Garber planning commission debates 4A zoning reforms to ease housing — Elmwood site used as test case

The Garber Planning Commission on Feb. 1 spent the majority of its meeting discussing proposed changes to the borough’s 4A zoning district intended to make it easier to add housing while protecting neighborhood character.

Chair Adam opened the segment by mapping the 4A district and noting how code changes since an earlier approval have left the most prominent vacant site — the former Baptist church parcel at 198 Elmwood (at Narberth Avenue) — unable to meet current rules. Adam said the new code now treats apartments in 4A as a conditional use rather than a permitted use and adds requirements that the previously approved plan does not meet, including a larger front-yard setback on Narberth Avenue, two extra visitor parking spaces and a different method for measuring building height.

The height calculation change drew sustained attention. Commissioners noted the earlier code measured building height relative to the building’s finished grade while the revised code averages elevations at the lot line; on the Elmwood site’s sloped parcel that difference reduces allowable height by several feet and effectively prevents the previously envisioned garage-under‑building design, which had relied on the slope to tuck parking below the units.

“I calculated the curb length in front of 198 Elmwood and you can get at best seven on‑street spaces,” Adam said while illustrating how parking and setback math reduces the site’s capacity. He summarized the commission’s emerging sense: allow flexibility for two‑way drive aisles to reach interior parking, consider shared or rear‑loaded parking for row‑type development, and tailor parking requirements for small or income‑restricted units.

Commissioners debated specific policy tools. Suggestions included: - Allow cottages and rowhouses in 4A (currently not permitted in that district) and reduce minimum lot widths so smaller, attached housing is feasible. - Permit two‑way driveways to interior parking areas for multifamily projects (with dimensional standards for safety), rather than force large front curb cuts. - Lower the baseline off‑street parking ratio for multifamily from 1.0 spaces per unit to 0.7 (matching the commission’s 5B recommendation) and explicitly waive parking for accessory dwelling units (ADUs), very small units and certain income‑restricted units. Commissioners discussed waiving parking for units under roughly 750 sq ft or for units restricted to affordable rents. - Use a PUD (planned unit development) overlay or a case‑by‑case review for unusually shaped or sloped redevelopment parcels such as 198 Elmwood instead of attempting a one‑size‑fits‑all rewrite of the 4A district.

Commissioner Jennifer (who provided photographs and local site observations) emphasized the technical challenge of sloped lots when measuring height: “On slope sites, if you site the building at the higher end of the lot you may reduce the height you can build to,” she said, echoing the practical constraints commissioners saw on the Elmwood parcel.

Some commissioners urged caution about removing front setbacks entirely, noting the role setbacks play in street trees, sidewalks and neighborhood character. Others argued that the code’s apparent measurement errors (including a block where the median setback was recorded as 35–44 feet) should be corrected and that a targeted PUD process for a small number of redevelopable parcels would be faster and less disruptive to the rest of the borough.

The commission coalesced around several tentative directions to carry forward for future drafting and public outreach: clarify how building height is measured on sloped lots, consider allowing cottages/rowhouses in 4A with appropriate dimensional rules, permit two‑way driveways to reach interior parking where needed, and pursue parking flexibility (0.7 ratio and waivers/exemptions for small/affordable units and ADUs). Commissioners also recommended exploring a PUD overlay to handle unique, irregular parcels such as 198 Elmwood.

Next steps: staff will refine language, confirm the solicitor’s timeline for ordinance drafting, and prepare materials for the proposed town‑hall workshop (tentatively Feb. 26) and for the commission’s January/February follow‑up work sessions. No formal zoning ordinance was adopted at the meeting; the session was deliberative and directed staff to return with proposals.

The commission approved the November minutes as amended earlier in the meeting and adjourned without further action on a zoning ordinance.