Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer presents 615–617 South Walnut townhomes; commission flags parking, sight‑triangle and tree concerns
Summary
A preliminary plan for five townhomes at 615–617 South Walnut Street prompted positive design feedback but also questions about front‑yard parking, three‑front‑yard lot geometry that may require variances, legacy trees and sight‑triangle exhibits; staff asked for additional height and waiver documentation.
A developer presented a preliminary subdivision and site plan for 615–617 South Walnut Street on June 1, proposing five new townhomes alongside two renovated twin houses, two underground stormwater systems and a fenced courtyard.
The applicant said the proposal includes one‑car garages plus one driveway space per unit and two small shared parking areas accessed from Mechanics Alley. "We're proposing each house one‑car garage with one space in the driveway," the presenter said, describing stormwater trenches and a small common corridor. Commissioners praised the renderings—three‑sided brick facades, black windows and a courtyard—but emphasized that several technical items remain missing from the submission.
Why it matters: Commissioners warned that the site's unusual geometry—three streets abutting the lot—creates multiple "front yards" under the borough code and could make standard front‑yard parking prohibited without a variance. Several commissioners said that classification may form a defensible hardship but that the applicant must supply clearer evidence (height calculations, sight‑triangle exhibits and waiver requests) before a formal recommendation.
Commissioners and staff asked for supplemental materials: a full height calculation to confirm building heights, a revised zoning table if front/rear yard designations change, clear sight‑triangle diagrams showing existing neighboring building lines, and a follow‑up review letter from the tree commission addressing two legacy trees called out in the review comments. One commissioner recommended adding detailed architectural elevations or 3‑D renderings so reviewers can assess the proposed wall and courtyard in context.
Design feedback and public‑realm details drew broad support. Several members complimented the three‑side brick treatment and suggested heavier, more realistic shutters, low‑glare pedestrian lighting directed at doorways rather than up‑lighting, and a planting plan that intersperses larger shade trees with the proposed arborvitae along the southern boundary. Commissioners also requested trash‑pickup and screening details and encouraged the applicant to break up clustered parking to avoid a single paved lot.
Next steps: Staff said they will ask the applicant for the missing materials and a written response to review comments; the commission signaled it will consider waiver requests or a formal variance only after receiving revised plans and the tree commission follow‑up letter. If the applicant seeks relief, the matter will return to a future meeting for potential motion and recommendation to borough council.
Ending: The commission closed the townhome discussion after requesting the supplemental technical documentation and a clarified waiver package from the applicant.
