Condo Plan Faces More Scrutiny
This article is the second in a two-part series. Part one, “Condo Developers Go Back to the Drawing Board” appeared in the December 3 issue of The Swarthmorean.
The most recent rendering of the proposed development at 100 Park Avenue in Swarthmore
The recent proposal for a condo development project that would replace the 1920s-era Celia Building at 102 and 104 Park Avenue in Swarthmore is still being evaluated, and nothing has been approved yet. Nevertheless, Shannon Elliott, proprietor of Harvey Oak Mercantile (H.O.M.)—one of the two businesses that would be displaced if the proposal is green-lit—said recently that she’s heard a lot of people mistakenly call the project a “done deal.” “There is no ‘done deal’ right now,” she noted, “so please don’t sit home and think your voice isn’t important. And even if it does get approved, your voice will motivate people in the town to want to do better” when new projects are proposed in the future.
Elliott’s point was echoed by Martha Perkins, owner of Gallery on Park, the other business that would be displaced by the proposed project. She has also expressed frustration at the number of people who have told her that they assume the project has already been approved—it has been “really disconcerting,” she said. In response, she has organized a group called “S.O.S. - Save Our Swarthmore”, which is endorsing and promoting a petition against the condo development project: “We just wanted to get the information out” that the proposed project is not even close to a done deal, she explained. (The petition can be signed online, or in person at either of the two Park Avenue businesses.) “This is a really important, pivotal moment in our town—not just [because of] the mass and the scale [of the project], which we felt was out of proportion with the surrounding streetscape, but [because] it might set a precedent for future development in town,” Perkins added.
Building Scale
Many other residents who oppose the project have expressed that they feel the building is simply too massive. To demonstrate this concern visually, Christopher Kenney, a Swarthmore resident who expressed concerns about the project during the public comment period at the October 20 Planning Commission meeting, has used his expertise as an architect to create a series of mass model renderings of the proposed new building in Google Earth, which tries to show its height and mass relative to that of other buildings in the immediate neighborhood.
Mass model renderings created by Swarthmore resident and architect Christopher Kenney, who has voiced concerns about the project’s height and mass.
In a letter that appears in this issue of The Swarthmorean, Kenney writes, “if this project goes forward, we will regret all that we have lost and how we have been changed for a long time to come. I urge the development team to re-envision this project so that it is in keeping with the aspirations that we share for ourselves and our community.”
As reported in The Swarthmorean last week, developer Bill Cumby has said that the development team has created a revised design in an attempt to reduce any imposition the building would create on the neighborhood—by segmenting its structure vertically and horizontally and adding a setback at the fourth floor that makes the top of the building recede further. Cumby has explained that, as a result of the proposed redesign, “we have less square footage, but we still have the same number of units.”
State senator and former Swarthmore mayor and Planning Commission chair Tim Kearney
Some residents have inquired whether the height of the proposed five-story building is permissible under Swarthmore’s zoning code. In 2013, after considerable public discussion, Swarthmore Borough Council unanimously approved an amendment to the code that imposed a 65-foot limit on buildings in the Town Center and a 35-foot height limit on so-called “principal buildings”—although the latter’s height could be increased “to the lesser of five stories or sixty-five feet, if there is a ten-foot setback (on average) of the principal front façade above thirty-five feet.” At the time, current state senator Tim Kearney was mayor-elect of Swarthmore. Kearney had previously chaired Swarthmore’s planning commission, which had played a major part in establishing these new rules. When asked to share some of the history that went into the zoning code modifications and how they apply to the current condo project, Senator Kearney said, “I think it is fair to say that we, or at least I, did not foresee this particular project on this particular site. We did not imagine something of this scale on Park Avenue because of the difficulties in amassing a site this large where we have small scale lots.” (Senator Kearney’s complete statement).
Historical Significance of Existing Buildings
John Pickett’s Historic Resources Survey from 2001
The proposed condo project would entail demolition, not only of the Celia Building at 102 and 104 Park Avenue, but also the neighboring two-story Victorian-era building at 110 and 112 Park Avenue. (The proposed building’s footprint would include parking spaces for condo residents.) Thus, some residents have also questioned whether demolition of these buildings would violate the section of the Swarthmore zoning code that requires preserving buildings deemed to have historic value.
The Swarthmore zoning code [§1240.05 (63)] describes the categories of buildings that it defines as having “historic value.” One category is any buildings that are “historic resources identified in the most updated version of the Borough of Swarthmore ‘Historic Resources Survey’ (originally compiled in 2001).” The survey lists buildings that were constructed at least 50 years ago, most of them before 1950.
This provision was highlighted recently by Melanie Rodbart, a Swarthmore resident, professional engineer, and principal of J&M Preservation Studio, which provides architectural and structural engineering services within the historic preservation field. Rodbart said that the “‘Historic Resources Survey’ originally compiled in 2001” referenced in the zoning code was prepared for the Delaware County Planning Department by the late John Pickett, with funding support from the National Park Service, and that it plays a critical role in identifying what resources have historic value. “Our zoning code acknowledged it. It’s listed in our zoning code,” Rodbart said.
Delaware County’s Planning Department has a “Historic Resource Surveys” webpage, which notes that municipalities can use the surveys as tools for determining the type and level of protection needed to save historic resources, and adds, “Establishing an inventory or survey is an important step toward building regulatory protection for historic resources in a community”.
110/112 Park in the Historic Resources Survey
The Celia Building in the Historic Resources Survey
Rodbart noted that, when Swarthmore made changes to its zoning code in 2013, “there was a lot of language about these historic resources, and changes to what could be demolished. And this is the first project that really has come to light since those changes to the zoning code.”
When asked about legal protections against the demolition of historic buildings, Rodbart responded that “protections from demolition happen at the local level, and Swarthmore does not have an ordinance that protects our buildings. We have adopted it into our zoning code and that is where it lives. So we don’t have an additional historic preservation ordinance.” Shannon Elliott of H.O.M. agreed, adding, “We didn’t take the steps to be a historic district in general, we haven’t taken the steps to protect any particular buildings.”
The developer of the proposed condo project, Bill Cumby, says that he’s a “big believer in historic preservation,” and notes that he is a longtime member of the board of directors of the Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia. He explains that his team had begun by trying to find ways to incorporate the Celia Building into their development plan rather than demolishing it. “We took our structural engineer and our architect out to the building to see if we could do it,” Cumby said. After reviewing the options, Cumby said that preserving the building—or even its façade—turned out to be unworkable.
Cumby said he believes that a listing in the Historic Resource Survey doesn’t amount to a requirement to preserve a building: “It includes some iconic buildings like Michaels and the Shirer building. It also includes two buildings that have since been demolished—the original Co-op (a former auto dealership), and the original office building (an old house) next to the old Co-op. They were both demolished to build the (new) Co-op and Lincoln Way. So it is not a list of buildings to be preserved. It’s a list of buildings that were built before a certain date.”
Swarthmore’s zoning code prohibits the demolition of any building in the Town Center zone unless the Borough Council approves a demolition permit for it, and provides that permits to demolish a building of historic value are to be issued only if the council either deems the building to be structurally unsound, or determines that its demolition will “not have a substantial negative impact on the character of the Town Center.”
Public Safety
During the initial “sketch plan” presentation given by the condo development team at the Planning Commission meeting on October 20, several residents voiced concerns about safety.
For example, Swarthmore resident Keith Peltzman shared his concerns about both traffic and pedestrian safety, noting that parking in the angled parking spots in front of Borough Hall already creates difficulties, and that he expects that the parking scene in front of the proposed condo building would be even more chaotic. As he put it, “The zoning code predates us getting three Amazon deliveries a day. And you have 36 units in the building. Imagine one or two packages—an Amazon truck, a Postal Service truck pulling up in front of there, and then a Grubhub truck. There are going to be backups on Park Avenue, and there’s going to be a horn honking and road rage.” He offered a solution: “I think it’s a pretty simple fix. Like on Chester Road, make curb cuts so delivery vans can park there.”
In response to residents’ concerns about parking, Cumby said that the development team had had a traffic study performed by Albert Federico, a traffic engineer in Swarthmore. One of the study’s recommendations was to eliminate angled parking on Park Avenue. “We actually think this is a good thing, regardless of this building,” Cumby said, “to change to parallel parking on both sides of the street, the same as it is in the first block of Park Avenue. Even now, as you’re going southeast on Park, you have to make an unusual 120 degree turn [to get into an angled spot].” Cumby also noted that there had been no discussion of making any part of the street in front of the proposed condo building one-way. He added that his team has plans to provide a dedicated area in front of the building to use as a loading zone for delivery vehicles.
Keith Peltzman added that he was also concerned about the current inconsistent width of the sidewalk. Cumby responded, “The sidewalk is currently wide in front of the 102/104 building, but it narrows down to four feet wide at 110 Park. [Our plan includes] widening it all the way down so it’s 15 feet from the curb to the building. Essentially, the town center would extend another 160 feet.”
Several residents shared concerns about pedestrian safety, especially around the area of the proposed development’s parking garage. Cumby responded that there are plans for protective bollards positioned in the sidewalk that would illuminate to warn pedestrians of vehicular traffic.
Next Steps
The Swarthmore Planning Commission will hold another meeting at Borough Hall on December 15, at 7:30 p.m., and the public is invited to participate in it, either in person or via remote access. (Details on how to participate remotely will be posted on the Borough’s website, www.swarthmorepa.org, under the “Public Meeting Notices” tab). Cumby emphasized that the purpose of the first meeting had been to present “a ‘sketch plan’ to solicit feedback. This time,” he said, “we’re looking at a preliminary plan where things are much more refined, much more developed. Our goal is to present the entire project, about which the planning commission will have dialogue and ask questions.” When asked if he expected that the commission would actually vote on the project at the next meeting, Cumby responded, “If they feel they have enough information, the vote could happen that night.”
