Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Downtown Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
HARB approves concept for Turks Head Wines dining platform; council to review site details at Smart Growth
Summary
The borough’s Historic Architecture Review Board approved the appearance and construction details for an outdoor dining platform proposed by Turks Head Wines at 120 N. Church St. Council will consider the operator’s application to occupy parking spaces and finalize the footprint via Smart Growth review next month.
The Historic Architecture Review Board (HARB) approved the proposed design and construction details for an outdoor dining platform outside Turks Head Wines at 120 North Church Street, but full council review remains required for approval to occupy public parking spaces and the platform footprint.
Turks Head Wines owner Allison Owen appeared at the meeting and described multiple conversations with borough staff and her landlord about the platform’s dimensions. HARB’s approval covered aesthetics and construction details; council members and staff noted the application packet lacked a single clean, updated site plan showing property lines and the exact linear feet the applicant would occupy on the street.
Why it matters: Outdoor dining platforms affect streetscape, sidewalk clearance and parking. Council members said they want consistent treatment for all platforms and to ensure platforms do not encroach beyond a tenant’s property footprint or impede the pedestrian right of way.
Key points: - Ms. Owen said she had HARB approval and had paid associated fees; she revised the metal platform from 40 feet to 32.5 feet to avoid encroaching on an adjacent storefront entry and said the landlord’s property lines reach into the side alley area shown on the design. - Council confirmed HARB approval is limited to design/aesthetic and that council and Smart Growth will separately review the platform’s use of parking spaces and exact footprint. The borough manager and staff agreed to prepare clearer guidance and a single updated lease/permit packet for Smart Growth review.
Outcome: Council did not approve final use of public parking or the platform footprint at the meeting. The item will return to Smart Growth (the council’s planning review body) for a site‑specific approval of the number of linear feet and any parking‑space conversions; council will review the Smart Growth recommendation at its next meeting.
Ending: The applicant and staff agreed to provide a corrected site plan showing property lines and the revised platform length for Smart Growth review in April.
