This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Politics & Government

New "Ardmore Project" Proposals Debated

Three proposals, at two different sites, drew support at the meeting.

Faced with a $37 million funding gap for the $100 million Ardmore Transit Center proposal the township has long wanted to build (and paid nearly $3.2million to have designed) and with no broadly agreed upon alternatives that come in under budget, about 50 township officials, citizens, and local business owners, and project developer Carl Dranoff, came together March 17 at a meeting of the Ardmore Ad Hoc committee with the intention of clarifying the objectives of the project and coalescing behind a buildable plan.

"I want to go back to the original goals of the Ardmore Transit Project," began committee chair Cheryl Gelber. "Let me start by giving you reality."

After a healthy dose of fiscal reality --$10 million of the funding gap came from SEPTA reneging on a promised contribution, and another considerable chunk came when federal stimulus funds for high-speed rail were awarded overwhelmingly to Florida and southwestern states, despite the township having been told their project would be high-priority-- and a lengthy and occasionally contentious debate, three possible ways forward emerged and garnered support.

Find out what's happening in Ardmore-Merion-Wynnewoodwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

The meeting adjourned with an agreement that each would be considered by all parties and, in light of new information gathered on each option in the interim (cost estimates etc.), would be debated anew on April 7.

The first project option that found a modicum of support is a slightly altered version of the plan Carl Dranoff of Dranoff Properties presented to the committee on March 3; a proposal that itself was a watered down, and $40 million less expensive, version of the original Ardmore Project.

Find out what's happening in Ardmore-Merion-Wynnewoodwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Under the plan, a mixed-use building with an 108-unit apartment complex and 13,000 square feet of retail space would be built on the north side of Lancaster Avenue behind the Township complex and the train station. A parking garage would be erected connecting the mixed-use building to the Public Safety Building, but, rather than the five levels proposed March 3, the garage would be expanded to seven, at a cost of an additional $6 million. These additional levels would address the dearth of parking that animated the plan's detractors.

The plan drew a supporter in Board of Commissioners president Liz Rogan, but was called insufficiently stimulative by others.

One of the trickier requirements of any version of the north sideplan is transit improvements. The property the township wishes to develop is owned by Amtrak and leased to SEPTA, and since both organizations would have to approve the project before it broke ground, and their approval would likely hinge on renovations to the facilities, renovations would likely be necessary.

And they would be costly.

"The transit improvements are pretty much all or nothing. When you raise the platforms four feet, which is now government mandated, you've got to have stairways, elevators..." Dranoff explained, enumerating all the other renovations a raised platform would necessitate. "You can't design a cheap transit station."

The solution would be an agreement for a phased plan. Parking, residential, and commercial components of the plan first, then, when the township could afford it, transit.

The second plan that generated support was an alteration of the "Cricket" proposal Dranoff had originally presented to the board three years ago. Under the proposal, Dranoff Properties would erect a retail strip on the south side of Lancaster Avenue along Cricket Avenue, along with a 113-space surface parking lot and an apartment complex with its own parking. A metered parking lot presently occupies the space.

The original "Cricket" plan called for condominiums to be built, but since the condominium market has dipped considerably since the time of the proposal, the condominiums would be replaced by an apartment complex in the project.

The plan was criticized for creating a net reduction in available retail parking (an increase in parking was one of the stated purposes of the Ardmore Project) from 175 available spots to 113, but two residents countered that the lot in question was often empty anyway.

The third plan was an iteration of the altered- "Cricket' plan, but with a parking garage on the Ardmore Transit center site to address the aforementioned reduction in available parking.

Dranoff also mentioned (though stopped short of endorsing) the possibility of a fourth way forward: The board could go ahead with the most robust plan, $37 million dollar funding gap notwithstanding, with the hopes that they would receive a $30 million grant from the federal government. The township has applied for monies that were freed up when Wisconsin and other states turned down stimulus funds.

"Another thing to say is 'let's just go out and say lets do [the original plan]'...and hope we get the stimulus money and get lucky," said Dranoff.

Though all parties are eager to begin, there is no pressing external reason to break ground on a project, according to township manager Douglas Cleland. Cleland said the expiration date on the $15 million in grant money the township has procured for the project is 2014, and while it requires a 50 percent match from public funds, is "secure, for the time being."

Editor's Note: An original version of the story misidentified the amount the township paid for the design of the project as $5.7 million.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?