Apr2011AdHoc Exh

8/7/2019 Apr2011AdHoc Exh

1/9

Exhibit

TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION

Department of Building and Planning

TO: Douglas S. Cleland, Township Manager

FROM: Angela N. Murray, AICP, Assistant Director

SUBJECT: Ardmore Transit Center Options

DATE: April 15, 2011________________________________________________________________________

Background:

On February 2, 2011, the 45% Design and Engineering Plans for the Ardmore Transit Center and theDranoff Properties private mixed-use development were presented to the Economic Revitalization

Committee of the Board of Commissioners. This presentation included information regarding theestimated costs of the project, available grant funding and the funding gap. At this meeting, theCommittee informally asked Carl Dranoff to investigate revisions that could allow the project to be builtwith funds available.

At the March 3rd meeting of the Ad Hoc Ardmore Committee an alternative plan was presented byDranoff Properties (the March 3rd Option) that would defer the transit improvements including station,platforms, tunnel and ADA access and constructed a private mixed-use (108 residential units and 13,000SF retail) building and private 270-space garage. The cost of this project is estimated to be approximately$60 million. As this project would result in less parking than what exists today on the combined SEPTAand Township parking lots and metered spaces, the community expressed concern for, among otherthings, the loss of parking for businesses, deferral of planned new transit facilities, ADA improvements,

improved cross-track connection, etc.

While the March 3rd Option removed underground parking which would be a cost savings to the project, itstill required the demolition and rebuilding of the Public Safety Building Addition (PSBA) in thegarage at a cost of approximately $2 million. This cost does not include temporary relocation costs andraises concerns about locating Township facilities in a private structure. In addition, the deferral of transitfacilities into the future would add an estimated 15-20% premium to the cost of the transit improvementswhen built. The cooperation of Amtrak and SEPTA in such a plan is also doubtful.

At the March 17th Ad Hoc Ardmore Committee meeting, the Dranoff Properties Cricket Lot Mixed-useproject created in 2008 by JKR Partners Architects was presented to refresh everyones memories as to itscomposition. It would be possible alternative to developing residential on the Ardmore Transit Center

(ATC) site. Mr. Dranoff expressed that the Cricket project was planned originally as a condominiumand that if developed in the near term would have to be built as apartments since financing for condoprojects was not available in the current market. Members of the community asked that additionalOptions be developed including a reduced scope Ardmore Transit Center that included added parking forthe business community. Additional information will be presented to the Ad Hoc Ardmore Committee onThursday April 21, 2011 at 6:30 PM in the Board Room. The following is a recap of the previouslyproposed options and a review of the new options:

1


2/9

Exhibit

In addition to the March 3rd Option, an alternative site plan and a preliminary analysis for the ArdmoreTransit Center has been developed by the Urban Engineers design engineering team for a project on theATC site composed of a four or five level garage (444-578 parking spaces) with ground level retail (7,400SF), station, platforms, and renovated existing tunnel providing ADA access.

This version of the Ardmore Transit Center would be paired with the corresponding development of the

Cricket Lot project by Dranoff Properties to form a combined Transit Oriented Development for Ardmorereferenced as Option 2 further described below. The Cricket Lot Project is proposed to include 112residential units and 11,000 SF of retail space facing Cricket Avenue. As designed in 2008, there are 112private parking spaces proposed and 113 public parking spaces (of the existing 175 spaces) would beretained. A massing diagram and project renderings are attached.

There are several variations that may be considered for each option given continued funding gapsalthough costs are reduced in all cases. The March 3rd Option could include one or two additionalparking decks adding an additional 80 spaces per deck.

Option 3 would defer the transit improvements, but build the garage only if sufficient public transit fundsto do so were identified.

Another variation, Option 4, would build the transit improvements with the available RACP funds, butdefer the garage on the ATC site. The mixed-use private development would also be deferred.

The project options and variations are summarized below and include an analysis of positives andnegatives of each option.

Option 1: Dranoff March 3rd Proposal

Project Summary:

Seven-story mixed-use: 108 units; 13,700 SF retail Five to Seven-level, 270-430 space parking garage Net change in parking: -22 to +138 Deferred transit improvements

Pros: Cons:

Ardmore revitalization proceeds Transit improvements deferred

New residents and retailers High future costs to add transit improvements

Possible modest increase in parking Amtrak may not support

New mini-main street SEPTA may not support

Use of Federal appropriation may be difficult

Does not meet parking needsPSBA demolition & rebuild required

Needs zoning amendments

Funding Gap: $5-10 million

2


3/9

Exhibit

Option 1

Dranoff Properties March 3rd

Proposal

Ardmore Station Mixed-Use Elevation

Option 1

Ardmore Station Ground Level Plan

3


4/9

Exhibit

Option 2: Cricket Lot, ATC Garage and Transit Improvements:

Project Summary:

Mixed-use on Cricket Loto Seven-story mixed-use: 112 residential units; 11,000 SF retailo 112 private & 113 public parking spaces

Ardmore Transit Centero New Station, Platforms, ADA Accesso Renovated existing tunnelo 7,400 SF retailo Garage built (four level 444-spaces or five level 578-spaces)o Net change in parking: +229 (four-level garage) to +357 (five-level garage)o 25 surface parking spaces provided

Pros: Cons:

Ardmore revitalization proceeds Needs zoning amendments

New residents and retailers Residential located further away from transitfacilities

Transit improvements built (Station, Platforms,Tunnel, ADA Improvements)

Funding gap: $20-23 million

ADA Accessibility across tracks provided

Allows continued use of Federal appropriationSubstantial net new parking created

No demolition and rebuild of PSBA needed

Option 2

Ardmore Transit Center Site PlanRevised 4/15/11

4


5/9

Exhibit

Option 2

Ardmore Transit Center Garage Elevations

4/15/11

Option 2 & Option 4

Ardmore Transit Center Train Station

4/15/11

5


6/9


7/9

Exhibit

Option 2 and 3

Cricket Plaza Rendering

Option 3: Cricket Lot and ATC Garage

Project Summary:

Mixed-use on Cricket Loto Seven-story mixed-use: 112 residential units; 11,000 SF retailo 112 private & 113 public parking spaces

Ardmore Transit Centero Transit improvements deferredo Garage built (four level 444-spaces or five level 578-spaces)o Net change in parking: +229 (four level garage) to +357 (five levels)o 25 surface parking spaces provided

Pros: Cons:

Ardmore revitalization proceeds Transit improvements deferred

New residents and retailers High future costs to add transit improvements

Substantial net new parking created Amtrak may not accept or participate

6,000 SF retail in garage SEPTA may not support

No demolition & rebuild of PSBA required Use of Federal appropriation may be difficultNeeds zoning amendments

Residential located further away from transitfacilities

Funding Gap: $8-10 million

7


8/9

Exhibit

Option 4: ATC Transit Improvements

Project Summary:

New Station, Platforms, Tunnel, ADA Access Designed to accommodate later construction of garage

Pros: Cons:

Some revitalization activity proceeds No private investment (or deferred)

ADA Accessibility across tracks provided Does not meet parking needs (or deferred)New transit facilities No new residents or retailers (or deferred)

Utilizes existing grant funds High future costs to build garage

No demolition & rebuild of PSBA required No new business or commuter parking

Funding Gap: Possibly affordable but difficult todetermine and depends on availability of match forRACP grants

Goals Met Analysis:

OPTION

GOAL 1 2 3 4

Parking Expansion Low High High Low

Transit Improvements None Yes None Yes

Revitalization Impact Low to Medium High Medium Low

Funding Gap Medium High Medium None or Low

Summary:

Except for Option 4, all of the options continue to have funding gaps to a greater or lesser extent. Alloptions assumes the use of the $15 million ($0 .5 million pending) PA Redevelopment Assistance CapitalProgram (RACP) grant funds and assume the availability of the match from a number of sources. Thecontract between the state and the Township for the RACP grant has a current expiration date of 2014.

The Federal appropriation can be used only for design and construction of the transit and publicimprovements, i.e. station, platforms, tunnel and public parking. Options 1 and 3 would defer thesetransit improvements. It is unclear at this time whether Options 1 and 3 would allow for the use of thefederal funds to advance design of the garage and other improvements such as a bus lane given thedeferral of the station and other significant transit improvements. The Federal appropriation has beenextended through 2013, but failure to spend these funds in a timely manner could risk the loss of unspent

8


9/9

Exhibit

funds. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) monitors the expenditure of funds on a quarterlybasis to ensure that projects advance on schedule.

Option 2 would allow for the continued use of the Federal appropriation to advance the design of thetransit improvements and garage to the 90% completion stage and then to 100% engineering andapprovals. In either Option 2 or 3, Dranoff Properties and their designers could advance the design of the

Cricket Project enabling needed zoning changes to be fully identified and considered. While Option 4would allow for continued use of the Federal appropriation for the transit improvements, laterconstruction of a garage would increase costs and further delay the meeting of unmet parking needs inArdmore, and eligible matching funds would have to be identified in order to be able to use all of theRACP grant.

Once an option has been selected by the Board of Commissioners, the schedule will resume with (a)advancing design, (b) identifying needed zoning changes and presenting these to the Board ofCommissioners for their approval, (c) seeking approvals from, the cooperation of and completion ofrequired agreements with SEPTA and Amtrak, and (d) proceeding through the land development process.The process is expected to move forward through the end of 2011 with construction advancing in late2012, at the earliest.

As each option continues to have a funding gap, Dranoff Properties and the Township continue to workwith SEPTA, Amtrak and the FTA to identify sources of funding for the transit and public improvements.The Township staff and consultants continue to work to identify other sources of funding that may beavailable for the transit and public improvements.

Dranoff Properties, JKR Partners, Township team members and the Urban Engineers design team arecontinuing to develop plans and revise estimates in preparation for the Ad Hoc Ardmore Committeemeeting scheduled for April 21st. Each of the above options will be presented in greater detail at that timeas more information is gathered and analyzed. In addition, draft plans for temporary parking duringconstruction will also be presented and public comment and suggestions will be welcome.

The goal at this time is to continue a full and open discussion by the Ardmore community andstakeholders regarding project options. This dialogue will determine the project priorities which can beconsistent with funding availability so that priorities and preferences can be communicated to the Boardof Commissioners Economic Revitalization Committee at a meeting in May or June (date to bedetermined).

Please let me know if you have additional questions or need additional information.

Attachments

CC: President and members of the Township Board of CommissionersPatricia Ryan, Assistant Township Manager

Bob Duncan, Director, Building & PlanningCarl Dranoff, President & CEO, Dranoff PropertiesDavid Scolnic, Esq., Hangley Aronchick Segal & PudlinDick Voith, Ph.D., Econsult

9

Apr2011AdHoc Exh

Documents

Transcript of Apr2011AdHoc Exh