Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Reconfiguration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Narberth planning draft rewrites zoning by building type; commission largely backs targeted 4A changes to allow denser housing
Summary
Commissioners reviewed a draft reconfiguration of Narberth’s zoning code to organize rules by building type, debated changes to the 4A district to enable apartment buildings and infill (modifying setbacks, lot sizes, height measurement and parking), and agreed to refine standards for façade modulation and green-space requirements.
The Narberth Planning Commission spent the bulk of its Feb. 2 meeting reviewing a draft neutral reconfiguration of the zoning code and discussing targeted changes for the 4A southern district intended to increase housing production while preserving neighborhood character.
Staff described a reorganization that moves substantive requirements under building-type headings (instead of only by district), adds clearer use tables and special-exception sections, and updates undefined terms. "We'd like to reorganize the code so that it reflects that form-based nature," staff said, explaining the move to structure provisions by building type and to add cross-linked tables for uses by district.
Todd Prezzi presented a structured set of 4A recommendations to achieve two goals: (1) unlock larger sites (for example, the Citizens Bank parking lot) for apartment-scale development, and (2) encourage smaller infill (cottages, row houses, twins, and multifamily houses) on noncontributing parcels. Key elements discussed included calibrating the minimum lot size for apartment buildings (staff noted the draft currently lists 8,000 square feet), allowing cottages and row houses as-of-right in 4A, modestly increasing building-coverage and impervious-coverage limits, and a proposal to reduce parking ratios (an example figure discussed was 0.7 spaces per multifamily unit).
On height, staff proposed two alternatives for measurement: measure height from the ground at the principal (front) entrance or take the average elevation of primary street frontages rather than averaging all four sides. Commissioners also discussed a three-story baseline (35 feet) with a conditional fourth-floor bonus tied to affordability or green-building standards. Todd said measuring from the street-facing entrance "feels to be a lot more contextual" and would allow structured approaches such as parking under buildings on sloped lots.
Several commissioners pressed for design safeguards to avoid long, unarticulated façade walls when setbacks are reduced: suggestions included a required percentage of landscaped/planting area between building and sidewalk, façade modulation criteria limiting uninterrupted facade length, or mandatory notches or terraces every X feet to break up massing. The commission indicated general support for the approach — different dimensional rules by building type and lot size, with additional design standards — and asked staff to revise draft tables and codify green-space/modulation language before the next public review and the Feb. 26 open house.
What happens next: staff will circulate an edited draft that clarifies where the building-type rules apply, adjusts the draft minimum lot sizes for apartment buildings, and includes language options for façade modulation and green-space percent requirements so commissioners and the public can review them at the open house and at subsequent meetings.
