Narberth planning commission weighs transit‑oriented development overlay and future of Elmwood church site

The Northern Planning Commission discussed adopting a transit‑oriented development (TOD) overlay for parts of Narberth — especially the block south of the train tracks that includes the vacant Elmwood church parcel — to make apartment construction more feasible and to encourage smaller, more attainable units near downtown.

The commission’s chair, Adam Kron, said the borough council asked the planning commission to “provide thoughts and recommendations” on whether zoning changes, relaxed setbacks and parking requirements, or incentives could support housing “that would be more attainable” and also help downtown businesses by creating more walkable customers.

The commission framed the discussion around three themes: (1) where a TOD overlay would make sense geographically, (2) which zoning rules (setbacks, height limits, parking and lot‑size minimums) now prevent multifamily development, and (3) what incentives or public financing might be necessary to deliver true affordable units rather than only market‑rate apartments.

Commissioners and county staff reviewed the Elmwood site as a case study. Kron and county planners said a developer likely needs roughly 30 units for a small new‑construction apartment project to become commercially viable on that lot. Under current Narberth zoning, apartment buildings are conditional uses in many zones and face constraints that make such projects difficult: a 35‑foot height limit, a 25‑foot front setback, and a parking formula that typically requires one off‑street space per unit (with a partial credit of 0.5 spaces for units under 550 square feet and one visitor space per ten units). The code also includes an 8,000‑square‑foot minimum lot size for apartment buildings in some zones, a county planner noted. Those rules, the staff analysis said, reduce the feasible floor plate and drive expensive designs such as structured parking.

Kron and county staff sketched practical changes a TOD overlay could allow: smaller front setbacks (to move buildings closer to the sidewalk), allowance for some tuck‑under or partially structured parking to take advantage of Elmwood’s sloping lot, relaxed parking ratios in locations within walking distance of the train station, and the option of a stepped or partially recessed fourth story as a density tool tied to affordable‑unit set‑asides. Kron said relaxing setbacks and adjusting the parking requirement could allow roughly 30 units in three stories on the Elmwood parcel; adding a partial fourth story would increase flexibility for larger units.

Public speakers urged urgency and attention to affordability. Kimberly Leifak, co‑owner of Shift Sustainable Goods and a Narberth resident, told the commission she was “absolutely pleased to see this discussion” and said, “I absolutely see the value in having some dense attainable housing, apartment buildings directly adjacent to our downtown.” Resident Jennifer Lamer likewise urged the commission to create housing options affordable to longtime residents and asked for more timely neighborhood notice when projects move from zoning to permit stages.

Commissioners discussed potential incentives and funding sources that could make affordable units feasible. The group named tools used elsewhere: county or borough tax‑incentive programs (for example, tax rebates or phased tax payments), low‑interest county financing, C‑PACE or similar energy‑focused loans for capital improvements, and state tax‑credit programs that are typically required for deeply affordable senior or subsidized housing. Staff cautioned that C‑PACE and county programs often help green or capital improvements and may not by themselves create deep rent affordability; those options can reduce operating or capital costs but usually do not substitute for direct subsidy.

Design and community character were recurring concerns. Commissioners emphasized that any TOD overlay should include clear architectural and massing standards to avoid arbitrarily large, out‑of‑scale buildings, while also avoiding overly prescriptive or expensive material requirements that would make projects financially unworkable. The commission discussed limiting where the overlay should apply (initially recommending the south side of the tracks as the simplest test area) and using density bonuses tied specifically to permanently restricted affordable units rather than a long menu of different bonuses that developers could substitute away from affordability.

No formal zoning change or motion on a TOD overlay was voted at the meeting. The commission did vote to adopt the previous meeting minutes; the transcript does not record a roll‑call tally for that procedural vote.

Next steps: commissioners asked staff to prepare sketches and case studies for likely redevelopment parcels, to bring examples of TOD overlays used in nearby boroughs (including Ambler and Lansdale), and to explore county funding and program options. The commission also discussed convening a small “roundtable” with the Elmwood parcel owner, if the owner is willing, to explore design options and entitlements before the owner pursues a by‑right subdivision into single‑family lots.

If the borough pursues a TOD overlay the commission recommended the package should: relax selected setback and parking rules in carefully defined zones, specify design/massing controls to preserve street character, tie density bonuses primarily to an affordable‑unit requirement with reporting and durability provisions, and coordinate with county housing and transportation programs before forwarding formal recommendations to borough council.