Lancaster County council approves first reading of PDD 26 amendment after debate over parking and permitted uses

Lancaster County Council gave first reading to an amendment to the development agreement for Planned Development District (PDD) 26 on Collins Road on a unanimous 7-0 vote, advancing a proposal that would realign density between portions of the master plan and change how parking is calculated for new flex, retail and institutional buildings.

The ordinance, which amends ordinance 2015-13-46, would move lot lines and transfer density between Villages F and H of the PDD and would replace an impractical 1 space per 300 square feet commercial parking ratio with a proposed “flex” parking approach. Council and staff agreed to move the measure forward for a second reading while staff and the applicant work on clarifying which specific uses will be allowed in the flex buildings and how many spaces will be required.

Why it matters: the parcel in question is the last remaining developable parcel in PDD 26 and the proposal would permit two multi-use “flex” buildings and a single-story medical office. The parking ratio and the list of permitted uses will determine how the site is developed and how it interfaces with nearby residential areas.

April Williams, county planning staff, told council that the current controlling UDO language would require parking that is “not very realistic” for the proposed product. Williams said the site could require “almost 600 spaces” under some calculations and noted that the governing 1998 PDD/UDO contains many possible uses, which complicates a single parking standard. “Because we have such a wide variety of uses that could go in this property, there is no way for us to determine what specific uses are going into the property, so there’s no way for us to calculate parking based on that,” Williams said.

Elena Kiewit, representing Saint John Properties and the project applicant, described the developer’s analysis and why a different standard is needed for flex product. “We proposed 1 per 450 square feet based on a blended analysis of likely uses,” Kiewit said. She added that the company operates the buildings long-term and therefore favors a realistic ratio to maintain tenant viability.

Council and staff focused on two issues: 1) whether the PDD ordinance’s list of prohibited uses and the PDD’s statement that the ordinance supersedes the UDO leave ambiguity about which uses are permitted in practice; and 2) whether a reduced parking ratio could allow a future tenant with high parking demand (for example, a church) to occupy a building without providing sufficient parking.

Williams said staff had provided a use-interpretation letter that flags certain industrial and automotive uses as not permitted under the PDD amendment; the applicant asked staff to revisit that interpretation. Williams said she issued a final determination and explained appeal procedures under the UDO.

Council members pressed both sides to produce a clear list of authorized and prohibited uses for the second reading. Council member Steve Harper said he wanted the council to see “what we’re actually disputing” on second reading. Another council member said the parties are “not that far apart” and suggested staff and the applicant appear on second reading with a narrowed list of disputed uses and a parking plan showing an attempt to add roughly 20 additional spaces if needed.

Council voted to advance the ordinance on a 7-0 voice vote. No amendments were adopted at first reading; the motion and second were made on the record and the item will return for second reading with requested clarifications.

Quotes in context: "Because we have such a wide variety of uses that could go in this property, there is no way for us to determine what specific uses are going into the property," April Williams, county planning staff, said.

"We proposed 1 per 450 square feet based on a blended analysis of likely uses," Elena Kiewit, representative of Saint John Properties, said.

What’s next: staff and the applicant will attempt to reconcile the list of permitted uses and whether the parking ratio can be adjusted to accommodate the small number of additional spaces staff requested. The ordinance will return to council for a second reading and a final vote. If the second reading does not resolve the questions, council members signaled they may withhold final approval.