can come in and with reasonable cost give us an idea of what kind of bedrock is in these certain areas. if you look at Manhattan, you have buildings on the north and south, but central district you can't build because of the bedrock. So I don't know if anybody has thought about that, but that's something in my mind.

To make a long story short, I would like to take more time and refer this back to a committee and look at some outside consultants to give us some guidance before we get into another public hearing on this, because everybody's time is valuable, it costs money to have a lawyer come up with ordinances and advertise, and so that's my opinion. Thanks.

THE PRESIDENT: Miss Caroll

MS. CARROLL: Before we close the public hearing portion I would like to suggest that the Planning Commission letters regarding the height ordinance be entered into the official record. There are four proposals, three different maps, which are different from the maps that are up here. The Planning Commission, given the time constraints, could not come to consensus, and I think that is some indication of the complexity of the problem. So I would ask that they be entered into the public record.

MAYOR DEBAPTISTE: Madam Chairman, before you close I would like to ask a question.

THE PRESIDENT: All right.

MAYOR DEBAPTISTE: I want to ask probably each one of you, the way you are proposing it, what is your ballpark time frame for getting on track, going back, starting all over again, whatever your particular concept is, and how does that interfere or will coincide with the county? Sometimes they can do things overnight. But just give me an idea. You do it your way, Janet, ballpark figure of one month, two months. three months, six months. Each one of you do that for me real quickly. I hate to see this thing come to a tie. I am going home. Somebody just tell me.

MS. CARROLL:I will go. I would suggest that a six month minimum is what we are looking at from the beginning of discussion to the actual advertisement and public hearing. And I don't think six months is a very long time. I don't think the county can do anything in six months.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Royer?

MR. ROYER: I would say the maximum amount of time would be three months to consider this, since we already have over two months discussing and since we already know how both Planning Commissions feel in general about the height option districts. Therefore, since we have already had a couple of months of discussion, debates and proposals, I think three more months maximum is the time that we should allow for this in terms of advertising for public hearing.

MR. HURFORD: Well, I think the county has nothing that we know of on the table, and to design a building like this would take a certain amount of time. I don't think we are under any pressure whatsoever. I feel we can take a year and still be far ahead of a county building permit.

MAYOR DEBAPTlSTE: Well, basically your concept of going back, how long will we be ready to go? County -

MR. HURFORD: I would say six months to a year would be a reasonable time to look into it.

MAYOR DEBAPTISTE: Jane?

MS. COLLITON: Let me just address - well, okay. September is what I would be saying to schedule a hearing by. Okay.

MAYOR DEBAPTISTE: To do what?

MS. COLLITON: Some point September.

THE PRESIDENT: Schedule a hearing.

MS. COLLITON: I just want to go back and address a point. Maybe the county wouldn't move out in a day, although I used to work for the county and we moved pretty quickly. However, agreements can be signed tomorrow. And I just got done attending, and we didn't even get to the reports from Council section of the meeting yet, but I just got done attending the Pennsylvania League of Cities conference where we had to present a motion, a resolution to request statewide lobbying on our behalf so that the county wouldn't move out court offices from the county seat. And that's something that, I mean it is not like the county doesn't have, they don't have a specific proposal on the table at this point, but sometimes, sometimes we have to - we can't sit hack and wait for the other party we are dealing with to come up with a proposal. A move can be done in a very short period of time. A contract can be signed in a very short period of time. So as far as there being no urgency with respect to the county, I disagree. I I worked for county government during the time that the Borough lost the several county offices to the Government Services Building outside of town, and at that time many people said it just wouldn't happen and I saw it happen, and it happened because there weren't people who were willing to act quickly enough and boldly enough in order to be able to take action. I don't want to see it happen again, and I I don't want to see it happen on my watch, not while I am on Council. I don't want to see it. I would like to have a public hearing scheduled by September.

MAYOR DEBAPTISTE: So your answer to the public hearing would be September?

MS. COLLITON: That is correct.

MAYOR DEBAPTISTE: And then how much time after that before we - I got a six month, I got a three month, I got a six to a year.

MS. COLLITON: The public hearing would be, following the public hearing we would vote.

MAYOR DEBAPTISTE: Oh, you would. So you are talking about three months period?

MS. COLLITON: Well, yes, two months.

MAYOR DEBAPTISTE: Bob?

MR. WHETSTONE: To some degree I don't know why we are discussing this in terms of time. We have got a valid challenge in front of this Borough in trying to do things quickly that may result in irresponsibility, capricious and not thought out direction for the height of this Borough, I find it unconscionable. And if you want a time then I have to agree with Councilman Carroll. But I can't see why we are sitting here talking about something like this in terms of time. We should be thinking about how we are going to do it the right way.

MAYOR DEBAPTISTE: Well, we are talking about right way, but

MR. WHETSTONE: Right way isn't putting a time limit. Doing it in a right way does not put a time limit on it.

MAYOR DEBAPTISTE: Right way, how much time would that take according to their particular plans.

MR. WHETSTONE: You don't, we don't have particular plans other than the ones that were drawn up. And I agree with Councilman Carroll down there, send it down to committee and discuss it. We should be doing it the right way, not hurrying it up through this procedure.

THE PRESIDENT: Do you want me to vote on this, give you my opinion?

MAYOR DEBAPTISTE: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: You know we have spent time on this. You really do. If we spent that much time and we get to this point here where nothing can be done, and you still want more me, with more time we are still not going to get it done. My vote goes for three months.

Everybody satisfied with their discussion? Okay. Now we will go and have a vote on the motion.

MR. MCNEELY: Miss Carroll?

MS. CARROLL: Mr. McNeely, would you reread the motion so I know which one?

MR. McNELLY:This motion is to adopt the ordinance as proposed.

MS. CARROLL: Thank you. No.

MR. MCNEELY: Mr. Royer?

MR. ROYER: No.

MR. MCNEELY: Mr. Hurford?

MR. HURFORD: No.

MR. MCNEELY: Mr. Whetstone?

MR. WHETSTONE: No.

MR. MCNEELY: Miss Colliton?

MS. COLLITON: No.

MR. MCNEELY: Miss Zimmerman?

THE PRESIDENT: No. So that's six against and nothing in the affirmative. Does anyone want to make a recommendation that it goes hack to committee?

MS. COLLITON: I would like to make a motion at this time, a new motion, and that motion would be that we authorize for advertising and draft an ordinance which would adopt the parameters established at the West Chester Planning, Zoning, Building and Housing Development Committee for height restrictions, and we have a map available which designates that area, with, however, an amendment to this as well, a brief amendment which I think may have been in error. I don't know if Council members have the map available to them this evening or not, but I have mine available. The amendment would be that the area which would have unrestricted height development would also include the half block from, running from South High Street and bounded by Chestnut Street on the south, and bounded by an alley at the half block on the north, running across Chestnut Street and across this alley - I am not describing this too well. I am doing the best I can. Maybe by way of reference I can adopt this map as an exhibit. But it would include the half block that has Thrash and Threads, the Jackson TV Repair - Mr. Royer, if you like to help.

MR. ROYER: The Inquirer, Philadelphia Inquirer.

MS. COLLITON: Yes. And I think that it simply was an oversight at the time that this map was drawn, because the committee members remember that area was adopted at that time of the committee meeting. But I jnst ask that this map be placed in as pubilc record, as of the motion, and I ask that the ordinance be advertised and that it be drafted by the solicitor and advertised for public hearing, and I ask for a public hearing date that would be contemporaneous with Borough Council in September 1995.

THE PRESIDENT: You are making this an amendment to

MS. COLLITON: I am making it as a new motion for a new ordinance.

THE PRESIDENT: Fine.

MR. ROYER: I would second that motion, Madam Chairman.

THE PRESIDENT: Call for a vote. Or discussion, first, but I thought we had gone through the discussion.

MS. CARROLL: A procedural question. Mr. McNeely, is public hearing over? I am wondering, the court reporter, court reporter is still here.

MR. MCNEELY: Miss Zimmerman has not closed the public hearing on the zoning amendments, so you are still open.

MS. CARROLL: We are still on the record. Well, then, while I have got the floor, I will again state my opposition to the process. I think there is a better process. I think that process would include taking all of the maps that have come out of various committees, comparing the overlays of those maps. If there is an area of cousensus and I believe that some consensus may be able to be reached. That would make for a better ordinance and, therefore, save us the advertisement and the run around the block.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Whetstone?

MR. WHETSTONE: I concur with Councilman Carroll.

THE PRESIDENT: Councilman Royer?

MR. ROYER: I support this whole-heartedly. I am glad we are moving forward. I think we have already done some of the things, if not all of the things, Miss Carroll said, by looking at this and examining this, various committees, various commissions. I don't think it is necessary to change our public hearing process. I don't think it is necessary to expand this particular item. And I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out we need to do something and do something really soon to help the revitallzation of West Chester. Therefore, I hope that we adopt this tonight.

I sympathize with the Mayor if he has to break a tie. I don't know if that's going to happen or not. But I am glad we are moving forward in some respect, and I think this is a much better proposal than what we originaUy had.

And to Miss Carroll's comments, we are already halfway there, already looked at it, we have heard plenty of comments, I have taken many phone calls, personally, letters on the issue, and I think we are already halfway there, and this is a good step, it is a step in the right direction and I hope we proceed at this time.

MR. WHETSTONE: In terms -

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Whetstone.

MR. WHETSTONE: Has an impact study been done on this? This is a major change to this Borough you are entertaining opening the door for.

THE PRESIDENT: Right.

MR. WHETSTONE: You have said we have seen maps, everything. We are talking about a major impact on this Borough, to the three dimensional type thing. You can draw to scale what an eight story building would be here, what a ten story building would be here, and come up with three-dimensionals of what the impact is going to be for the whole Borough. mean just drawing colors on a map is not going to give you a true perspective of the impact of this on this

THE PRESIDENT: I agree with you there, but as far as the time element is concerned, we still have some time. It shouldn't take forever.

MR. WHETSTONE: I agree with you. I am not suggesting we take forever, but I am suggesting we look at this and do it the right way. And coloring shades on a map is not doing it the right way. It is saying these are alternatives, but it is certainly not giving us a true perspective of the impact on this

THE PRESIDENT: Miss Colliton?

MS. COLLITON: I would, just as a small comment, say that if we were sitting go on city council in Philadelphia before the height restrictious were lifted there, there could be any number of impact studies, but it really comes down to individual subjective opinions on the aesthetics and on the future, and we don't - there is no impact study that could have fully defined it for the City of Philadelphia before it happened. After it happened then it was found to be a positive influence. I think it will be a positive influence on business in this Borough, and if we don't take, if we don't seize the moment now I am concerned that we will lose it, that it won't be there in the future. And I just don't want to be responsible for that.

MR. HURFORD: May I?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Mr. Hurford.

MR. HURFORD: Again, I see no sense of urgency. Three months to pass something like this, I mean, come on, you know, we have taken a year and a half to try and get stop signs and we still don't get them.

I think we are blowing this thing out of proportion. The county has expressed an interest. In the event that they made a proposal we could certainly react quicker. They have just suggested, alluded to their interest in building something up. They haven't given us any idea of how high they want to go. I don't think we can give them carte blanche to get unrestricted height just because of one expressing interest.

I think that we don't even know what Philadelphia's ordinance looks like. I think there is issues like stepping down the buildings from the center, some kind of concentric rings. We are talking about large area of the downtown unrestricted height in your proposal. Do we have -

MR. ROYER: Yes, one in the center.

MR. HURFORD: The yellow area you are proposing as unrestricted, and the other area that is 200 feet or so, and we are talking about the highest building in town now is a little over 80 feet. So I think that while Philadelphia is a good example, I think that we haven't even looked at how they wrote their ordinance and what the step down requirements are, what the actual height requirements are, whether it is restricted, unrestricted. To my knowledge, nobody on Council has looked at that. So again, I think we need to get somebody in here to do a computer simulation and get a professional recommendation. With all the software out there I can't imagine there is not software you can plug in and get a 3-D look at this thing and get a feel for the dimensions and scale. And I am hesitant to move forward with this in the the manner that some of my Council members are.

THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me?

MS. COLLITON: Close discussion. We have to call out the motion.

(Council members conferring.)

THE PRESIDENT: There is no other discussion? Anne, let's not prolong it.

MS. CARROLL: I am sorry to prolong this. However, if you look at the time frame, if we are in disagreement after this next ordinance then we prolong the time frame. So if time is a consideration, as the Mayor has indicated it is, apparently to him, then I would suggest that a more deliberative approach will in the end shorten the time frame.

MAYOR DEBAPTISTE: What was the comment you made about the Mayor?

MS. CARROLL: That you seem to be interested in the time frame.

MAYOR DEBAPTISTE: I wanted to know what each one of your concepts, how long it would take.

MS. CARROLL: That's what I thought you were interested.

MAYOR DEBAPTISTE: Sometimes I want to know the differences between.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we have Miss Colliton's motion for the agenda. And can you repeat it so that we can call for the vote?

MS. COLLITON: I had talked about advertising a new ordinance and it being prepared by the solicitor, and I would incorporate by reference the map that was adopted by the Committee of Building Housing and Industrial Development with the amendment that I indicated, the one area that I indicated, and I would ask that that map be incorporated in this motion. And Mr. Royer had seconded the motion, so I think -

THE PRESIDENT: Call for the vote.

MR. MCNEELY: Miss Carroll?

MS. CARROLL: No.

MR. MCNEELY: Mr. Royer?

MR. ROYER: Yes.

MR. MCNEELY: Mr. Hurford?

MR. HURFORD: No.

MR. MCNEELY: Mr. Whetstone?

MR. WHETSTONE: No.

MR. MCNEELY: Miss Colliton?

MS. COLLITON: Yes.

MR. MCNEELY: Miss Zimmerman?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

MR. MCNEELY: Mayor DeBaptiste?

MAYOR DEBAPTISTE: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. So motion carries, four yes and three no. Okay. That concludes the public hearings on our agenda for this evening.

(Proceedings conclude at 8:55 o'clock p.m.)

1966 Zoning Code - In the C7 Primary Business District, the maximum height allowed was 100'. A building over 100' with no height limitation was allowed by seeking a Special Exception from the Zoning Hearing Board. There were no buildings that even approached the height limit built in the business district from 1966 to 1988 when a new zoning code was adopted.

1988 Zoning Code - In the Town Center (TC) District, a maximum height of 80' was allowed by Conditional Use in the Height Option HO Overlay zone. The code required that between 45'& 80' there be a 15 percent reduction in perimeter dimensions. The height limit was set at 35' in the Commercial Service CS District.

4-19-1995 - An ordinance was proposed by a 6-1 vote deleting the height restriction in the TC District due to concern over allowing County to build a new facility.

Introduction

The West Chester Historical and Architectural Review Board (hereinafter, HARB) was asked by Borough Council for comment regarding proposed changes to the height overlay ordinance pursuant to Paragraph 112-56.C.(3) of the Historic District Zoning Ordinance. HARB, in its initial consideration, provided in May 2006, recommended that the 180 foot maximum allowable height be reduced to 90 feet, which coincides with the approximate height of the F&M Building located at Market and High Streets. The vote on this recommendation was 5 to 2, with 2 members opposed to setting a height without adequate study of the impact of such height in other cities and boroughs. Since that time, one formal height workshop and at least three informal workshops have been conducted in the Borough, a public presentation of hotel developments proposed for downtown West Chester has been held, heights of other taller buildings in the Borough have been determined, and out-of-town examples have been shown as analogues to our situation. Accordingly, HARB now makes a more comprehensive recommendation to Borough Council.

Recommendations for the Height Option Overlay District HO-180

HARB recommends that the maximum allowable height in the HO-180 Height Option Overlay District be limited to 60 feet. Within this district, the allowable building height by right should remain 45 feet, with 60 feet allowable only by conditional use, and only where specific site conditions including the location of the property, the context of the immediate setting and streetscape, and the proposed design allow a greater height without a loss of the historic character of the immediate neighborhood. To protect historic resources from demolition, HARB recommends that the height option be precluded from any site that requires the demolition of a contributing resource. This recommendation is based on the goal of preserving the historic resources that have created the setting for the current vibrant environment of the downtown. This setting has been recognized on the federal level by the National Register listing of the historic district and most recently by the Borough's 2006 designation by the National Trust for Historic Preservation as one of America's "Dozen Distinctive Places. To quote the Historic District Design Guidelines,

"Densely grouped three-story buildings laid out along a rectangular pattern of streets form the district. The architectural character of buildings in the district is remarkably consistent - built in row form with the facade on the sidewalk line, predominantly constructed of brick, with a first-floor storefront and storefront cornice, topped by two floors of residential or office space, and capped by a building cornice. This consistent building formula and urban form repeats block after block within the historic district, creating a cohesive and unified streetscape in which individual building design is secondary to the overall quality of the district."

Coinciding factors make the F&M Building successful as a 90-foot high building: 1) the set back of the south elevation of the historic courthouse provides a plaza in front of the F&M Building that is as defined as the plaza in front of the courthouse itself, 2) the dropping grades from the front of the courthouse to the alley next to the F&M Building diminish the apparent height of the building, 3) the articulated fa‡ade of the building diminishes its mass, and finally 4) the building is a fixture in everyone's mind: there may be no one who remembers the Borough without the F&M building.

The new HO-60 district should be very selectively applied to the downtown, at locations where, because of falling slopes (such as the west end of Gay Street) or other factors, the impact of the greater height will not be negative. The remaining areas of the downtown should revert to the underlying zoning, with a maximum height of 45 feet. The corridor between East Gay and East Market Streets should also be designated HO-60 as a way of extending the urban quality to the east.

To protect the historic character and property values of contiguous NC-2 residential neighborhoods, the HO-60 district should not be applied to properties that adjoin NC-2 residential properties, even when an alley separates the two.

Recommendations for the Height Option Overlay District HO-90

HARB recommends that the HO-90 district be eliminated, replaced by maximum height allowable height of 60 feet, under the same conditions as noted above, except for areas east of Franklin Street.

Comments