Consider for denial a conditional use request to:

1. Provide a window head height of 14’-17’9” above the sidewalk along the W. Lancaster and Ardmore Avenue elevations, where Zoning Code Section 155-87.25.C.2(f)(2) requires window heads to be 9-12 feet above the sidewalk;
2.  Not use a type of brick that is of a shape, color and texture as found within the adjacent district as required by Zoning Code Section 155-87.25.C.2(j);
3. Use tan brick, a prohibited color, in Zoning Code Section 155-87.25.C.2(j); and
4. Not articulate walls with less than 25% clear windows with two or more of the following, as required by Zoning Code Section 155-87.25.C.2(e):

1.   Details in masonry courses;

2.   The provision of blank window openings trimmed with frames, sills and lintels;

3.   If the building is occupied by a commercial use, recessed or projecting display window cases.

Expiration Date: 11/16/2017................................................................................Zoning: ASDD-1/MUST

Applicant: Justin Hopkins

Applicant's Representative: George Broseman, Esquire, Kaplin Stewart

Property Owner: Lancaster Western Properties, LP

FINDINGS OF FACT, DISCUSSION AND ORDER

            An application for conditional use approval was filed with the Township by Lancaster Western Properties, LP.  The Board assigned the matter to Pamela M. Loughman, Esq., Conditional Use Hearing Officer to conduct a hearing and to make recommended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.    The Board is now in receipt of her report. 

FINDINGS OF FACT

            1.   Findings of Fact 1 through 24 set forth in the Hearing Officer’s report are adopted by reference.

DISCUSSION

            The Applicant seeks by this conditional use application to be permitted to deviate from the design criteria provided for the MUST District.  Such deviation is permitted by § 155-87.25.C(3), which provides: 

(3)        The Board of Commissioners may, by conditional use, approve the use of architectural concepts and designs which differ from those set forth above, if the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Board that such concepts and designs are in furtherance of the legislative intent of this article and of this subsection.

The Hearing Officer has summarized the applicable ordinance provisions in paragraphs 25 through 31 of her report, and those are incorporated herein by reference.  Three design criteria deviations are sought and discussed below.

1. Window heads shall be 9 to 12 feet above sidewalk level.  § 155-87.25.C(2)(f).

            Applicants propose window heads varying in height from 14’ to 17’ 9”.  One purpose of requiring window heights within this range, in combination with a requirement that the ground floor façade be comprised of a minimum of 50% glass, is to be inviting to pedestrians while at the same time keeping the front façade in scale with the surrounding buildings.  Applicant’s proposal creates a massive, glass front façade of a scale out of keeping with the community and the subject of intense criticism to the Board of Commissioners from neighbors.  It appears that the reason for this massive façade is to permit enough space for high delivery vehicles to enter loading docks interior to the rear of the building.  In the view of the Board the building is significantly oversized for the lot, resulting in the need to deviate from a design standard intended to keep buildings in proper scale. 

1. Exterior wall materials may include stucco, wood clapboard (including aluminum imitation clapboard siding), native stone, or brick of a shape, color and texture as that found within the adjacent district. Specifically prohibited shall be white, tan or any type of painted brick or T-111 or other similar plywood siding or Hardie board on any portion of a building above three stories, or exterior insulation and finishing system (EIFS).  § 155-87.25.C(2)(j).

            Applicant proposes the use of tan brick in areas of the upper floors.  The use of tan brick is specifically prohibited, the Board having determined when it created these design standards that tan brick is not of a color and texture as that found within the adjacent district.  Furthermore, to the extent that tan coloration can be found in adjacent districts, the Board has determined that such coloration is foreign to the texture of building facades that from the traditional design base of the community. It is noteworthy that no reason has been given by the Applicant why the coloration design standard set forth in the Code cannot be complied with. 

1. Any walls with less than 25% of clear windows shall be articulated by two or more of the following: [1] Details in masonry courses; [2] The provision of blank window openings trimmed with frames, sills and lintels; [3] If the building is occupied by a commercial use, recessed or projecting display window cases. § 155-87.25.C(2)(e)

            The side walls of the structure are not shown as being articulated.  The reason given by the Applicant is that at some point in the future an infill structure might partially shield such walls.  Secondly, the Applicant views these walls as “non-primary” and therefore not readily visible.  In effect the Applicant is saying that it disagrees that the design standards are desirable and therefore isn’t going to comply with them.  Township staff offered the suggestion that these walls be constructed with cast stone material, rather than stucco.  However, this still doesn’t achieve the goal of articulation of large, blank walls that the Board was trying to achieve in imposing this design standard. 

            For the reasons set forth above the Board has determined that the goals sought to be achieved by the design standards set forth in the Code have not been met and that those proposed are not in furtherance of the design intent of the MUST District.  

ORDER

            AND NOW, this          day of November, 2017, for the reasons set forth above, Applicant’s conditional use application is denied.