TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION

Ad Hoc Ardmore Committee

Township Administration Building
Board of Commissioners Room

Meeting Notes

Thursday, March 3, 2011, 6:30 – 8:00 PM

Attendees:
Commissioner Cheryl Gelber, Chair Commissioner George Manos
Board President Liz Rogan Commissioner Steven Lindner

Carl Dranoff Teri Simon Cheryl Allison

Michael Coughlan Hugh Gordon Anne Iskrant
Allison & Chad Graham Maryam Phillips Val Hiscock
Peter Monaghan Joe Dellapenna Joshua Weingram
Christine Vilardo Carl Watson Harry Althouse
Andew Scott Janet Ceglowski Steve Gaylon
Mike Silver Alex McDonnell Andrew Scott

Doug Cleland, Township Manager

Angela Murray, Lower Merion Twp. Staff Eric Persson, Lower Merion Twp. staff

1. Report from the Chair - Commissioner Cheryl Gelber

The meeting started at 6:35pm. Commissioner Gelber welcomed those in attendance and
requested that each attendee briefly state their name and affiliation so the entire group would be
familiar with each other. Cheryl noted that Commissioner Jane Dellheim was unable to attend
due to illness. Cheryl stated that the purpose of the meeting was to better determine what
direction the Township should take with the Ardmore Transit Center development project given
funding shortages. The first option is to complete the design and build as has been proposed
when funds are available. Another option might be to phase the development while another
option could be to scale down the project working with existing funds. Cheryl noted that after the
brief PowerPoint presentation, the job of the Committee will be to discuss what might make the

1
most sense as to how to proceed and how to allocate the existing funds. Cheryl asked Doug
Cleland to provide an update on the current status of the Ardmore Transit Center project.

2. Ardmore Transit Center, Presentation of Major Options and Committee Members Public
Discussion

Before proceeding with the presentation, Doug Cleland reviewed a few “housekeeping” items.
He explained that tonight’s PowerPoint is a shortened presentation from the one presented at the
Economic Revitalization Committee on February 2, 2011. Carl Dranoff will also provide an
update on the mixed-use project. Drew Scott from Urban Engineer’s whose team is designing the
public and transit improvements is also in attendance. The Township’s team has been working
very closely with Urban Engineers, JKR Partners (Dranoff’s architects), Amtrak, SEPTA, and
neighbors for the last year to develop a workable project. The Township has been working for
nearly a decade on this project in stages and has run into problems at times given the limited land
area and the desire to revitalize Ardmore. Doug noted that the Township wanted to be upfront
about the status of funding for the project and be here to listen to the community. Previous ideas
may be brought forth and could be pertinent now.
The current gap in funding is approximately $30+ million. However, with the Dranoff Properties
private investment coupled with the $15M state Redevelopment Assistance Capital Program
(“RACP”) grant, there could be $65 million available for the project. On February 2nd, the
PowerPoint presented to the Board of Commissioners showed the design for the public and transit
improvements and mixed-use building as designed. One of the topics with minimal discussion
has been possible future development on the Cricket Parking Lot. This project has always been
thought about as a second or third phase after the Transit Center development was completed.
Although we are not ready tonight to discuss this topic in detail, it may be a worthwhile topic to
review in two weeks at the next Ad Hoc Ardmore meeting on 3/17. The Cricket project was
advanced to only a conceptual design by JKR Partners several years ago, the Dranoff architects,
but it was considered as was the Bernicker parking lot and the Schauffele Plaza locations. Carl
will talk more about the funding gap and his plan for phasing to reduce the scope of the project.
But the goals would be lessened, and we need to understand what goals will be important and the
highest priority to the community. The Township has been proud to have Carl on our team. We
have accomplished projects associated with the Transit Center such as the Ardmore Avenue
intersection improvements and the enhancement of the Anderson Avenue underpass that is almost
completed. All attendees received a hard copy of the slides from the presentation.
Doug presented the PowerPoint noting that the design replaced the conceptual over-build
pedestrian access with a new tunnel beneath the tracks which is very expensive as was the case
with the overbuild. The parking garage is proposed to be 500+ above-ground parking spaces
including 300 spaces for Amtrak & SEPTA commuters. The garage would require demolition
and re-configured Public Safety Building Addition (“PSBA”). Noting the numerous design
challenges, the project has gone through numerous configurations and there are more to be
developed as we move through the analysis. Doug designated the designed Ardmore Transit
Center as “Option 1.”
Carl presented his new mixed-use private proposal estimated to cost in the range of $55 million to
$58 million. Carl stated this he is still very excited about the project, adding that his architects
“pulled apart and put the project back together again.” Carl noted that he thought that the Board
of Commissioners were pretty clear to him at the February 2nd ERC meeting that they wanted him
to come back with another plan that could be built with available funding. The new proposal

2
retained the mixed-use apartment building, significantly reduced the parking garage, eliminated
platform access and postponed the public and transit improvements explaining that he is proposed
this option since we do not have all the money to complete those public improvements. However,
even if the funding gap increases the proposed Dranoff March 3rd Option 2 to $60 million, Carl
thought that cost level would still be manageable. The concept would be to build the full project
at one time because staging could be more expensive. Carl is also proposing to build, own and
manage the parking garage. The garage would be reduced (from eight levels) to five levels, and
go from 600+ spaces down to 270 parking spaces that would include the parking for residential.
The number of apartments would be 108, but the units would have a smaller footprint. The new
configuration of the building footprint creates a loss of about 125 square feet per floor. There
were originally 124 apartments planned on eight floors. The underground parking has been
eliminated under this plan and relocated into the above ground garage.
Carl stated that this is a buildable plan. The plan eliminates the public improvements; parking
garage ramps get reduced, while the tunnel and ADA accessible raised transit platforms get
delayed. Carl recounted recent discussions with SEPTA and asked them if these delays are
acceptable. The general manager responded that SEPTA deferred the funding for this project,
along with 22 other projects in their capital budget. Until SEPTA’s capital budget funding is
restored, other options could be considered. Carl noted that new riders from an apartment
building would be a positive for SEPTA. Doug stated that the public improvements are
tremendously expensive. Commissioner Gelber queried whether the public improvements are
already design-ready. Doug stated that they are and that the engineering money has been well
spent as the design will be used when the public improvements could be funded and installed.
In reviewing the PowerPoint slides for his new proposal, Carl stated that some of the savings
come from eliminating the down access ramp and basement parking in the proposed multi-use
garage. Also, he did not like the currently proposed location of the loading dock within his
building footprint, and by eliminating the transit platforms, the re-design would allow the
direction of the loading dock to be reversed to reduce conflicts with pedestrians. The siting of the
elevators can be changed and since there are no raised platforms being built under this option, he
believes there is no need for rear elevator access. The access to the station would then all be done
by traversing the new “Mini-Main Street” rather than having direct access from the parking
garage to the raised transit platform as designed. Carl improved the exterior ground floor of the
mixed-use building by adding overhanging awnings and coverings. The retail space would stay
relatively the same, but increase to 13,000 square feet. The building would look virtually the
same as the original design. The floor plans are similar as well.
Carl concluded his presentation by noting that the new proposal (March 3rd “Option 2”) is being
looked at as a phased project, where 60 percent can be built now. When additional money
becomes available for public improvements, then the rest can be done. Carl would also like to
make some minor façade improvements to the existing façade of the station, but this may not be
able to be done due to ADA accessibility requirements.
Commissioner Gelber questioned whether any existing money is at risk under this new option.
Carl stated that the PA RACP funds are under contract. Doug stated that there is some risk if the
project incurs additional time delays, and if money is not used.
Teri Simon asked if any of the proposed parking would be available to the public or Ardmore
businesses or customers. Carl expressed his view that in his view there is little trouble with use
of parking spaces. The new proposal would provide 100 replacement parking spaces for SEPTA
commuter use and will need a minimum of 125 spaces for the apartment residents leaving about
35-40 parking spaces for every other use. Doug stated that the mixed-use building does have to
meet MUST parking requirements and that zoning required parking for retail must be

3
accommodated. Doug noted that the new Dranoff proposal is a reduction of the number of
parking spaces currently available on the two (Amtrak & LMT) sites. The original plan also has
issues with MUST compliance and this proposed plan will also have zoning compliance issues.
Carl also noted that SEPTA parkers generally all leave in the evening, leaving commuter parking
available for evening uses in Ardmore.
Alex stated that there is not a lot of activity in Ardmore during the evening at the moment. He
also wanted to know how the garage is accessed and if the access will be adequate for vehicles to
enter. Doug stated the vehicular entrance would still be from Rittenhouse Place. With a smaller
garage facility, the vehicular entry may be a little easier, but the proposed entrance has always
been tight.
Commissioner George Manos acknowledged that the presentation at the ERC meeting seemed to
indicate that square footage needed was difficult on the site, but the new proposal seems doable.
Commissioner Manos asked if SEPTA came up with additional money could the project be
changed to meet SEPTA parking needs. Carl felt that this could be done although there would be
a need for some design changes.
Doug asked if Drew Scott of Urban Engineers from the Township’s team could elaborate on the
parking situation. Drew indicated that most of the transit improvements would be easier to install
when there was open space available as is the existing conditions. However, he noted that many
stations undergo improvements within these types of constraints, but it is more expensive and
time consuming.
Cheryl asked if there were any thoughts about a tunnel farther east, near Rittenhouse Place.
Angela Murray explained that the topography and elevation drops significantly as the tracks
advance east. Drew noted that as the mixed-use project is designed now or with the new
proposal, the tunnel suggested would land directly under the development. If a tunnel was moved
further east, it may not be considered an ADA accessible path and federal funding may not be
available for the construction. Cheryl then questioned if Suburban Square could participate
financially with a tunnel. Christine Vilardo then noted that Ardmore Initiative has had this type
of discussion. She stated that customers are not concerned about a tunnel. Customers tend to
drive to their locations, whether it is in Suburban Square or the traditional Ardmore commercial
area.
Angela also noted that Amtrak has to make ADA accessible improvements at the station due to
Federal mandates. Doug noted that even with a tunnel in the initial proposal, it was very deep
and expensive – and it was even more expensive than an overhead crossing which had also been
explored previously but was not workable.
Harry Althouse raised two points and asked for verification. He asked if the proposal (Dranoff
“Option 2”) would be built all at one time. And if so, would all the current parking be lost during
the construction. This situation was confirmed. Harry noted that he was pro-development, but it
was not rocket science to notice that if the Option 1 plan has already been thought of as not
having enough parking, then this plan has nothing. It was still unclear if the Township would use
any of the proposed parking, and nothing has been provided to indicate that any parking for the
Township had been allocated. Harry also stated that the Police Department staff who currently
park on the Township “Athensville” lot will need to still park in the area. If that is true, then
where would his customers be able to park. Harry questioned whether this plan handled any
existing parking needs since that is something that he cares about.
Steve Gaylon noted that he thinks he understands the smaller-scaled project and it does appear
doable. Doug cautioned that there are still many constraints. Some of the assumptions presented
for the Dranoff Option 2 are aggressive. Steve then reiterated that regardless, let something

4
happen soon. If the project is possible even with less parking, then we should proceed with it.
The new development, regardless of the smaller size, will drive revitalization. Doug commented
that the details still have to be worked out and that it is unclear if the transit agencies would allow
it.
Cheryl then stated that Carl’s proposal is only one option. The committee is also looking for
other options. Christine Vilardo questioned if we could look at a taller structure, and then leave
the Public Safety Building Addition alone. Carl stated that this had been looked at, but the
constraints on the site become too expensive for the money in hand. The cost would rise above
$40,000 per parking space because of the loss of efficiency. Teri Simon commented that it was a
very constrained site. She thought a main reason for the Ardmore Transit Center was for new
expanded parking. Cricket Avenue was also attractive and asked Carl what the changes are that
he proposed for the Cricket Avenue lot. She asked if it would allow for more parking than the
Transit Center site.
Carl stated that they have looked at the Cricket lot, and still intend to build on both sites.
However, building on each lot requires relocating existing parking during construction. Doug
noted that this is why he prefaced the night’s presentation with having to discuss what to do at the
Cricket Lot which could be an Option 3. Doug noted that we could also discuss an option to only
do transportation improvements on the Ardmore Transit Center site, but there are problems with
this also. That is why he suggested that the Cricket Avenue project be discussed at the next Ad
Hoc Ardmore Committee on March 17th so the Ad Hoc Committee can reacquaint itself with
what was proposed by JKR Partners several years ago and what the options are for that site.
Cheryl asked Carl if any thought had been given to more parking on the Bernicker Lot. Doug
stated that this has certainly been looked at many times over many years, but it is a public lot and
finding money to do public parking improvements would be necessary. Carl stated that he had
looked at decking that lot as well as the Ardmore Transit Center development.
Alex McDonnell wanted to know more about pedestrian access along Rittenhouse Place. Doug
recognized that this is a concern, as it is a constricted site. Alex stated that after looking at the
Dranoff Option 2 development, it would look like access farther east would be helpful. He too,
feels we should do something. Christine Vilardo stated that the proposed Option 2 was not a full
project, but rather 60% of the original project and with parking considerably reduced. She asked
where commuters would park during this type of construction. A temporary parking plan is being
prepared and would be presented to the public when final engineering and design is underway.
Doug stated that the MUST ordinance has conditions that must be met on parking requirements.
The apartment residents will have to have the public walking to the train outside their building
and other transportation must access the area. For the concern about during construction parking,
the Ardmore West parking lot can help alleviate lost parking, but it does not satisfy everything.
We may have to look at valet parking and other alternatives to disperse parking. Carl noted that
he has used the services of Philly Car Share at this other developments, and it has been very
successful and helps reduce the need for additional cars owned by residents. He intends to house
a car share location within this development as well.
Cheryl restated that she thinks this is why a deck is needed at the Bernicker Lot. This idea was
seconded by Val Hiscock. Doug stated Lower Merion Township is an employer just like other
businesses in the area. The Township has employees now who park off-site and the Township
will continue to try to be good neighbors to the surrounding businesses. We will be challenged to
continue current parking while under construction. Val asked if employees could be encouraged
to use more public transportation. Doug stated that this has been discussed, but noted that
suburban areas such as Ardmore suffer with lack of sufficient parking. In fact, this was one of the
reasons we were trying to create more parking for SEPTA and businesses at this location. Angela

5
stated that public transportation use is promoted by the Township to its employees and that the
reduced cost SEPTA Transit Pass is sold by and promoted through the Township. Doug noted
that the use of the train and bus still might not be convenient for most of those who live outside
the Township. Angela noted that to ride the train from her residence requires riding into
Philadelphia to change rail lines, before riding on out to Ardmore and has taken three hours in
poor weather conditions.
Doug stated that we will have to continue to study the parking resources. Parking studies
completed as part of the Ardmore Master Plan showed that Ardmore is not fully parked, but the
locations for parking may not be in the best areas for maximum usage. Steve Gaylon stated that
if we could get three million more dollars, then we could add another deck to Dranoff’s Option 2.
Angela stated that SEPTA has had to defer twenty-two projects because of a shortfall of capital
budget funding, but fully intends to advance their participation in this project some day. They
have encouraged us to continue with design and engineering completion. When their funding is
resolved which they expect to be as soon as this fall, the capital budget would include this project.
Cheryl commented that she had not heard anyone mention concepts for staging the project. Doug
stated that Carl’s plan is a staging, somewhat, by delaying the public and transit portion. Mike
Coughlan stated that he wanted to look again at parking. He thinks that Lower Merion Township
will have to find someplace else to park. Doug agreed that the parking issue has to be resolved
and that the Township is trying to be a good neighbor. Mike continued by saying that it seems to
make sense to solve the problem now since it will be more economical now. Mike asked if that
had been talked about. Doug replied that is why we are talking about it now and that the why’s
and why not’s must be talked about. Doug stated that he is always looking at parking and that
some might even consider him a nag on this topic. However, Carl is a developer and knows how
apartments are used, some of which require lower parking ratios.
Alison Graham wanted to confirm the estimated cost of a deck at $3 million. If so, she asked if
we thought of asking SEPTA for $3 million now, instead of the $10 million later. Doug stated
that SEPTA staff has been great to work with noting again that SEPTA does not have the money
at this time. Even if $3M could be provided by SEPTA, it would have to be used toward the
public and transit improvements rather than a private garage.
Alison then asked if there was any parking allocated for Amtrak. Doug stated that Amtrak has
asked for parking spaces and we have declined to provide more commuter spaces than what is
proposed for SEPTA. However, they own the land and it is leased to SEPTA and that will be
difficult to overcome. Doug explained that we are actually in a better position with Amtrak than
ever before, but still no funding has come from Amtrak other than for catenary poles. Our
parking consultant has considered numerous parking options that address the multiple needs and
uses including secure long-term and overnight parking which is what Amtrak really needs.
Chad Graham commented that there are a lot of apartments in the area already and there does not
appear to be any impact on increased travel across the tracks for businesses. Christine stated that
she thought that a north/south connection between the commercial areas and apartments could be
achieved by the new retail at the site. Doug noted that we should not discount the Anderson
Avenue improvements as the improvements will encourage more travel and use through this
corridor.
Commissioner Steve Lindner stated that something needs to be accomplished at the site. A
building on the site would be good for Ardmore revitalization and still accommodate future
development. Even a small success will encourage larger successes. The proposed parking will
have move spaces available at night which can encourage more night uses in Ardmore.

6
Doug noted that the project could be a spur for improvements to the rear of the Lancaster Avenue
businesses. Christine asked if we have money for the rear façade improvements. Doug stated
that the overall improvement of those facades could in the hundred of thousands of dollars. A
source of funds has not been identified as yet.
Doug noted that we are still in the early stages of discussions with Amtrak and it is unclear if this
new Dranoff proposal #2would be accepted or even feasible. There are concerns that any
improvements do automatically kick in ADA requirements for the station among other concerns.
Hugh Gordon stated that he believes the Township can easily come up with $3 million dollars if it
wanted to. He also stated that there did not seem to be any plans in place for the loss of parking
for use by the Township. Hugh did know that some Commissioners said they will not spend tax
money on the project, but to put eighty spaces out of use in the community could be a business
killer. Doug agreed that parking needs have to be addressed before the transit center development
commences.
Steve Lindner reiterated his earlier comments that the project is only one piece in Ardmore, and if
work is started, it will kick in other new developments.
Cheryl Allison asked that if the proposed project is all done privately, will the project still be able
to use the RACP money. Carl stated his belief that the RACP language does not specify exactly
where RACP money has to be used, only that the money must be equally matched and it would
be matched by his private money. Doug noted that this point is important. The project only has
$15 million in RACP funds and additional match to the state funds are needed although the
federal funds serve as a match. The private money has to come from private development.
Presently, there are insufficient funds available for the public transit improvements.
Alex asked when this project could really happen. Carl commented that once the Board of
Commissioners approved a concept, that would lock in the concept and he could have his
architects begin working on the final plans. Carl stated that he would conservatively estimate that
it could take one year to complete the final plans and receive all appropriate permits. Doug also
added the project would be subject to land development and zoning approvals. Carl felt that
those approvals could be done concurrently with the final design process, as long as we do not
have to keep responding to Amtrak about the design.
Teri Simon stated that some attendees may recall the past talks that the Bernicker Lot would not
be needed since all new parking would be added at the Transit Center garage. Doug concurred
with Teri, but responded that where to put parking was the goal since we would like to have all
the parking. Comments going back to 1994 suggested that up to 800 spaces were needed, but a
lot of it was for Amtrak and SEPTA. If we want to encourage connectivity, we also have to be
careful not to be too congested. Mike Coughlan was concerned that places for Township parking
must be identified. Angela restated the RACP time limitations and stated that if we spend
additional time now planning for parking on Bernicker, the RACP funds may be lost due to
timing. Carl noted that another concern may be inflation, as he knows that steel prices have been
going up, as well as other prices for materials. In his view, this could be a good time to lock in
the prices and the project.
Val Hiscock requested clarification on the design time-frame and asked if it was only one year.
Carl stated that yes, in his view it would be a year from when he gets the go-ahead. Carl said that
while we are all excited, we are all impatient. If we keep going around and not coming to a
decision, we will lose momentum. Val then wanted to understand the time-frame after the design
process. Carl stated that it could take fifteen months to complete the building and about three
more months to complete the punch list for about 18 months in total. It would take about six
months to see a structure. Teri noted that she liked Dranoff’s design for the 777 South Broad

7
project in Philadelphia and asked if the parking worked for that facility. Carl noted that the
parking was on a large surface lot adjoining the building and that the parking/residential unit ratio
in that complex was one-to-one.
Commissioner Gelber stated to those in attendance that now is the time to mull over these ideas
and to come back in two weeks to discuss this proposal and the Ardmore Transit Center project
design, and to also discuss the Cricket Avenue project. A date in April has not been set with the
Board of Commissioners for the next ERC meeting as yet. Doug also mentioned that the
demolition of the PSBA building as part of this proposal still has to be evaluated and the phasing
determined. Lower Merion Township recognizes that changes may be needed if progress is to be
made. The Township may have to establish agreements with other municipalities for jail use and
inmates and identify the costs associated with such temporary arrangements.
Cheryl asked Commissioner Lindner about the development concerns in his ward, and asked if he
saw any issues with this new proposal. Steve responded that there will be concerns and added
that when residents see development at the transit center, some minds may be different. Doug
also shared this concern, and that is why he has asked that the prior proposed Cricket Avenue
project be presented and become familiar to all again.
Cheryl stated that she thought it was time to go back to the civics with this new information.
Christine stated that she meant no disrespect, but felt that these Ad hoc Ardmore meetings have
been well publicized and anyone had the opportunity to participate if they so chose.
Mike Coughlan commented that many people liked the Cricket project. Doug agreed, but also
noted this project would abut more residential properties than the Transit Center. Cheryl asked if
the presentation materials were up on the website. Angela agreed that the Power Point would be
placed on the Township website the following morning. Cheryl asked if the minutes would be
uploaded onto the Township website. Doug stated that this would also be the case noting that the
press was also in attendance this evening, as well as Carl.
Alex asked other than the Cricket project, is the Transit Center project still the primary topic at
the March 17th Ad Hoc meeting. Doug responded yes, this is the main topic for discussion. Carl
Watson stated that he had some funding questions specifically about Amtrak’s request for
catenaries. Angela responded that for the Township received a letter from Amtrak agreeing to
construct the catenary poles at their expense if other requirements were met.
Cheryl expressed her interest in locating a Lucky Strike –type bowling alley project within the
development. However, the requirements for this type of space are well over 40,000 square feet
and there is not enough room here for that type of operation. The Lucky Strike on Chestnut Street
in Philadelphia has 40,000 SF on two floors.
Mike then commented that holding an Economic Revitalization Committee meeting so soon after
the March 17th meeting sounded like an aggressive schedule since it could be June before we get
answers to all the questions.
Carl Watson asked if there was any chance we could get the $10 million back from SEPTA.
Angela stated that SEPTA is working very hard in Harrisburg to secure the funding for their
capital budget. The expiration of Act 44 that provided dedicated capital funding and the failure
of the effort to toll the interstate has caused the deferral of twenty–two major capital projects.
SEPTA executives have indicated that they hope to have the funding resolved by the fall of this
year. SEPTA has allowed design to continue on those capital projects that are well underway
such as Ardmore and Paoli and these would be the most likely to receive capital program funding
for construction contribution. Angela asked Peter Monaghan if his understanding for the Paoli
project was as she described and he concurred. SEPTA does understand that some projects such

8
as Ardmore, and similar to the Dilworth Plaza project in Center City have grant funding that is
time sensitive.

Cheryl suggested that if anyone has questions, to contact Angela Murray.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:40pm.

The next meeting will take place on Thursday March 17, 2011 at 6:30 PM in the Township
Administration Building in a wing of the Board of Commissioners room.

9
 TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION

Ad Hoc Ardmore Committee

Agenda

Thursday, March 17, 2011, 6:30 PM

Township Administration Building

Board of Commissioners Room

Members:

Commissioner Cheryl Gelber, Chair

Board President Elizabeth Rogan
Commissioner Steven Lindner
Commissioner Jane Dellheim

1. Report from the Chair - Commissioner Cheryl Gelber

2. Ardmore Transit Center: Updates and Options under consideration; Continuation of

Committee Members public discussion on project options and goal priorities; Review
of Use of municipal parking lot off Cricket Avenue

3. Ardmore Project Updates

a. Ardmore/Lancaster Avenue Realignment Project

b. Anderson Avenue Underpass Enhancement

4. Other updates