Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 410 South High Street topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultant urges clearer dimensions, pushed setbacks for 410 South High Street project
Summary
A planning commission‑hired reviewer told the West Chester Planning Commission the proposed town‑center development needs clearer height and setback information and a reworked 4th‑floor treatment to better fit surrounding 3‑story streetscapes; the applicant agreed to revise drawings before the Aug. 10 voting session.
The West Chester Borough Planning Commission on Aug. 3 heard a detailed design critique of the proposed 410 South High Street development from a consultant who co‑authored a review letter. Carol Pooley, introduced by the commission to summarize the review, recommended that the project provide accurate dimensional relationships to neighboring buildings, push the Price Street frontage back to the maximum allowed by ordinance where appropriate, and revise the materials and fenestration of the building’s top floor so it reads as an attic or setback rather than a flush, contrasting 4th story.
Pooley said commissioners need both the cornice‑line dimension and the physical height at the top of the proposed 4th floor to judge the design against town guidelines. "I think providing that dimensional difference between the proposed both the cornice of the 3rd Floor and the actual height of the 4th Floor ... would be really helpful to see how that really does sort of fit within the design guidelines," she said. The consultant also recommended treating Dean and Price Street facades with the same care as High Street, adding bays, shutters or adjusted window patterns to preserve a consistent streetscape rhythm.
An applicant representative acknowledged the feedback and said the team would produce clearer dimensioned elevations and consider adding bays or matching window proportions. "Our approach to the projects has been to, first and foremost, make sure the project is contextually appropriate in scale, material, massing," the presenter said, and agreed to incorporate dimensional annotations and review window language and material transitions.
Commissioners and staff discussed whether existing ordinance language gives the commission enforcement authority. Staff pointed to Section 112‑916 (standards for unified residential development) as the section that authorizes borough architect review input; commissioners asked staff to craft recommended conditions the commission could carry to council if needed. The commission scheduled a voting session for Aug. 10 and asked the applicant to submit revised visuals in time for that meeting.
