Developers present 42‑unit townhouse plan for 410 South High Street; commissioners press traffic and sight‑distance issues

A developer seeking approval for a planned residential project at 410 South High Street presented a 42‑unit unified residential development to the West Chester Borough Planning Commission on May 4, describing a mix of single‑family townhomes and two‑family stacked townhomes, a public plaza at High and Price streets, and shared internal drive aisles that would be owned and maintained by a homeowners association.

The applicant representative said the proposal totals 42 units: 14 single‑family townhomes and 14 two‑family (stacked) townhomes, and that renderings and elevations will be provided in the next submission. "There's 42 units," the applicant told the commission, and the team said it will submit written responses to consultant review letters already received.

Commissioners and technical consultants flagged several engineering and traffic items the applicant must resolve before final approval. Consulting engineer John Peterson said the site will use two underground detention basins for stormwater but the team has sought waivers for some dimensional separations; Peterson said the design currently shows a 2‑foot separation where the code or consultant guidance recommends 10 feet and that the team will pursue a compromise and provide additional detail. "We feel comfortable with 5 foot," Peterson said of one proposed compromise on separation.

Traffic reviewers and commissioners also raised site‑triangle and sight‑distance concerns. The borough's ordinance requires a 175‑foot clear sight distance in some locations; the applicant's materials show about 125 feet available on one approach, prompting the team to request waivers and to supply speed and turning‑movement data. The applicant agreed to provide turning‑movement templates showing maneuvering for large service vehicles and emergency access at the next meeting.

Residents who attended the working session pressed the project team about pedestrian safety, school‑bus stops and visitor parking. Several residents said the proposal includes no dedicated visitor spaces and asked where guests, delivery trucks and students would park; the applicant said residents would primarily use on‑street parking and that the homeowners association would contract private trash service to avoid centralized dumpsters. "They would hire the homeowners association would hire third party trash service, and the trash truck would drive through here and pick up the trash," the applicant said.

Commissioners asked the applicant to revisit circulation options, including narrowing or widening Boxwood Alley and considering a one‑way configuration to reduce hazardous left turns from the alley onto Price Street. Commissioners said one‑way routing could reduce pedestrian and left‑turn conflicts but could shift traffic into other nearby alleys and streets; the applicant agreed to analyze both one‑way and two‑way options and return with data.

The applicant also told the commission it will coordinate with the tree commission about street and interior trees and will provide the requested building elevations and material renderings to demonstrate compliance with Unified Residential Development design standards.

Next steps: the commission asked the applicant to return with turning‑movement templates for service and emergency vehicles, final landscape/tree‑commission responses, architectural elevations and a cover‑sheet table showing how the plan meets URD requirements. The applicant said it expects to present those materials at the next meeting.