Ever since the Mansion House Hotel was demolished in 1970, West Chester has been without a downtown hotel. Until recently, the Holiday Inn on S. High Street was the only option, but in the past few years the Microtel opened on the Rt. 202 bypass and several people created "bed-n-breakasts" in their homes. Other plans were floated in public -- Jack McFadden's 2002 "boutique" hotel proposal for 11 S. High Street (next to his Turk's Head restaurant) and Brian McFadden's (no relation to Jack) 2003 plan for a hotel at Gay and Darlington Streets. So far, neither has panned out, but that may be about to change. Borough Council has received proposals from three different developers to construct a hotel at the corner of Walnut and Chestnut Streets, opposite the YMCA and the "Eli Kahn building." Because the proposals all involve the Mosteller Parking Garage, which is owned by the Borough and due for replacement, and state law allows municipal governments to discuss real estate matters in private (to prevent property owners from getting wind of future plans and gouging taxpayers by raising their selling price), discussions to date have all taken place out of the public eye.		The Mosteller parking garage needs to come down
The lobby of the Mansion House Hotel	A possible location for a downtown hotel
Council members felt uncomfortable with that, however, so they have scheduled a public meeting to allow the developers to present their plans. According to Paul Fitzpatrick, "Before Borough Council begins the process of considering any of them in a formal matter, we would like to obtain some public feedback." The meeting will take place in the auditorium at the Chester County Historical Society (225 N. High Street) on Thursday, July 13 from 6-9:30pm. Malcolm Johnstone, director of the Business Improvement District, will host the meeting, which will give the public a chance to see the plans and to offer written comments. The comments will be collected and given to Borough Council to use in their deliberations.

You may have missed it, but a couple of weeks ago the Philaelphia Inquirer Sunday real estate section ran an article by Al Heavens entitled "Philadelphia isn't as bad as they seem to think it is." Buried within the article was a reference to Bert Sperling and Peter Sander's new book, Best Places to Raise Your Family (Frommer/Wiley 2006) and the statement "In fact, nothing from South Jersey made the book; West Chester was the only place in this region's eight counties that did." In other words, once again West Chester has been singled out as a special place, not just in Chester County, but in the United States as a whole. According to the authors, West Chester offers "stable employment, local downtown amenities, a college presence, historic interest, recreation, and convenience at an attractive cost." To Sperling and Sanders, West Chester includes not just the Borough, but also everything in the 19380-19382 zip codes. That's why they concluded that West Chester's population is 54,613 (Borough population is about 18,000) and the median home price is $401,300 (in the Borough, it was $261,500 in 2005, according to another Inquirer article). [For more real estate information, see Trends.] They described the Borough as a "historic city core" in a 1.75 square mile area with 4,000 structures. "The architecture is interesting and diverse with well-kept Victorian and Greek Revival homes, a look that's somewhat reminiscent of older San Francisco. West Chester is pretty with ample trees, and the local government will plant and care for trees on individual properties for free." The last item is incorrect at present, but it's been discussed several times by Borough Council and promoted by the Shade Tree Commission. Still, the authors were correct about most things. They acknowledged problems with "long commute[s], some traffic congestion and hot, humid summers" but they also cited the area's diverse economic base, its attractive town center, and its educational facilities as its major pluses. They specifically mentioned West Chester University's 12,000 students and reported that the West Chester Area School District invests $7,564 per pupil per year, serves 11,600 students in fifteen schools (78.5% of all eligible students), and generates standardized test scores that are far above the national average. Besides being one of only two Philadelphia-area communities to make the top 100 (Arden, in Delaware, was the other one), West Chester also made the top ten list of desirable small towns for raising a family in the United States. The authors wrote that the West Chester area offers the "desirable ambience of small-town life in a big-city area" with lots of activities for families, good access to cities, mountains and seashore, low to moderate crime risk and an excellent hospital in the Borough. All in all, it sounds like we live in a pretty nice place, even if the summers do get hot and humid. [ NOTE: Thanks go to Malcolm Johnstone of the Business Improvement District for alerting WCJIM to this story.]

"Super Sunday" brings people into the Borough   US 202 links West Chester to Philadelphia   West Chester's architecture and trees are an attraction

For the past five weeks the Daily Local News has been reporting on Borough Council's effort to revise the height ordinance. Their June 11 editorial observed "West Chester residents can't have it both ways. We can't complain about developers desecrating our historic borough and at the same time, gripe about all the pristine land they're gobbling up in western and northern Chester County." As you might expect, the real discussion is much more complex than that, as this article will attempt to demonstrate.
Background: Despite rumors to the contrary, there is no "height crisis" that led to the current review. For the moment, the tallest object in the Borough is the 1847 Court House spire, 125 feet in height. The F&M Building, completed in 1908, is 90 feet high, although the antenna farm on its roof adds about twenty more feet. The 2003 "Eli Kahn Building" at 121 N. Walnut Street is 75 feet high and the new Justice Center will be 135 feet high when completed. In addition, West Chester University has several residence halls over fifty feet in height and a smokestack that is 200 feet tall. The review is a response to one recommendation of the 2000 Comprehensive Plan that "the height limit in the Historic District portion of this district [Town Center] should be lowered to respect the height of historic resources found there." It first appeared on Council's December 2005 Planning, Zoning, Business & Industrial Development (PZBID) committee agenda, but was put off until this spring when the completion of the 2006 budget and revision of the trash policy proved more time- consuming than originally planned.		The PECO smokestacks were 200 feet high. The plant was demolished in 1971. West Chester's skyline in June 2006
The height overlay districts The 2000 Comprehensive Plan included a recommendation to revisit the height ordinance because the current height ordinance was the result of an awkward compromise that resulted from political battles in the 1990s. From 1969 to 1995, the maximum height permitted in the borough was 100 feet, but a building of any size (i.e. no upper limit) was permitted by special exception, if granted by Borough Council. In 1995, following a pair of contentious public hearings, Council created a pair of "height overlay districts" -- one with no height limit and the other with a limit of 225 feet -- as long as the developer could get Borough Council's approval. [Read the transcript of the first 1995 public hearing] Elizabeth Barr (Rep, Ward 6) joined Council the following year and in April, voted with a 5-2 majority to revise the height limits once again. Using a proposal prepared by professional planner Thomas A. Comitta (whose spouse currently serves on Boroiugh Council as the Ward 5 representative), they reduced the height limits in the two overlay districts to 180 feet and 90 feet. That lasted less than two years. In March 1998, Shannon Royer (Rep, Ward 5), who had voted with the majority in both 1995 and 1996, changed his mind again and introduced a motion to raise the height limits once more. He convinced three other Republicans to support him and they voted to replace the 180-foot and 90-foot height option districts with unlimited and 180-foot districts, respectively, and to "delete other conditional use criteria in the height option section" such as a requirement to provide parking, include stores on the first floor and other items designed to make a large building less obtrusive. That sparked a revolt by Borough residents and business owners which included Holly Brown (now on Borough Council) and HARB chairman Roy Smith (currently on the Planning Commission) and they rallied the opposition to Royer's proposal. After a public hearing held on May 27th at the West Chester Community Center, Royer changed his mind once again and voted with another Republican and two Democrats "to postpone any action on this ordinance for an indefinite period at this time." The following year, a new Council (4 Democrats and 3 Republicans) presided over the revision of the Borough's Comprehensive Plan which is required by state law every ten years. The process was guided by Ray Ott & Associates, a professional planning firm, and overseen by the Planning Commission (composed entirely of people appointed by the outgoing Republican-controlled Council). Those sessions attracted lots of citizen participation and ended with no specific recommendation about what the maximum height limits should be. Instead, the Plan included the recommendation to revisit height limits in the future.
Since then, various Councils addressed nine general and many of the more than one hundred specific recommendations included in the Comprehensive Plan, so the height limit did not come up until last December. Council finally voted in February 2006 to ask the Planning Commission to gather information about a possible change. The first public discussion of the Planning Commission's work took place on May 30 and that triggered the first newspaper coverage on June 1. So far, the Planning Commission seems to be leaning towards making a request that Council employ a professional consultant to help guide the process.		The F&M building (foreground) and Eli Kahn building
The Present: At the May 30 meeting, the speakers framed the discussion in terms of "development" versus "historic preservation." It is interesting to note that the 1995 and 1998 discussions framed the issue much differently in terms of "attracting developers" versus and "how to protect the interests of people who have already invested in the Borough." The difference, of course, is that the Borough is no longer desperate to attract investors, and can now focus more on attracting the kinds of investment that complement what we want the Borough to become. That vision was summarized in the 2000 Comprehensive Plan as:
The Borough should remain basically a pedestrian oriented community. The Borough’s historic architectural resources and street and alley grid development pattern should be respected. Opportunities should be provided for the future growth of employment within the Borough. The livability and quality of life in the Borough should be maintained and improved by directing future housing growth to areas best equipped to accommodate additional housing and by addressing existing neighborhood problems, particularly those in areas where the existing housing density exceeds the capacity of existing parking and circulation systems. [Source: Borough of West Chester, 2000 Comprehensive Plan, Section IV. "Comprehensive Plan Recommendations: Overall Recommendations."]		The new radio tower at Borough Hall is 120 feet high
The May 30th Planning Commission meeting produced at least one unusual result. Malcolm Johnstone, executive director of the wildly successful and popular Business Improvement District (BID), found himself in the minority at a meeting where the audience was dominated by the "historic preservation" crowd. As each side made its position clear, the preservationists increasingly directed their remarks at Johnstone and the discussion turned into a "polite argument" about whether new construction or historic preservation drives economic development in the Borough. Walter Hipple, chair of the Historical and Architectural Review Board, summarized the "preservation" point-of-view in a letter to the Planning Commission that quoted from the HARB's own Design Guidelines: "A new building or addition should relate visually to neighboring contributing historic buildings. Proposals for new designs within the Historic District will be considered for their specific location and will be evaluated on their compatibility with neighboring historic structures." The HARB recommended a height limit of 90 feet (the same as the F. & M. building at the corner of High & Market Streets) and urged that this be granted only after considering the relation of a project to nearby buildings, to the streetscapes of which it would form a part, and to the character of the borough. [Read the HARB letter] Johnstone laid out the BID's position in a guest column that appeared in the Daily Local News on Monday, July 3. The BID favors a maximum height of 135 feet and "believes that the process for considering any new construction should be judged not only on its size but also its aesthetic, economic, and environmental values. When a balance of these three values is achieved, the community benefits on every level." Johnstone's column also pointed out that "new development significantly adds to the tax base. This pays for public services and helps keep taxes from going up too fast for home owners" and urged people with an interest in this issue to visit the Downtown Foundation website. [Read Johnstone's letter] The tax base issue is significant -- Borough Manager Ernie McNeely wrote about it in item 5 of his General Financial Conditions Comments -- 2006 Budget, and Council wrestles with the problem every year as it budgets for the following year. It is important, however, not to overstate the differences in the two positions. Advocates for both sides agree that the current 180- foot limit is too high, and everyone agrees that economic development is good for the Borough. The major issues to resolve are "how high" and where and for what reasons should exceptions to the general 45-foot limit be allowed. UPDATE: A number of the ideas discussed in this article coalesced into two proposals by December 2006. Read about them.

Last night, more than two hundred people headed to the Historical Society to hear four developers presented proposals to redevelop the Mosteller parking garage property at the corner of Walnut and Chestnut Streets. A few also got to ask questions, while more than 190 had the chance to fill out questionnaires that were collected to be shared with Borough Council members. Every "mover-and-shaker" in the Borough, as well as anyone who has ever been a player in the past ten years, was there. The audience included former Mayor Clifford DeBaptiste, a half dozen former council members, members of the HARB, Planning Commission, and Zoning Hearing Board, at least one County Commissioner, the NAACP president, several former heads of the West Chester Republican party, and many more people who have been involved in Borough affairs over the years.
The meeting began at 6PM when Malcolm Johnstone, the executive director of the Business Improvement District (BID), welcomed the audience, introduced the members of Borough government in attendance -- all but Mayor Yoder and Council members Steve Bond (Rep, Ward 2W) and Sue Bayne (Dem, Ward 4) -- and laid down the ground rules. Each presenter had forty-five minutes in which to explain their concepts without interruption, and then after everyone was finished, the presented answer questions provided in writing by members of the audience. The first presentation came from the Zukin Properties Group, owned by Borough resident Stan Zukin. The design team included a number of other Borough residents including Steve Krug of Buchart Horn/Blasco architects, Steve Aichele (lawyer and husband of County Commissioner Carol Aichele), Kit Anstey (realtor), Ray Ott & Associates (land planners) and others. Their plan would combine the Mosteller Garage, the Rite Aid building and Spence's Restaurant and construct a twelve story building with room for 843 parking spaces, a 100-room hotel, a hundred condominiums, a food store, a pharmacy and an updated Spence's restaurant. The four-story street facade includes numerous references to West Chester's historic heritage including an upstairs porch reminiscent of the Green Tree Inn. In all, the building devotes five floors to condos, three floors for parking, two floors for the hotel, one floor for the restaurant and banquet dining, plus the ground floor for various commercial uses. The total height of the proposed building would be about 125 feet. The second presentation came from RedGo Development, whose first speaker identified thei group as "endorsed by the YMCA board." Their plan calls for the demolition of the YMCA to build a new parking garage followed by the demolition of the Mosteller parking garage to build a six-story building including four floors of condominiums and two floors of commercial space. This was the only proposal that did not include a hotel. The total height would be 90 to 95 feet. Astra Development Group LLC gave the third presentation. They used most of it to show their projects in Delaware including a 1600-unit planned community in southern Newcastle County (called Bayberry Village), and to describe their expertise in building and managing hotels. One of their partners is architect Art Bernardon of Kennett Square, designer of the County's Justice Center and parking garage, the Eli Kahn building and several other structures in West Chester. They propose to build a 96-room hotel, 532-space parking garage and first floor retail space, all within six stories on the Mosteller lot, by placing two parking levels below ground. Although the building would be three stories higher than the "Eli Kahn building" across the street at 121 N. Walnut Street, they proposed to set the upper floors back far enough to make the building appear to be about the same height (75 feet) when viewed from the street.		The Redgo proposal puts condomiums on the left and a parking garage on the right connected by a skyway across Chestnut Street   Malcolm Johnstone (at the podium) reads questions to the presenters   Audience members inspect drawings during an intermission
The final presentation came from Teres Holdings LLC & Robert Hoe Associates -- the first a developer and the second a hotel management firm. One of their presenters was Mary Werner DeNadai, a partner in the architectural firm of John Milner of Chadds Ford who presented the Borough with the National Historic Trust "Distinctive Designation" award last March. They presented several different proposals that all relied solely on the Mosteller lot and used underground parking floors to provide enough parking within a smaller building. The result is nine floors of parking (two below ground) containing 630 spaces, plus commercial space on the ground floor, meeting space on the second floor and four floors for a hotel above that. One of their proposals -- to use "robotic parking" (a computer controlled elevator) to squeeze even more spaces into a smaller structure by eliminating access ramps between parking levels -- would allow them to add 24 condominiums facing Chestnut Street. There are some common elements to all of the plans. Each developer has to replace the 415 parking spaces in the current parking garage, and add enough spaces to meet the needs of any extra uses (like a hotel). Three of the four offer hotels and all proposed condominiums -- hotels to meet the need identified by numerous business sources over the past few years, and condominiums because they create taxable real estate for the Borough and customers for downtown businesses. Several of the plans include "green" design elements such as waterless urinals, use of active and passive solar heating and illumination, and even roofs covered with vegetation. All touted their financial benefit to the Borough and school district in the form of real estate and earned income taxes. The most noticeable differences were the height (Zukin's proposal was by far the tallest), the footprint (Zukin's and Redgo's both required lots in addition to the Mosteller parking garage property) and whether or not they included a hotel (Redgo did not). Afterward, there was time for the developers to answer three of the questions provided by members of the audience. One asked about the net gain in parking (all four proposals replace the existing parking, provide enough for enterprises located within their walls, and add extra spaces beyond that). Another asked about how to compensate for the supposed "seasonality" of the hotel business (there was disagreement over whether the hotel business in a place like West Chester would be seasonal). The third asked whether restaurants in the new structures would adhere to the same "green" principles used in construction by serving only organic foods, etc. Two developers said yes and the other two said that they did not plan to operate restaurants. All assured the audience that local wishes would be taken into account. The meeting ended about 9:15pm although it took another half hour for everyone to clear the room, as there were many private discussions about the significance of what they had heard. Borough Manager Ernie McNeely collected a thick pack of questionnaires for Council to consider. The feeling by the end of the meeting was pretty upbeat -- after all, they were discussing how to build something new and a lot of people had shown their interest by coming out and staying to he end. The process of narrowing down the proposals should prove interesting. View details of the four hotel proposals

WCJIM was away for a week, but as recommended by police chiefs all over the country, he did not advertise that fact on his web site. Instead, he explored the mountains around Wilkes-Barre and Scranton and found this obscure relic of an episode in West Chester history. In Scranton's Nay Aug Park, located on the east side overlooking I-81, there is a museum built with money that came from the sale of West Chester real estate. The builder was Isaiah Fawkes Everhart, a nephew of William Everhart, the man who left his name all over the west end of the Borough of West Chester. Isaiah's passion was collecting specimens of Pennsylvania flora and fauna. After his wife died in 1898 and he became estranged from his only child Edwin, he began looking for a way to house his collection. He found his answer in the will of Benjamin M. Everhart, the last of William Everhart's children to die. William's will divided his estate evenly among his children, but as each passed away, he or she left his share to the surviving siblings. First James died in 1888, then Thomazine in 1892, then John in 1901 and Mary in January 1904, until only Benjamin was left. After Benjamin died in late 1904, most of the family's land holdings including a hotel, several stores and more than 75 rental properties went to Isaiah, a successful medical doctor in Scranton.
There were challenges, however. The Everhart children had other cousins in West Chester, notably Mary Fawkes (Mrs. Charles) Lee, who lived in the house on the southwest corner of Miner & Darlington Streets. But Benjamin's will left over fifty properties to his tenants and friends in the Borough, and Isaiah instructed his local representative, lawyer John Gheen, to donate the grove that became Everhart Park to the Borough. The court challenges fizzled out and Isaiah inherited seventy-six other properties worth more than $185,000.
Isaiah Everhart's museum ...		... and statue
As Gheen slowly disposed of the West Chester properties, Everhart set aside $40,000 for the construction of the museum and another $100,000 for an endowment to generate revenue with which to operate it. He briefly considered building it out of Chester County serpentine (the green stone used in a number of buildings in West Chester from that period) but abandoned that idea after Gheen wrote that it was "not durable." To enlarge the Museum, the Trustees raised money to construct two additional wings in 1928, but Everhart did not not see it. He died on May 25, 1911, five days after a bronze statue and a lake bearing his name were dedicated. Nowadays, the museum is open from Wednesday through Saturday and offers rotating art exhibits plus a permanent collection based on Everhart's donation. Everhart's likeness survives in a larger-than-life-sized bronze statue situated outside the Museum, overlooking flower beds that stretch nearly a block to Mulberry Street. For more information about the Everhart Museum in Scranton, visit their website at http://www.everhart-museum.org.		A 10-inch cannon shell from the USS Maine -- part of the Everhart collection