State College council refers Addison Court zoning amendment to planning commission after residents warn of displacement

State College Borough Council on April 20 voted to refer a developer'requested zoning text amendment for the Addison Court parcel to the borough planning commission after extended debate and emotional public comment from current residents.

The referral, approved by what the presiding officer described as a 6'1 voice vote, directs the planning commission to study an amendment PrimeCore requested that would adjust a measurement in the borough's zoning code from 200 feet to 100 feet from South Allen Street. The change, PrimeCore said, would prevent a single parcel from being subject to two different height limits and allow a unified building design.

"This proposed amendment does not change the height allowed at the corner," Ark Kravanjan, CEO of PrimeCore, told council. "It simply adjusts the measurements so one property is not forced to comply with two different height rules." Kravanjan also described a relocation plan for residents and said the property's 30'year PHFA restrictive covenant expired in 2024.

Council members voiced deep concern about displacement. "This request turns my stomach," said Council Member Herndon, who urged the developer and council to consider the human impacts of demolishing long'standing senior housing. Multiple council members said they supported referring the amendment to the planning commission so technical tradeoffs and mitigation options could be explored rather than making an immediate decision.

Residents of Addison Court described the potential impact on seniors and people with disabilities. "I'm upset that we're building student housing in Addison Court that's gonna be demolished," said resident Catherine Santoro. Longtime resident Richard McCarty, who said he has lived at Addison Court for 14 to 15 years, described mobility challenges and called the planned demolition "damaging" to the community.

PrimeCore representatives said renovating the existing building would be cost'prohibitive and outlined steps to assist residents in finding alternate housing, working "on-site and by telephone until all residents are stabilized in their new home." The developer said inclusionary units would be required in the new building but acknowledged those units would not replace the full number of current apartments.

Council and staff also discussed legal and practical limits on borough action. The solicitor explained the borough could purchase the building using general revenues if the owner agreed to sell but that the borough lacks a housing authority with eminent-domain power to condemn the property. Several council members suggested the planning commission could negotiate tradeoffs such as additional affordable units in exchange for increased height allowances.

The planning commission will now study the proposed amendment, hold its own review and public process, and return a recommendation to borough council for a subsequent public hearing and vote.

The referral does not authorize construction or change zoning on its own; it launches the planning commission review and a future council decision.