Best Practices
41
such as attached or multifamily housing, or nonresidential uses, such as small-
scale office or hospitality. It is understandable why such a change would first
be met by resistance since it will transform what is familiar and accepted to
something new and different. What the municipality controls is the exact mix
of uses and, of course, this will differ for every municipality depending on the
characteristics of the institutional properties and community preferences.
Residential.
Attached or multifamily residential is often the most econom-
ically viable option for the reuse of institutional buildings. Municipalities
may consider allowing multifamily residential in the existing buildings and
new attached housing in existing open space.
Nonresidential.
Nonresidential uses in residential areas fall into two cate-
gories for the purpose of adaptive reuse. The first category is small-scale
professional office and includes uses such as doctors or insurance offices.
The second is hospitality and includes banquet facilities and meeting or
conference facilities. Office should be considered the first option because
parking demand is more predictable and traffic is limited to regular hours.
Also, older buildings are more readily adaptable to office conversion and
require little alteration to the exterior.
Shared and Temporary Uses.
Shared and temporary uses may prevent or
delay institutional closure or bridge the gap between vacancy and reuse
by keeping a building in continuous or partial operation before there are
plans for redevelopment. It is not uncommon for an institution such as a
church or school, to have more space than it can fully utilize. A municipal-
ity can support the institutional use by allowing additional uses within the
same building, such as childcare, adult daycare, or community theater.
B. Residential Density
In addition to allowing new uses, it is often necessary to increase residential
density to encourage adaptive reuse. Typically, residential zoning standards
place a cap on density to ensure consistancy across a large area. For adaptive
reuse projects, municipalities should instead determine density caps on a case-
by-case basis based on the proposed new use. For example, the adaptive reuse
of the former Perkiomen Valley Middle School into condominiums required a
density greater than the 3.5 units per acre allowed by the existing zoning. To
permit redevelopment, Trappe Borough allowed a density of 6 units per acre
and mitigated the impact of the 20 condominiums by capping the development
to 2-bedroom units. Other visual impacts associated with higher density, such
as parking and lighting, can be further mitigated by screening and landscape
buffers.
C. Flexible Building and Impervious Coverage Standards
Municipalities can provide incentive for adaptive reuse projects by establishing
flexible standards for building and impervious coverage. For example, when
developing the former Perkiomen Valley Middle School, meeting the maximum
building and impervious coverage of 20% and 35%, respectively, would
have been difficult to impossible because much of the original lot needed
to be subdivided, for economic reasons, to accommodate new single-family
dwellings. Trappe Borough prioritized the preservation of the historic building
Childcare is provided at the Holy Trinity
Church in Narberth.
Borough Hall, East Greenville.
