Chester planning commission reviews sketch plan to consolidate three West Third Street lots for banquet-hall parking

The City of Chester Planning Commission on March 12 reviewed a sketch plan proposing to consolidate three adjacent lots at 2626/2604–2606 West Third Street so the vacant lot could serve as an 11-space parking area for a banquet-hall use in the C2R (general commercial-residential) zoning district.

The item, presented during the commission’s March meeting by Assistant Planning Director Kim Gardner, was informational only: "the very first and only item of business today, is a sketch plan, that'll be brought before you," Gardner said. Planning staff and a Colliers Engineering reviewer told the commission the sketch raises zoning, parking, landscaping and public-safety issues that the applicant will need to address before a formal land development submission.

Why it matters: the property owner intends to revive the former banquet use and add off-street parking to reduce on-street impacts for neighbors. Planning staff flagged several potential zoning nonconformities that could require variances from the Zoning Hearing Board and engineering changes that affect sidewalks, handicap access and stormwater.

What the applicant proposed and said Kenneth Johnson, the project architect, described the parking layout to the commission: "it's gonna be paved about approximately 11 parking spaces. 2 of them will be ADA accessible. There will be 2, new curb cuts." Owner Anthony Kaba said the intent is to reduce street parking and neighborhood impact by providing off-street spaces and to keep operations reasonable: "we are not, like, coming to create something to mess up with the neighborhood. We... want to be at peace with the neighbors," Kaba said.

Staff and engineer review Planning staff’s March 7 review letter, discussed at the meeting, highlights items the applicant must address on formal plans, including: (1) confirming the proposed use and hours of operation (restaurants/banquet halls are permitted in C2R but hours and details must be clarified); (2) a zoning table showing dimensional compliance; (3) apparent exceedance of the C2R maximum impervious surface (90%); (4) submission of a lighting plan; (5) off-street parking calculations (zoning requires one space per five seats plus one space per 1.2 employees for a restaurant/banquet hall); (6) a planting strip between any new parking and the public street; (7) minimum 10% landscaping per lot; and (8) dumpster screening and access.

Ron Madison of Colliers Engineering, who reviewed the sketch plan, described the procedural path and technical items: "there's no action for you this evening or this afternoon," Madison said, noting the sketch plan is nonbinding. He recommended consolidating the three lots so the parking would be accessory to the primary banquet-hall use and listed engineering items that will be addressed on a formal plan, including sidewalk and curb improvements, handicap-accessible crossings and proper parking-space dimensions. Madison advised the applicant to work with planning staff to identify the minimum zoning relief required before filing for variances.

Outstanding technical and public-safety questions Commissioners and residents pressed the applicant on safety and operations. Commissioners asked whether the building has an ADA-accessible plan and how patrons would access the first floor; Kaba and a representative said the first floor is wheelchair-accessible but there is no elevator to the second floor, and that the business would operate primarily on the first floor. On emergency access, staff said the fire marshal will review formal land-development plans later in the process; a Colliers reviewer noted the lot is too small for a fire truck to turn on the site but a rear driveway/alley could provide access.

Neighbors raised concerns about parking spillover, overlapping event schedules with nearby churches and businesses, security at events, and late-night disturbances. One nearby resident who identified herself as Dr. Sylvia Caber told the commission she had spoken with neighbors and nearby institutions and said the owners had discussed shared parking and expected to use existing on-street and adjacent private parking in addition to the new lot.

Next steps and requirements Staff and the engineer outlined the likely next steps: the applicant should prepare a zoning table, identify where the proposal does not meet the ordinance, and decide whether to seek variances from the Zoning Hearing Board before submittal of a formal land-development plan. Madison recommended the applicant consider legal counsel for any zoning hearing because the hearing is a legal proceeding and any relief sought should be the minimum necessary.

Votes at a glance - Approval of minutes, February 2025: motion to approve carried (voice vote). No individual movers recorded in the transcript; vote recorded in the minutes as approved by voice. - Motion to adjourn: carried (voice vote).

No formal action was taken on the sketch plan because the item was presented as a nonbinding sketch; staff and the applicant will continue to work on design details and any required zoning relief.

Ending: The Planning Commission set no binding approvals and expects the applicant to return with revised drawings, a zoning table and, if needed, applications for variances and formal land-development review. The commission’s next regular meeting is scheduled for April 2025 at 2 p.m.