Upper Dublin planners review amendment to allow disturbance of manmade steep slopes in Fort Washington overlay

Upper Dublin Planning Commission members heard a developer presentation and resident objections on a proposed zoning text amendment that would change how steep slopes are treated in the Fort Washington Village overlay district. Developers representing Lombardi Residential said the amendment (UD‑25‑09) would allow certain manmade steep slopes to count as lot area and permit disturbance of those slopes, enabling a 10‑townhome concept for parcels at Pennsylvania Avenue and Summit Avenue.

The proposal was presented by Matt Markovich of Lombardi Residential, who said the parcels (owned by Penn Guest Properties LLC, a Lombardi subsidiary) lie within the Fort Washington Village overlay and include limited, largely manmade steep‑slope bands. "This request for the text amendment is being made in conjunction with our proposal for the development of this property, which currently would consist of 10 townhomes," Markovich said, and added that the Board of Commissioners previously voted unanimously on Feb. 10 to allow the amendment to proceed through the review process.

Attorney George Grossman explained the amendment’s two components: remove the overlay’s requirement to exclude certain steep slopes from net lot area calculations, and make the township’s general prohibition on disturbing slopes of 25% or greater inapplicable inside the Fort Washington overlay. "These are really manmade and steep slopes," Grossman said, arguing that excluding them from lot area calculations frustrates the overlay’s purpose and the change would apply only to the Fort Washington district.

Developers and engineers showed aerial maps and recent photos of the property, noted prior concepts that ranged up to 47 apartments and were reduced after community feedback, and described a current site concept of three buildings with front porches facing Summit Avenue and interior driveway access. The engineers outlined access constraints (a shared driveway near the Ford restaurant), emergency access at Pennsylvania Avenue, and a proposed public amenity near a bus stop/Green Station.

Planning commissioners and staff probed technical elements: whether the mapped slopes meet the ordinance’s steep‑slope definition, whether they are natural versus manmade, conditional‑use thresholds (buildings larger than 4,000 sq ft in the overlay), allowable impervious coverage (the concept shows about 64.7% vs. a 70% allowance), and how net lot area calculations affect density. Presenters supplied approximate figures: about 7,500 square feet of slopes across the site and parcel land areas cited as roughly 4,981; 4,996; and 10,960 square feet for the individually addressed lots.

Residents at the podium urged the commission to preserve the overlay’s original objectives. Multiple commenters said the Fort Washington Village overlay was established in 2007 to protect a pedestrian‑oriented, historic village character and to manage stormwater, and warned that lifting steep‑slope protections across the overlay would affect other properties beyond the applicant’s site. A longtime neighbor said, "These slopes have been there for a long time," and argued that removing protections to facilitate increased density would leave neighbors to live with the results after developers sell parcels.

Staff and engineering representatives responded that modern stormwater controls required for new development are likely to reduce uncontrolled runoff from the current, unmanaged condition. A staff/engineering comment summarized the position: "The site will always be better after development than it is now," noting that a managed release and stormwater facilities are part of any land‑development approval. Commissioners and staff also clarified that site redevelopment will require additional reviews beyond the text amendment, including conditional‑use review and land‑development approvals that would include detailed engineering plans.

No final planning commission vote on UD‑25‑09 is recorded in the provided segments. Staff described the process: the amendment was requested by the applicant rather than through variances, and the amendment—if forwarded—would proceed to the Board of Commissioners for further consideration. The meeting recording stopped at the end of the discussion; the transcript does not show a formal action by the planning commission on this item.

What’s next: if the commission forwards the amendment, the Board of Commissioners and subsequent land‑development reviews (conditional use, detailed engineering, historic commission review for significant demolition) will determine whether the overlay language changes and whether the project can proceed as presented.