Opportunities Exist In Ardmore, But Planning And Zoning Support Is Lacking By Hugh B. Gordon

Opportunities exist in Ardmore, but planning and zoning support is lacking Hugh B. Gordon

By

It is ironic that an ordinance called "MUST" that was supposed to stimulate redevelopment in Ardmore may have played a part in killing a project at Suburban Square.We don't know the reason that Kimco Realty Corporation withdrew its petition to rezone the "Ruby's Lot" in Ardmore last Wednesday evening. It is likely that Kimco counted noses on the Board of Commissioners and concluded that a majority was committed to supporting the Dranoff Properties Ardmore Station project through to completion, if possible, and that it would be physically impossible for the Dranoff and Kimco construction projects to be done at the same time. Solid and unanimous community opposition from North Ardmore, Wynnewood and ArdWood Civic Associations may also have helped kill the proposal for now. And that is where MUST comes in. Kimco wanted the Ruby's Lot, now providing essential parking for almost 300 cars of tenants and customers of Suburban Square (and probably some freeloading commuters too), rezoned from part-commercial and part residential (R-7) to all commercial (C-1). This would have qualified the development for the MUST (Mixed Use Special Transit District) overlay zone standards. MUST would permit a seven-story mixed use structure covering the entire lot. Kimco was proposing to build 263 apartments, some additional retail and restaurant space, and about 700 parking spaces on the site. Kimco also wanted to put in a line of retail boutiques in place of the small commuter/shopper pay lot next to the Logan Capital/Cold Stone Creamery building adjacent to the tracks. Residents of North Ardmore were alarmed at the prospect of a behemoth towering over Montgomery Avenue, built with a combination of bulk and height quite out of keeping with anything nearby. Montgomery Avenue is presently buffered on both sides by the R-7 zone, which provides for moderately-sized apartment buildings set well back from the street and screened with attractive landscaping; Kimco's project would have violated the integrity of that concept. The prospect of adding another 400 cars and hundreds of additional pedestrian crossings to the Anderson Avenue chokepoint also seemed problematic. Wynnewood was concerned about the precedent of rezoning a split-zoned parcel to all commercial - the implications for the Wynnewood Shopping Center were all too clear. MUST was originally conceived as an overlay ordinance that would encourage transit-oriented development in the commercial districts near all the train stations on the R-5 line (except Merion, where there is no commercial district). Bala Cynwyd, Haverford, Bryn Mawr and Rosemont, concerned at how inappropriate it would be for their particular circumstances, successfully opted out. Ardmore was left on its own. The zoning concept of MUST is forward-looking and Lower Merion's ordinance has many worthwhile features. Who can be opposed to transit-oriented development these days? MUST is designed to promote mixed residential and retail uses with greater density near transit hubs. It provides standards that aim for pedestrian-friendly architecture and allows for architectural review prior to approval of a development plan. On the theory that it is pedestrian-unfriendly to place large parking lots between the sidewalk and the buildings they service, MUST requires building right up to the sidewalk. The problem is that MUST was plunked down on the zoning map for Ardmore without regard for what is already here. On the theory that people are unwilling to walk more than a few hundred yards to a train station, MUST provides concentric circles of permitted development with increasing density as distance decreases from the

Ardmore R-5 station. Within the circle of greatest density, where you could build up to seven or eight stories, lie Ardmore's designated historic commercial district and the Ruby's lot. As has been observed on many occasions, if you value the historic district it is bad policy to encourage the assemblage of lots followed by demolition and redevelopment of that area. As for the Ruby's lot, isn't it simply obvious that a seven-story building covering the entire lot, built out to the sidewalks on Montgomery and Anderson Avenue, is more than that small lot can stand, bounded as it is by the tracks, the constricted Anderson Avenue underpass, and trafficclogged streets on all sides? Just as each of the other communities recognized in their own case, MUST has never been a good fit for Ardmore. Encouraging sensible redevelopment in Ardmore would focus on poorly used areas such as Greenfield Avenue and the widely criticized Ardmore West (dispar-aged, not for the retail services it offers, but for its poor use of space). Likewise, Suburban Square, taken as a whole, and especially with the four new buildings put up within the last decade, is poorly planned. Good redevelopment opportunities exist in Ardmore but the needed planning and zoning support is lacking. It is time to engage in systematic community-wide land use planning for Ardmore's commercial districts. MUST as presently enacted is not a substitute. Hugh B. Gordon is a resident of Ardmore and president of the North Ardmore Civic Association.