The song remains the same:
Woodmere survives scrutiny, no complaint
too small for neighbors

by MICHAEL J. MISHAK

Robert Shusterman thinks it's too big.

Heidi, his wife, thinks it's designed for parties.

John Kimberly fears it will mean more development.

Barbara, his wife, thinks it will attract more cars.

Woodmere Art Museum's neighbors aired these and other concerns about the institution's proposed addition during a three-plus hour meeting of the Chestnut Hill Community Association's (CHCA) Development Review Committee (DRC) last week.

After considerable deliberation, the DRC unanimously approved the Woodmere project, but not without strings attached.

The support is contingent on a legal contract between the CHCA and Woodmere that mandates the museum complies with its neighbors' demands.

Now, the project passes to the CHCA board for final approval.

The meeting was the cap on an often bitter and contentious process that dragged on months longer than planned and frustrated all involved.

For Woodmere, that frustration resulted from a CHCA process it sees as flawed and from some neighbor concerns it sees as unreasonable.

Neighbors take issue with a project whose scope they feel will harm their quality of life and the residential character of the area, not to mention their property values.

When Woodmere presented its application for the Venturi, Scott Brown & Associates design in February, the DRC told the museum its project would be evaluated by several CHCA committees during a two-month period before returning for final approval.

Due to scheduling conflicts, the timetable reached into June following the approval of both the Land Use Planning & Zoning (LUPZ) and Aesthetics committees and Chestnut Hill Historical Society.

Still, a coalition of neighbors opposed the project, some voicing dissent each step of the way. While the Shustermans and the Kimberlys emerged as the most vocal opponents, at least four of the 16 neighboring residences also expressed objection either verbally or in writing.

According to Woodmere, the project has either the verbal or written approval of at least six of its neighbors. Others have not responded.

Participation

Woodmere's embattled expansion plans were the topic of several public meetings and received continuing coverage in the Local, notwithstanding Woodmere's private invitations to its neighbors to view the plans during each phase of planning.

Still, Robert Shusterman contended, "no one reached out to us to talk about our concerns."

"The process slipped," he said.

Shusterman cited communication problems for his lack of information. He admitted to attending three CHCA meetings on the project as of last week's DRC meeting. The Shustermans did not attend the May LUPZ meeting when that group's subcommittee delivered its report on the project. Heidi Shusterman said they were attending another event for their child.

Schantz attributed recent dissent to Shusterman's efforts.

"A year ago, people seemed enthusiastic," Schantz said. "But thanks to Shusterman, who has effectively mobilized the neighbors, we're hearing these complaints."

In an earlier interview, Schantz said Woodmere had done everything in its power short of doing door-to-door, saying, "That kind of effort may not be appropriate. We can't force people to make a stand."

"We know about quality of life issues," he said. "We've followed a whole list generated by neighbor discussions. The best we can do is respond."

At this phase of the project, Schantz said Woodmere is reluctant to make changes to the design because of the resulting costs. "You can't stop a project based on one person," he said last week, directing his comment at Shusterman.

Nicholson also expressed frustration.

Following "the ordained process," Nicholson said, required Woodmere to present a complete design to the city's Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) for refusal. Then, only after review and approval by the CHCA, Woodmere can reapply at the ZBA for a use variance. Along with additional cost, changes to the initial design could hold the project up even further.

Initially slated for June, construction may not commence until December, Schantz said.

Parking

Parking has been a sticking point and was the first of several issues to arise at the June 15 DRC meeting. Acting as representatives, the Kimberlys and Shustermans voiced their concerns, along with those of neighbors whose signatures they collected on an objection letter the previous night.

Robert Shusterman said he had observed "many instances" of overflow parking at Woodmere with cars parked on the museum's lawn. The proposed addition, he said, would "inherently generate more parking than the lot can handle," forcing the museum to use its lawn for parking on a regular basis.

Woodmere director Michael Schantz refuted the claim. Presenting a parking log and overflow management plan, Schantz said the museum held 10 special events last year that required lawn parking. The institution has used the Sugarloaf conference center, located across Germantown Avenue, to accommodate overflow parking three times in recent memory, he said.

"Some neighbors think there is an automatic equation — if you double the space, you will double attendance," he said. "It's just wrong to suggest that."

The parking-overflow management plan shows 81 parking spaces, with an additional 150 on the lawn. According to the museum's architects, the city zoning code requires just 60 spaces.

Usage

Citing the proposed addition's warming kitchen, terrace and 1,500-ft. multi-purpose room, Heidi Shusterman said: "It looks like it would be used for parties all the time."

John Kimberly also expressed concern about the rental of the museum, asking Woodmere for a written guarantee against it.

"We want some assurance that five years from now we won't be sitting here in the same room," Kimberly said.

Schantz, who became Woodmere's director more than 20 years ago, said he had stopped the museum's prior rental practices, which caused considerable damage to the institution and its grounds.

"For $125, you could rent [Woodmere] for anything," Schantz said. "It looked like a farmyard. It was a dump. This is the administration that stopped that."

Despite an "enormous" number of rental requests, Schantz said Woodmere hasn't honored a single one.

"Any suggestion that we would do anything to harm the community is insulting to me personally," Schantz said. "I think you need to give us a little credit. Some people have short memories."

Though the initial plans called for a full-kitchen and cafe, the museum pared its options, Nicholson said.

Lighting

The Kimberlys expressed concern about lighting spillover. Illustrating the placement with a site plan, Eva Lew, senior associate at Venturi, Scott Brown & Associates, said the light poles would stand 16 feet high and be located 45 feet apart. Directed away from neighbors, the lights would illuminate only the parking lot, Lew said. At its closest point, the parking lot is still 20 feet from the museum property line, she said.

Landscaping

But Barbara Kimberly said she would still be able to see cars from her second floor window. And without proper landscape screening, headlights would shine through her windows.

Heidi Shusterman also criticized the landscape plan, fearing the loss of more trees.

While 15 trees will be removed for construction, Nicholson said, Woodmere is willing to work with neighbors to screen the site with future plantings.

Addressing concerns about the potential clogging of the proposed pervious parking lot, Nicholson said maintenance is included in the museum's operating budget.

Robert Shusterman said he had spoken with several neighbors who would prefer Wissahickon schist instead of the brick material chosen by the architects. In its report, the LUPZ subcommittee respected the architect's "complementary, not imitative" material, said Larry McEwen, subcommittee chair.

Greg Woodring, DRC chairman, agreed.

When John Kimberly restated his fear of further development, Woodring said he was reluctant to place expansion limits on the institution. "I don't want to close the doors on expansion," Woodring said.

Detailing the design, McEwen said the plan did not lend itself to further development.

Confronting claims that the proposed addition would harm area property values, Schantz cited a Philadelphia Cultural Fund study that showed the stabilizing effect of cultural institutions. The average sale price for homes in neighborhoods with many cultural institutions increased nearly $30,000 between 1995 and 2000, Schantz said, while others without those resources increased by $10,000.

Schantz ensured neighbors that Woodmere had already raised the funds to finish the project, and that the construction firm was chosen for its demonstrated ability to work with neighbors in residential areas.

When the construction firm worked on the Delaware Art Museum, Schantz said, neighbors could contact the workers via cell phone.

The CHCA, as it has done with other institutions, will draft an agreement with Woodmere addressing the following: acoustic and visual screening during construction, lighting curfews, landscape screening, parking management, construction communication and property management.

Robert Shusterman was designated as community liaison for the Woodmere neighbors.

A draft of the agreement was scheduled for review by the Woodmere board last week, and the project will be on the agenda for the CHCA board meeting this week.

Without an official document, the vote for final approval will be tabled until the July meeting.