AN ADVISORY SERVICES PANEL REPORT Bryn Mawr...

A N A D V I S O R Y S E R V I C E S P A N E L R E P O R T

Bryn MawrPennsylvania

Urban LandInstitute$

Bryn MawrPennsylvaniaRegional Strategies

June 13–18, 2004An Advisory Services Panel Report

ULI–the Urban Land Institute1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.Suite 500 WestWashington, D.C. 20007-5201

An Advisory Services Panel Report2

ULI–the Urban Land Institute is a non-profit research and education organiza-tion that promotes responsible leadership in the use of land in order to enhance

the total environment.

The Institute maintains a membership represent-ing a broad spectrum of interests and sponsors awide variety of educational programs and forumsto encourage an open exchange of ideas and shar-ing of experience. ULI initiates research that an-ticipates emerging land use trends and issues andproposes creative solutions based on that research;provides advisory services; and publishes a widevariety of materials to disseminate information onland use and development.

Established in 1936, the Institute today has morethan 23,000 members and associates from 80 coun-tries, representing the entire spectrum of the landuse and development disciplines. Professionals rep-

resented include developers, builders, propertyowners, investors, architects, public officials,planners, real estate brokers, appraisers, attor-neys, engineers, financiers, academics, students,and librarians. ULI relies heavily on the expe-rience of its members. It is through member in-volvement and information resources that ULIhas been able to set standards of excellence indevelopment practice. The Institute has long beenrecognized as one of America’s most respectedand widely quoted sources of objective informa-tion on urban planning, growth, and development.

This Advisory Services panel report is intendedto further the objectives of the Institute and tomake authoritative information generally avail-able to those seeking knowledge in the field ofurban land use.

Richard M. RosanPresident

About ULI–the Urban Land Institute

©2004 by ULI–the Urban Land Institute1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Suite 500 WestWashington, D.C. 20007-5201

All rights reserved. Reproduction or use of the whole or anypart of the contents without written permission of the copy-right holder is prohibited.

ULI Catalog Number: ASB076

Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania, June 13–18, 2004 3

The goal of ULI’s Advisory Services Programis to bring the finest expertise in the realestate field to bear on complex land use plan-ning and development projects, programs,

and policies. Since 1947, this program has assem-bled well over 400 ULI-member teams to helpsponsors find creative, practical solutions forissues such as downtown redevelopment, landmanagement strategies, evaluation of develop-ment potential, growth management, communityrevitalization, brownfields redevelopment, militarybase reuse, provision of low-cost and affordablehousing, and asset management strategies, amongother matters. A wide variety of public, private,and nonprofit organizations have contracted forULI’s Advisory Services.

Each panel team is composed of highly qualifiedprofessionals who volunteer their time to ULI.They are chosen for their knowledge of the paneltopic and screened to ensure their objectivity.ULI panel teams are interdisciplinary and typi-cally include several developers, a landscapearchitect, a planner, a market analyst, a financeexpert, and others with the niche expertiseneeded to address a given project. ULI teamsprovide a holistic look at development problems.Each panel is chaired by a respected ULI mem-ber with previous panel experience.

The agenda for a five-day panel assignment is in-tensive. It includes an in-depth briefing day com-posed of a tour of the site and meetings with spon-sor representatives; a day of hour-long interviewsof typically 50 to 75 key community representa-tives; and two days of formulating recommenda-tions. Many long nights of discussion precede thepanel’s conclusions. On the final day on site, thepanel makes an oral presentation of its findingsand conclusions to the sponsor. A written reportis prepared and published.

Because the sponsoring entities are responsiblefor significant preparation before the panel’s visit,including sending extensive briefing materials toeach member and arranging for the panel to meetwith key local community members and stake-holders in the project under consideration, partic-

ipants in ULI’s five-day panel assignments areable to make accurate assessments of a sponsor’sissues and to provide recommendations in a com-pressed amount of time.

A major strength of the program is ULI’s uniqueability to draw on the knowledge and expertise ofits members, including land developers and own-ers, public officials, academicians, representativesof financial institutions, and others. In fulfillmentof the mission of the Urban Land Institute, thisAdvisory Services panel report is intended to pro-vide objective advice that will promote the re-sponsible use of land to enhance the environment.

ULI Program StaffRachelle L. LevittExecutive Vice President, Policy and Practice

Mary Beth CorriganVice President, Advisory Services and Policy Programs

Nancy Zivitz SussmanSenior Associate, Advisory Services

Nicholas GabelAssociate, Advisory Services

Jason BellPanel Coordinator, Advisory Services

Yvonne StantonAdministrative Assistant

Nancy H. StewartDirector, Book Program

Julie D. Stern, JDS CommunicationsManuscript Editor

Betsy VanBuskirkArt Director

Martha LoomisDesktop Publishing Specialist/Graphics

Kim RuschGraphics

Diann Stanley-AustinDirector, Publishing Operations

About ULI Advisory Services


On behalf of the Urban Land Institute, thepanel members and staff wish to thankLower Merion Township for initiating andsponsoring this Advisory Services panel.

Special thanks are extended to the Lower MerionTownship Board of Commissioners; Douglas S.Cleland, township manager; Patricia M. Ryan,assistant township manager; Eileen R. Trainer,township secretary; Gina Pellicciotta, assistanttownship secretary; Jody Kelly and Marie Rufo,assistants to the township manager; Dean Dor-tone, chief financial officer; Mary Grahan-Zak,chief information officer; Bob Duncan, director,Building and Planning; Angela Murray, assistantdirector, Building and Planning, and liaison be-tween the township and ULI; Eric Persson, eco-nomic development specialist; Andrea Campisi,senior planner; Cecil Gandy, Public Works Depart-ment; and Brenda Viola, public information officer.

Other organizations and individuals that con-tributed significantly include Bryn Mawr Hospi-tal; Main Line Health Realty; Hellmuth, Obata +

Kassabaum, Inc.; Nancy Vickers, president ofBryn Mawr College; Lisa Zernicke, Thomas GreatHall, Bryn Mawr College; Sandra Donahue, Wynd-ham, Bryn Mawr College; Gilbert Smith, Bob Neals,and Steve Piltch of the Shipley School; and MarkMurray and Joe Qualtieri of Township Cable Tele-vision. In addition, the panel acknowledges theBryn Mawr Trust; Bryn Mawr Stakeholders; BrynMawr Civic Association; Bryn Mawr Business As-sociation; Mike Weilbacher, Lower Merion Conser-vancy; and the ULI Philadelphia District CouncilExecutive Committee.

The panel also is indebted to the dozens of com-munity and business leaders who provided uniqueand valuable insights during the interview process.The panel thanks all of these people for offeringtheir time and expertise, and for helping the panelunderstand the development issues and concernsof the people who live and work in Bryn Mawr.

Acknowledgments


ULI Panel and Project Staff 6

Overview and the Panel’s Assignment 7

Summary of Findings and Recommendations 9

Market Conditions and Opportunities 11

Planning and Design 15

Transportation and Parking Plan 26

Development Strategies 31

Implementation 33

Conclusion 37

About the Panel 38

Contents


Panel ChairByron R. KosteDirectorUniversity of Colorado Real Estate CenterLeeds School of BusinessUniversity of Colorado at BoulderBoulder, Colorado

Panel MembersSuzanne H. CameronPrincipalCameron & CompanyWashington, D.C.

Joseph R. DavisDirector of RedevelopmentMontgomery County Redevelopment ProgramWheaton, Maryland

Pat HawleyProject ManagerR.A. Smith & AssociatesBrookfield, Wisconsin

Joanne MilnerCommunity Relations, Program and Facilities Manager

Horizonte Instruction and Training CenterSalt Lake City, Utah

Paul MoyerDirector of Operations and Senior AssociateEDAW, Inc.Alexandria, Virginia

Richard L. PerlmutterPrincipalArgo Investment CompanyRockville, Maryland

Marc ShawSenior AssociateEinhorn Yaffee Prescott, Architecture and Engineering PC

Washington, D.C.

David C. SlaterVice PresidentHammer, Siler, George AssociatesReston, Virginia

ULI Project DirectorAdrienne SchmitzDirectorResidential Community Development

ULI On-Site CoordinatorTracy CooperManagerMeetings and Programs

ULI Panel and Project Staff


The study area for this ULI Advisory Ser-vices panel assignment consists of the heartof Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania, including aSoutheastern Pennsylvania Transportation

Authority (SEPTA) train station on the R5 re-gional rail line, the future town square area, theretail core, the Bryn Mawr Hospital campus andthe proposed hospital expansion area, and adja-cent residential neighborhoods. As pressures fornew development and for the expansion of exist-ing facilities and institutions mount, Bryn Mawr’scitizens and institutions face the challenge of de-termining the future of their community.

The township must resolve a number of issues,which it asked the panel to examine. The firstissue involves the proposed hospital expansion,which includes a mixed-use development. The sec-ond issue concerns the township’s need for a com-prehensive plan, and the more immediate need fora sector plan for the study area, hereafter referredto as the Bryn Mawr village study area. A relatedissue involves the need for appropriate zoning toolsto facilitate the implementation of sector plan rec-ommendations. The township must consider whattypes of tools will be needed to support redevel-opment within the village area. These include thepossible establishment of a parking authority andmanagement district to address the off-streetparking needs of business and mixed-use develop-ment located in the retail core and the hospital’sexpansion area.

Bryn Mawr is located about ten miles west of Phila-delphia in Montgomery County, and is one of sev-eral communities that comprise Lower MerionTownship. The township and Bryn Mawr in partic-ular are characterized by a strong sense of civicpride and citizen involvement. Governmentally,Bryn Mawr falls primarily within the jurisdictionof Lower Merion Township, which is responsiblefor the civic administration of the Bryn Mawr

Overview and the Panel’s Assignment

community, including planning, zoning, and devel-opment authority.

Lower Merion Township is in an excellent positionto meet the challenges of the future. It is ideallysituated between Philadelphia and its westernsuburbs, so its residents can take advantage ofemployment opportunities in either direction. Thetransportation network is first class. Commuterfacilities are well located and provide frequent ser-vice. The township’s commercial facilities, whichare physically concentrated at several points alongmajor roads, offer a superior array of goods andservices. A wide variety of housing, from estatehomes on large lots to high-rise apartments, is

Bryn Mawr is located inLower Merion Township,about ten miles northwestof Philadelphia.176

295

76 276

BERKS

BUCKS

CHESTER

DELAWARE

R

MONTGOMERY

PHILADELPHIA

CECIL

NEW

CASTLE

CAMDENGLOUCESTER

MERCTrenton

Philadelphia

Reading

Wilmington

CamdenCherry Hill

Bryn Mawr

Lake Erie

Harrisburg Trenton

Philadelphia

PittsburghAllentown

Erie

AltoonaBethlehem

Lancaster

Reading

Scranton

Wilkes-Barre

Wilmington

CamdenCherry Hill

Bryn Mawr

MARYLAND

NEW YORK

OHIO

WEST VIRGINIA

NEWJERSEY

PENNSYLVANIA


available. Recreational facilities and cultural sitesalso are well placed throughout the community.

The township presented the panel with two pro-posals for the development of portions of the vil-lage. The first proposal would expand the BrynMawr Hospital campus northward toward BrynMawr’s main retail core and eastward across BrynMawr Avenue. The hospital expansion proposal in-volves more than hospital-owned medical space. Inaddition to medical office buildings, the proposalincludes mixed-use, residential, and commercialdevelopment, as well as structured parking.

The second proposal involves legislation understudy by the township to enact a transit-orienteddevelopment zone for commercial corridors ad-joining the R5 and R6 SEPTA rail lines in thetownship. This legislation, known as the Mixed-Use Special Transit (MUST) Ordinance, wouldcreate an overlay zone in which mixed-use devel-opment would be allowed at somewhat higherdensities than in the underlying commercial zones.In addition, the overlay zone would allow sharedparking, thus reducing the number of parkingspaces that otherwise would be required forsingle-use development.


The township currently has several major fo-cal points of retail activity along Montgom-ery and Lancaster avenues. Most of the town-ship’s population lives near these nodes,

which experience varying levels of consumer sup-port. These retail areas are oriented toward ve-hicular access, a situation that will continue to bethe case in the near future. In all probability, in-creasing demands on people’s time, traffic con-gestion, and a growing energy crisis will make thetownship’s retail centers more viable, since con-sumers may no longer want to travel great dis-tances to shop in suburban malls. The panel there-fore believes that the existing retail areas could bestrengthened so that they are better positioned totake advantage of these opportunities.

The panel believes that the best way to achievethis objective is to transform some of the retailareas into village centers. A high-density mix ofuses that would create a total living environmentcould be developed in some core retail areas. Thismix of uses also would supplement the retail cen-ters’ financial base. People would be able to liveand shop in the same area without using theircars. At the same time, the village centers wouldcontinue to serve automobile-oriented shoppersfrom other parts of the township. The village cen-ters also would provide an identity for the neigh-borhoods in which they are located, as well as at-tractive settings where social activities could blendwith retail functions. The panel believes that BrynMawr is underserved in terms of its retail salespotential, and feels that it could support an addi-tional 75,000 to 90,000 square feet of retail space.

The Bryn Mawr retail district (the Lancaster Av-enue corridor) is elongated and does not contain asufficient number of off-street parking lots toserve all of its retail stores. Consequently, on-street parking is heavily used on both LancasterAvenue and the adjacent residential streets. Theonly way to develop new parking lots is to remove

some existing housing. Yet the retail district couldbe improved by building structured parking onthe sites of existing surface parking lots and bystrengthening community facilities. The surfaceparking lot at the corner of Lancaster and BrynMawr avenues could be converted into a deckedparking garage, including underground parking iffeasible. Converting the Summit Grove Avenueparking lot into a multideck parking structurewould be a major addition to the retail district.This site also presents an opportunity for creat-ing a major mixed-use facility. Architecturally, thenew structure could be linked to existing storeswith a series of new, small shops on different lev-els. Shoppers then could park in the garage andwalk through a series of “minishops” before com-ing out onto Lancaster Avenue.

The panel recommends the creation of a park-ing authority for the entire township. The au-thority would be responsible for the planning,financing, development, management, and opera-tion of the township’s parking system, includingon-street meters, surface lots, and potential park-ing structures.

The panel’s research revealed the existence of acomprehensive plan for Lower Merion Townshipthat was adopted in 1979. The plan identified nu-merous issues facing the township, many of whichhave not changed in the last quarter-century. Onthe other hand, in the same time period the studyarea’s housing stock has evolved from being 65percent owner occupied to 65 percent renter oc-cupied. Traffic actually has lessened as the town-ship’s population has decreased, with 9,800 vehi-cles per day along Lancaster Avenue today, versus20,100 in 1979. The panel suggests that it is timeto dust off the 1979 plan, update it with input fromthe whole community, and create a sector plan forBryn Mawr that ultimately will be incorporatedinto a Lower Merion Township ComprehensivePlan of 2006.

Summary of Findings andRecommendations


The success of any meaningful effort to redevelopthe Bryn Mawr village study area is dependent onall stakeholders working together. The townshipmust take the leadership role because it is theonly entity that can effect land use decisions. Thefact that the medical institution has two arms canbe confusing, but needs to be understood. Thecare-giving entity, Bryn Mawr Hospital, drivesthe demand for medical facilities, while Main LineHealth Realty is responsible for providing expan-sion space and for returning funds to the hospitalholding company so that it can fund hospital capi-tal projects that make it possible to develop andmaintain state-of-the-art medical facilities. Thecommunity at large has quality-of-life issues thatare intertwined with any changes to the neighbor-hood. This three-legged stool of township, medicalinstitution, and community must support any pro-posed planning and redevelopment efforts forBryn Mawr.

The following sections of this report lay out thepanel’s findings and recommendations for movingforward:

• Market Conditions and Opportunities;

• Planning and Design;

• Traffic and Parking;

• Development Strategies;

• Implementation; and

• Conclusion.

The key players who must come together to cre-ate this sector plan—the vision for the Bryn Mawrvillage study area—include the following:

• Citizens and community groups:

• Citizens;

• Business owners;

• The Bryn Mawr Civic Association;

• The Bryn Mawr Stakeholders; and

• The Lower Merion Conservancy.

• Institutions:

• Educational institutions, including the area’s colleges and universities;

• The medical institution, consisting of Main Line Health Realty and Bryn Mawr Hospital;and

• Governmental entities such as Lower Merion Township and Montgomery County.

Lancaster Avenue wouldbenefit from improvedpedestrian amenities


The panel undertook a four-step process toanalyze market conditions and opportuni-ties. It began by reviewing and evaluatingpreviously prepared studies, reports, and

other materials. Panel members then interactedwith representatives from the community and localbusinesses to assess the issues to be addressed. Afield reconnaissance was undertaken, followed bya public forum at which citizens identified whatthey like about Bryn Mawr and what needs to beimproved. Panel members also conducted personalinterviews with a broad variety of elected and ap-pointed officials, business and institutional execu-tives, and interest group representatives. Thepanel’s findings are organized as follows:

• Market conditions;

• Market opportunities; and

• Conclusion.

Market ConditionsThe real estate market context is described herewith respect to the conditions and assets resultingfrom existing development. Most of the issues de-scribed in Lower Merion Township’s 1937 and1979 comprehensive plans are comparable to thosefaced by the community today. The principal fac-tors are the following:

• Community leadership;

• Historic community context;

• Demographics;

• Institutions;

• Neighborhood quality; and

• Transportation.

Community LeadershipPersonal interviews and the public forum made it apparent that a highly articulate public lives,works, and volunteers its services to communityand economic development issues. The presence ofresidents and business leaders who care about thefuture of their community and who work to im-prove it is one of Bryn Mawr’s major strengths.This asset is further discussed in the Implementa-tion section of this report.

Historic Community ContextBryn Mawr developed as an affluent residentialsuburb for the Philadelphia area’s business lead-ers. One feature that has made the community at-tractive to prospective residents is its high-qualityeducational resources, which provide not only col-lege educations, but also cultural opportunities,mid-career training, and entertainment venues.

Bryn Mawr’s early planning and development ef-forts created a community character that empha-sized low-density land uses and the utilization ofreadily available indigenous materials such asgranite and fieldstone. These density and buildingmaterial themes proved very attractive to thecommunity’s target households, which could affordthis lifestyle and enjoyed having easy access tourban employment centers. This real estate mar-ket image has been sustained to this day.

DemographicsIn 2000, the average annual household incomewithin a five-mile radius of the core of the BrynMawr village study area exceeded $100,000. Thestudy area represents one of the highest-incomemarkets in the United States. As a result, the de-mand for high-quality retail goods and servicesthere is greater than that found in typical subur-ban jurisdictions. This demographic group prefersunique shopping experiences, illustrated by theexistence of tony, locally owned boutiques—rather

Market Conditions and Opportunities


than chain stores—that traditionally have servedBryn Mawr residents’ needs.

Educational InstitutionsFive colleges with a cumulative enrollment ofnearly 20,000 students are located within fivemiles of the study area. Their faculties and staffsprovide another 3,000 prospective housing and re-tail customers in the Bryn Mawr area. In addition,Bryn Mawr Hospital has approximately 1,500 em-ployees who also form an important segment ofthis demand.

Neighborhood QualityThe quality of the planned residential and retailneighborhoods resulting from the 1937 BrynMawr vision has provided a solid foundation, sus-tainable real estate values, and continued demand.

TransportationThe Bryn Mawr village study area is well servedby rail and by primary and secondary roads, par-ticularly in an east/west direction. Parking is ade-quate in terms of the number of spaces, but its dis-tribution is not consistent with the demands ofdrivers. Narrow sidewalks and inconsistent path-ways offer limited pedestrian circulation. No pro-vision has been made for bicycle access betweenresidential neighborhoods and key employment,entertainment, and retail areas. Several intersec-tion and traffic management improvements arerequired to achieve more efficient use of the roadsystem.

Market OpportunitiesSubstantial demand exists for private real estateinvestments, but a variety of challenges and risksare associated with their implementation:

• Site assembly must be facilitated in response tocurrent floor plate and parking standards;

• Community opposition to higher-density devel-opment and the conversion of residential prop-erties to more urban uses must be addressed inorder to mandate land value–driven buildingdensities;

• The township must adopt a new comprehensiveplan, against which real estate developmentproposals can be tested;

• Outmoded development ordinances, policies,and standards must be updated to be respon-sive to current market conditions; and

• The township must provide clear guidelines fordevelopers and others seeking approvals, andmust review and approve proposed projects in atimely manner.

HousingThe panel’s analysis of residential developmentopportunities focused on multifamily housing, be-cause of the study area’s relatively high land val-ues, incompatible adjacent nonresidential uses,and the superior accessibility of sites in the area.Whereas demand for rental housing units com-prised nearly 32 percent of the households nation-wide in 2000, demand for such units in the studyarea reached 62 percent. The sources of this de-mand are principally comprised of service and re-tail employees, young residents, and students. Thestudy area’s senior citizen population comprised10 percent of the total population in 2000, and isexpected to increase in coming years. Therefore,the supply of market-rate and financially assistedunits serving these sectors should be increased.The supply of services, convenient shopping, andpublic transportation all support locating addi-tional multifamily rental units in the Bryn Mawrvillage study area. These units should be providedin mixed-use projects, particularly near transitstations, and in the upper stories of mixed-usebuildings.

An up-to-date comprehen-sive plan should addressall planning and designissues, including trafficpatterns and access.


Office SpaceDemand for office space in Bryn Mawr is stronglyoriented toward medical services. The study areaneeds an additional 120,000 square feet of medicaloffice space. Owner-occupied space can be locatedin adjacent buildings or in a new structure. Gen-eral tenant office space in and adjacent to BrynMawr is readily available; an estimated 1 millionsquare feet of competitive space is vacant in thevicinity.

LodgingThe study area offers no accommodations for busi-ness or pleasure travelers. Average annual sleep-ing room occupancy in the wider region currentlyexceeds 70 percent, and growing employment andpopulation indicate demand for additional supply.Market area sites and existing buildings are beingevaluated in an effort to increase the supply ofthis product.

Representatives of local institutions and othershave indicated a shortfall of hotel accommodationsfor their visitors. They prefer an independent,“nonchain” operator that would be sensitive to thecommunity’s unique needs, similar to the nearbyWayne Hotel. Bryn Mawr Hospital’s needs couldbe especially well served if its on-site GerhardBuilding were to be converted to this use. Its esti-mated capacity would be about 60 sleeping rooms.

Retail SpaceThe extremely high proportion of females living inthe Bryn Mawr village study area (more than 68percent of the population in 2000) and the area’shigh average annual household income supportthe growth of retail space. Area shoppers are at-tracted to King of Prussia Mall and the surround-ing “big box” stores located less than a 30-minutedrive from Bryn Mawr. Shoppers and conveniencegoods also are located in the Lancaster Avenuecorridor, which is convenient to village neighbor-hoods. The township should make the retention ofexisting retail space a high priority. The followingtypes of retailers would both support and comple-ment existing businesses:

• An upscale food market;

• A men’s clothing store;

• Restaurants;

• An electronics store;

• A plant/garden shop;

• A women’s shoe store;

• A day spa;

• A paper and stationery store;

• An ice cream parlor or confectionery;

• A specialty bookstore; and

• Art galleries.

Appropriate locations for new retail developmentshould be identified. The most desirable siteswill be those with good access via rail and roads.Mixed-use projects should be encouraged at thehigh-capacity intersections that could best servetheir needs. In the vicinity of the rail station, thetownship should advocate transit-oriented devel-opment, with new parking to accommodate it.

Conclusion Bryn Mawr’s market opportunities are in transi-tion. As the demand for health services increases,even more strain will be placed on the hospital toexpand. The demand for improved building stan-dards will increase, and management of traffic andparking will become more critical to Bryn Mawr’scompetitive position in the real estate market-place. Continuity of the community’s educationalinstitutions and stabilization of its residentialneighborhoods will further increase the needfor new multifamily housing, lodging, and retaildevelopment.

Responding to the community’s need for increasedmedical services, Bryn Mawr Hospital has grownin multiple phases over the past 111 years. Cur-rent and future demand for medical services re-quires enlarging the hospital’s campus to betterserve its constituents. The hospital’s expansionarea—the block north of the hospital—providesspace for expansion and improved linkages tonearby existing retail and service businesses.


Bryn Mawr’s “Main Line” image, excellent edu-cational resources, and high household incomescontinue to undergird the market for new land de-velopment, conversion of selected uses, and reha-bilitation of the building stock. Excess capacity isavailable on the commuter rail and local highwaysystems. While no major capacity improvementsare programmed, selected intersection and trafficmanagement improvements are required to betteraccommodate peak-period traffic.

Bryn Mawr has no identifying icon. The town alsolacks a central place to accommodate communityfunctions and gatherings, which also would rein-force the community’s identity.

HousingTownship housing policy and incentives shouldemphasize better accommodation of the low- andmoderate-income workforce essential to operatingprivate and public institutions and businesses. Ad-ditions to the multifamily housing supply need toinclude the replacement of units that are demol-ished or are converted into nonresidential uses asa result of the hospital expansion. Existing hous-ing that is retained needs to be rehabilitated tomeet or exceed municipal building code standards.Special market sectors—including the growing se-

nior citizen and student populations—need to beaccommodated at sites convenient to local shops,health services, and public transportation.

LodgingNo lodging facilities exist in Bryn Mawr. Increas-ing numbers of institutional visitors will requirehotel/motel rooms. A previous analysis indicatesthat the Gerhard Building, Bryn Mawr’s originalhospital, lends itself to conversion to a boutiquehotel.

Retail DevelopmentDepartment store anchors and big box storesserving the Bryn Mawr market are agglomeratedat King of Prussia Mall, located ten miles north-west of Bryn Mawr. Community shopping centersare located in the U.S. 30 (Lancaster Avenue) cor-ridor. Neighborhood shopping centers are scat-tered at major intersections throughout the BrynMawr village study area. Entertainment retailvenues are found in each of these three types offacilities. Bryn Mawr is underserved in terms ofits retail sales potential. It could support an addi-tional 75,000 to 90,000 square feet of retail spacelocated in the commercial area.


The panel believes that moving forward inBryn Mawr will require preparing informa-tion and graphics that can help inform thecommunity and guide the redevelopment of

the Bryn Mawr village study area. In addition, thepanel recommends that Lower Merion Townshipupdate its comprehensive plan. An updated planwould provide a direction for the development ofthe township and, specifically, a vision for the fu-ture of Bryn Mawr. The panel was asked to cri-tique the MUST Ordinance and concluded that theordinance cannot stand alone. It must be consid-ered within the framework of an updated compre-hensive plan. This section provides guidance onseveral elements that should be addressed in thecomprehensive plan.

The Bryn Mawr village study area is the portionof Bryn Mawr specifically addressed in this re-port. It is the area bounded by County Line Road/Haverford Road and Pennsylvania Avenue on thesouth, Pennsylvania Avenue on the east, Northand South Merion avenues on the west, and theLancaster Avenue commercial district on thenorth. The panel believes, based on its site visitsand discussions with stakeholders, that the areacan be divided into the following subareas:

• The hospital campus;

• The Founders Bank Building site;

• The hospital expansion area;

• The Lancaster Avenue commercial district;

• Town Square;

• Ludington Library/Bryn Mawr Park; and

• The Merion Avenue area.

Existing ConditionsThis section presents the panel’s observations re-garding existing conditions and opportunities in

each subarea, analysis of the existing redevelop-ment plans where applicable, and specific planningand design concepts recommended for the revital-ization of Bryn Mawr. The panel’s discussion ofplanning and design issues evolved around theseven discrete subareas identified above. Eachsubarea possesses a unique identity and purpose,albeit with varying levels of history, clarity, andintensity. Each plays a crucial role in the existingsocial and architectural identity of central BrynMawr. Changes to these areas and their interrela-tionships will provide the framework for the revi-talization of Bryn Mawr.

The Hospital Campus The Bryn Mawr Hospital campus, also known as“the trapezoid,” is bounded by Old Lancaster Road,County Line Road/Haverford Road, Bryn MawrAvenue, and Mondella Avenue. This subarea doesnot include any of the hospital- or health system–owned properties adjacent to the campus, such asthe hospital expansion area or the Founders BankBuilding site described below. The hospital cam-pus has grown incrementally since its inception.Buildings feature a variety of styles representa-tive of their eras, approaches to architectural style,and medical care use. The Gerhard Building, fac-ing Bryn Mawr Avenue, is the most noteworthypiece of architecture on the campus and is likely tobe eligible for inclusion on the National Registerof Historic Places.

A significant expansion of the hospital campus onthe existing site is anticipated and would include amix of demolition, renovation, and new construc-tion. It would provide new and upgraded inpatientfacilities, which are absolutely necessary to ensurecontinuing excellence of care. The hospital is devel-oping plans for this on-site expansion in a designprocess parallel to but independent of the designconcepts being developed for the hospital expan-sion area. Those plans are incorporated into theconcept designs that include the expansion area.

Planning and Design


The work at the campus does not address the sig-nificant shortage of medical office space. Spacelimitations prevent the development of additionalmedical office space and/or medical office buildingson the hospital campus. The current shortage seri-ously limits the hospital’s ability to recruit newmedical staff, and the hospital risks the loss of cur-rently associated staff and high-quality medicalpractices. This situation presents an enormouschallenge to Bryn Mawr Hospital.

The Founders Bank Building SiteThis site occupies nearly all of the block boundedby Old Lancaster Road, Bryn Mawr Avenue, andPennsylvania Avenue. The remainder of the blockincludes five freestanding single-family housesfacing south on Pennsylvania Avenue. One exist-ing building currently is occupied by medical uses.The residences are not owned by the hospital.They are expected to remain in place as part of

Morton Road

Lancaster Avenue

Sout

hM

erio

nAv

enue

Cent

ral A

venu

e

Bryn

Maw

r Ave

nue

Ellio

tAv

enue

Sum

mit

Gro

veAv

enue

Old Lancaster Road

County Line Road

Glenbrook Avenue

Railroad Avenue

Pennsylvania Avenue

Summit Grove Avenue

The study area.


the village’s historic fabric in any redevelopmentscenario. Any development in this subarea mustrespect and integrate its variety of uses and build-ing types.

The Hospital Expansion Area This subarea is bounded by Old Lancaster Road,Bryn Mawr Avenue, Summit Grove Avenue, and aportion of the commercial district on both sides ofLancaster Avenue. The area is primarily residen-

tial at its core with a variety of business uses atthe perimeter along Lancaster and Bryn Mawravenues. It does not currently act as an effectivetransition between the hospital and the commer-cial district, either architecturally or in terms ofuse. The buildings are of mixed architectural qual-ity. While none of its buildings are designatedClass 1 or 2 on the township’s Historic ResourceInventory, the subarea does contain some proper-

Study subareas.

Morton Road

Lancaster Avenue

Sout

hM

erio

nAv

enue

Cent

ral A

venu

e

Bryn

Maw

r Ave

nue

Ellio

tAv

enue

Sum

mit

Gro

veAv

enue

Old Lancaster Road

County Line Road

Glenbrook Avenue

Railroad Avenue

Pennsylvania Avenue

Summit Grove Avenue

Lancaster AvenueCommercial District

MerionAvenueArea

Hospital Expansion Area

LudingtonLibrary/

Bryn MawrPark

Hospital CampusFounders BankBuilding Site


The hospital expansionarea currently contains amix of uses, mainly row-houses and single-familyhouses.

Lancaster Avenue is BrynMawr’s commercial spine.

Right: The most importantsite in Bryn Mawr cur-rently is occupied by asurface parking lot. Thepanel recommends re-storing the site to a towngreen. Far right: BrynMawr Park, adjacent toLudington Library, shouldbe upgraded to drawmore users.


ties of concern to the historic preservation com-munity, including a group of rowhouses and“twins” at Central Avenue said to be the last ex-amples of early 20th-century worker housing. Thesubarea has no strong image or sense of place.

Lancaster Avenue Commercial District This linear district, paralleling the Main Line com-muter rail, is the traditional commercial core ofBryn Mawr. The area roughly opposite the hospi-tal expansion area described above can reasonablybe described as Bryn Mawr’s central retail area.However, this mixed-use area extends well be-yond that zone, both east and west along Lan-caster Avenue, eventually meeting equivalentareas in Ardmore and Wayne, respectively.

Low-scale development occupies both sides of thestreet and is generally urban in character, with fa-cades close to the street, although there are no-table gaps in the string of facades. These gaps areparticularly apparent outside the central retailarea. The building stock is varied in condition. Thesidewalk environment is in fair to poor condition,with few amenities. There is no on-street parking,and pedestrian street crossings are poor. The areapresents a weak public face for Bryn Mawr tocommuters and travelers on Lancaster Avenue.

Town SquareDiagonally adjacent to the SEPTA R5 Bryn Mawrtrain station is a 190-space surface parking lot thatwas once a central public green for Bryn Mawr.There are reports that deed restrictions requirethat the space continue to be used for parking, al-though they do not necessarily limit the site tothat single use. The panel was not able to securedocumentation verifying this.

The parking lot is bleak, unappealing, and pre-sents a poor front door to Bryn Mawr. Its easy ac-cess to the commuter train station and commercialdistrict makes it a prime location that is vastly un-derused as a surface parking lot. This site is a nat-ural pathway connecting the village to the trainstation. The site clearly presents multiple oppor-tunities for redevelopment and should be dedi-cated to a higher and better use.

Ludington Library/Bryn Mawr Park This subarea includes Ludington Public Library,the Bryn Mawr Community Building, and a greenspace. The site is close to the commercial districtand the combination of a park and library at thesame site is desirable. While conveniently located,the park is not a special place. It lacks characterand amenities. A gazebo has been proposed, whichwould add some character.

Merion Avenue Area This residential subarea is located south of Lan-caster Avenue and west of the hospital expansionarea. The panel recommends no changes to thissubarea.

HOK Plan AssessmentFor several years, Hellmuth, Obata + Kassabaum,Inc. (HOK) has been preparing and refining a planfor development on the Bryn Mawr Hospitaltrapezoid, the expansion area to the north, and thearea along Lancaster Avenue. Options 6 and 8 arethe most current versions of the HOK plan.

The plan for the hospital site includes further infilldevelopment of the existing hospital building, pri-marily within the center of the facility, and someadditional development along Bryn Mawr Avenue.In addition, the plan proposes the removal of abuilding along Bryn Mawr Avenue. Within thetrapezoid site, the additional infill developmentwould displace a small amount of surface parking.The plan assumes that additional parking to servethe hospital would be located either to the northor east of the trapezoid.

The visual impact of these changes would be mostvisible from County Line Road and from BrynMawr Avenue. Because both are primarily com-mercial streets, these changes would have mini-mal visual impact on the community. The expan-sion of the hospital would increase traffic comingin and out of the hospital campus, but parkingwould occur in areas outside the hospital campusand therefore would have an impact on adjacentroadways.

Founders Bank Building SiteThe HOK plan for the Founders Bank Buildingsite proposes development that includes additional


medical office space with supporting parkingand residential development along PennsylvaniaAvenue.

There are some differences between options 6 and 8. Option 8, the most recent plan, illustrates aslightly larger garage facility with retail and officeuses lining its western edge, facing Bryn MawrAvenue. The panel believes that development ofthe medical office building is appropriate and nec-

essary, as it will provide parking to support thisdevelopment and to help support the hospital.

The retail and office uses planned along Bryn MarAvenue, however, are unlikely to be developedand are inappropriate for this location, across fromthe hospital. The garage should be set back fromthe street and landscaped. The residential devel-opment proposed along Pennsylvania Avenue ap-pears to be minimally set back from the street,

Provideconnections

to parking

Provideconnections

to parking

Provide recommendationsfor Lancaster Avenue

Stronggatewaybuilding

Provide direct linkbetween hospital and

Lancaster Avenue

Refine plans for

residential development

to complement

existing housing

Lancaster Avenue

Bryn

Maw

r Ave

nue

Old Lancaster Road

Pennsylvania Avenue

Parking

Parking Parking

Parking

HOK concept plan, option 6.


and likely would conflict with the character of theexisting housing in the neighborhood.

The panel recommends expanding the FoundersBank Building to include 120,000 square feet of ad-ditional medical office space. A four-level parkingstructure should be built, with two levels under-ground and two above, providing a total of about700 parking spaces. About 20 residential town-houses could be built on the eastern portion of thesite, and the massing and style of the townhousescould help to integrate the new development intothe existing neighborhood.

Hospital Expansion AreaThe HOK plan places a significant amount of de-velopment within the expansion area north of thehospital. Options 6 and 8 cover slightly differentgeographic areas, as described below.

Option 6. This option provides a vision for redevel-opment of the area between the retail core, BrynMawr Avenue, Summit Grove Avenue, and OldLancaster Road. It illustrates a significant amountof new development, including parking, retail, of-fice, medical office, and arts space.

This new development is oriented primarily alongBryn Mawr Avenue, Old Lancaster Road, andCentral Avenue. The plan is based on several im-portant urban design principles, including:

• Creating a strong pedestrian link between thehospital and the retail core;

• Creating an urban edge along Bryn MawrAvenue;

• Encouraging first-floor retail uses along CentralAvenue, with some supporting retail uses alongBryn Mawr Avenue and Old Lancaster Road;

• Developing parking decks between the retailcore and the hospital to provide parking forboth; and

• Lining the parking garages along Central, BrynMawr, and Summit Grove avenues with residen-tial and office uses above the first-floor retailspace.

The panel believes that option 6 offers the follow-ing advantages:

• The mix of uses provides an opportunity to cre-ate a high-quality, pedestrian-oriented environ-ment;

• It creates a desirable urban edge along BrynMawr Avenue; and

• It provides a strong visual icon at the corner ofBryn Mawr and Lancaster avenues.

The negative features of option 6 are as follows:

• Linkage between the hospital and LancasterAvenue is indirect.

• The parking garages seem too large for thearea’s needs. Planners should address parkingneeds in a more comprehensive way. Thesegarages likely could be reduced in size if plan-ners took a broader approach to parking that in-cluded lots to the north of Lancaster Avenueand the town square lot.

• The plan does not illustrate how the garagescan be accessed from the retail core to ensurevisitor convenience.

• Based on the illustrations provided, the scale ofdevelopment appears too large for the existingfabric of the community. Building heightsshould be carefully considered in developingthis area.

Option 8. This option shows a similar plan for thearea, but it does not include development of theparcels along Bryn Mawr Avenue. The plan illus-trates a more direct connection between the hos-pital and Lancaster Avenue along a realignedCentral Avenue with supporting retail, office,and residential uses. The plan illustrates a sig-nificant change from the existing situation withinthis subarea.

The panel believes that option 8 offers two dis-tinct differences from option 6. Option 8 illustratesa direct and clear linkage between the hospitaland Lancaster Avenue, which is an improvement.However, the plan leaves out the parcels alongBryn Mawr Avenue, and the panel believes thatthey should be addressed in some way.


Other Areas The HOK plan addressed other areas of the vil-lage minimally or not at all. The Lancaster Av-enue commercial district was beyond the scope ofthe plan, and HOK offered few specific details forit. The HOK plan also did not address the townsquare, Ludington Library/Bryn Mawr Park, andthe Merion Avenue area.

Lancaster Avenue The panel believes that a master plan for thestudy area should focus on Lancaster Avenue,to emphasize the existing commercial core andthe adjacent supporting areas that are the truevillage of Bryn Mawr. The plan should provide aclear framework for development that is based onkey streets, focal points, and a mix of uses. A high-quality pedestrian environment should be de-

Provideconnections

to parking

Lancaster Avenue

Bryn

Maw

r Ave

nue

Old Lancaster Road

Pennsylvania Avenue

Parking

Parking Parking

Parking

Provide recommendationsfor Lancaster andBryn Mawr avenues

Maintain strong connectionto Lancaster Avenue

and Bryn Mawr Avenue

Refine plansfor residential development

to complementexisting housing

Retail unlikelyto work in

this location

HOK concept plan, option8. This plan includes alarger parking garage withretail and office uses onthe Founders Bank Build-ing site. It also realignsstreets for better linkagebetween the hospital andLancaster Avenue.


signed for the business district. Linkages betweenLancaster Avenue and the hospital should bestrengthened with wayfinding signage, street fur-niture, landscaping, and improved signaling. His-toric buildings should be protected, and designguidelines should be established so that new de-velopment is built in accordance with the charac-ter of the village. Design guidelines should ad-dress architecture, streetscape elements, and

signage. A review process should be establishedto enforce the guidelines.

Town SquareThe Lancaster Avenue business district wouldbenefit from the development of a town square ad-jacent to the train station, serving as a strongfocal point for the business district and for town-ship residents. The panel suggests using the

The panel’s land userecommendations.

Morton Road

Lancaster Avenue

Sout

hM

erio

nAv

enue

Cent

ral A

venu

e

Bryn

Maw

r Ave

nue

Ellio

tAv

enue

Sum

mit

Gro

veAv

enue

Old Lancaster Road

County Line Road

Glenbrook AvenueRailroad Avenue

Pennsylvania Avenue

Summit Grove Avenue

Key:

Mixed Use/First-Floor Retail

Mixed Use

Hospital

Park

Residential


northern portion of the site as a town center an-chored by an upscale grocery store such as WholeFoods. Other retail facilities could include an icecream parlor and other neighborhood-servingshops. The southern portion of the site should bereinstated as a public green.

An underground parking structure below theTown Square site could serve the new uses as well

as the existing retail district and train station.These combined facilities would create a naturalgathering place for public events such as seasonalfestivals, art exhibits, crafts fairs, and so forth,and would be an excellent amenity for commutersarriving by train. The design of the town squareshould strive to strengthen pedestrian connec-tions to the train station and the business district.

The panel’s density recommendations.

Morton Road

Lancaster Avenue

Sout

hM

erio

nAv

enue

Cent

ral A

venu

e

Bryn

Maw

r Ave

nue

Ellio

tAv

enue

Sum

mit

Gro

veAv

enue

Old Lancaster Road

County Line Road

Glenbrook Avenue

Railroad Avenue

Pennsylvania Avenue

Summit Grove Avenue

Key:

High Density

Medium Density

Low Density


It also should create a strong identity for thecommunity of Bryn Mawr.

Bryn Mawr Park/Ludington LibraryCurrently, there is little reason for anyone to go to the park. The township should consider whatkinds of amenities would make the park a real des-tination and an amenity for library visitors. Thelackluster playground could be augmented, andmore extensive landscaping could be installed,providing an active recreational area, which wouldcontrast with the more passive green space pro-posed for the town square.


The panel recommends a three-tiered trans-portation and parking plan. First, the town-ship’s updated comprehensive plan shouldinclude a transportation component that

identifies the overall needs of the transportationsystem, including traffic, parking, transit, andpedestrians. The comprehensive plan’s traffic andparking study should focus on key corridors likeLancaster Avenue, key intersections like the in-tersection of Bryn Mawr Avenue with HaverfordRoad/County Line Road, and an overall assess-ment of the adequacy of parking within the town-ship. Because of the magnitude of the study area,a detailed analysis that addresses the specific im-pacts of the hospital or the adjoining expansionarea should not be included in the comprehensiveplan. The township undertook a comprehensiveparking study in 2001, and this can be used to es-tablish the existing conditions section of the up-dated comprehensive plan. The comprehensiveplan should address the changes implementedsince 2001 and identify the long-term impacts as-sociated with the future land use plan.

Second, as the hospital and realty corporation fine-tune their improvement plans, specific traffic andparking plans should be developed to identify theimpacts of these improvements and recommendmitigation measures. A single study should evalu-ate both areas. The traffic element should addressthe redevelopment’s impact on traffic flow alongLancaster Avenue, Bryn Mawr Avenue, CountyLine Road, and the major intersections alongthese corridors. The parking element should docu-ment the parking demand that will be created bynew development/redevelopment, the anticipatedresulting deficit in the existing supply, and therecommended parking needed to accommodatethe demand.

Third, a Founders Bank Building site traffic andparking impact assessment should be conducted.The implementation of the Phase I medical office

building development is expected to occur prior tothe completion of the township’s comprehensiveplan or the detailed assessment of the hospital ex-pansion area. A detailed traffic and parking im-pact study of this site should focus on the accesspoints onto Bryn Mawr Avenue and Old LancasterRoad and the intersection of these two streets.

Existing Traffic Conditions The township, businesses, residents, the hospital,and the general public expressed universal con-cern that there is an existing traffic problem inthe study area, specifically along Lancaster Av-enue. Opinions differ, however, as to what consti-tutes a problem. Some people expressed concernsabout their inability to drive along Lancaster Av-enue without stopping at nearly every traffic sig-nal, while others commented that Lancaster Av-enue operates as a fast pipeline that restrictspedestrians from crossing. In addition, the trafficstudy conducted by Orth Rogers & Associates forthe hospital’s plans indicates that most of thestudy area intersections and the Lancaster Av-enue corridor as a whole operate acceptably dur-ing peak hours when evaluated from a “level-of-service” or delay perspective.

Traffic OpportunitiesSeveral intersections and corridors have beenidentified as needing improvement by priorstudies, in discussions with interested parties,or through the panel’s observations. The followingis a noninclusive summary of these locations andpotential improvements. It should be noted thatthese improvements do not override the findingsof the detailed traffic impact study.

• County Line Road/Haverford Road/Bryn MawrAvenue intersection. This intersection currentlyoperates unacceptably during peak hours be-cause of the lack of left-turn lanes, multiple legs,

Transportation and Parking Plan


and angled approaches. The traffic study—aspart of the larger redevelopment plan—shouldrecommend strategies to improve the operationand safety of the intersection. At a minimum,the intersection should provide left-turn laneson Haverford Road/County Line Road. Thestudy also should evaluate realigning BrynMawr Avenue to the west to eliminate the ex-isting skew and/or relocating the Glenbrook Av-

enue intersection with County Line Road fur-ther to the west, to provide a 90-degree inter-section. There are significant right-of-way con-straints at the intersection, and acquisitionsmay be required to accommodate the necessaryimprovements.

• Bryn Mawr Avenue corridor. An opportunityexists to enhance the operation and aesthetics

Key:

Primary Street

Key Intersection

Secondary Street

Morton Road

Lancaster Avenue

Sout

hM

erio

nAv

enue

Cent

ral A

venu

e

Bryn

Maw

r Ave

nue

Ellio

tAv

enue

Sum

mit

Gro

veAv

enue

Old Lancaster Road

County Line Road

Glenbrook Avenue

Railroad Avenue

Pennsylvania Avenue

Summit Grove Avenue

The panel’s circulationrecommendations.


of the Bryn Mawr Avenue corridor with a me-dian and left-turn lanes. The Orth Rogers & As-sociates study evaluated restricting on-streetparking and providing a two-way left-turn lanealong Bryn Mawr Avenue to improve efficiencyand safety. The panel recommends maintainingthe existing on-street parking and construct-ing a raised landscaped median between CountyLine Road/Haverford Road and LancasterAvenue. The redevelopment along Bryn MawrAvenue provides an opportunity to obtainthe anticipated right-of-way as part of theoverall plan.

• Old Lancaster Road intersection with CentralAvenue. Although the plans for the hospital ex-pansion area may undergo significant revisions,the Old Lancaster Road intersection with Cen-tral Avenue is expected to remain a criticalpedestrian linkage between the hospital and theexpansion area. The intersection should includefeatures such as textured pavement, a raised in-tersection, or a roundabout that slows trafficand promotes the pedestrian connection.

• Central Avenue approach to Lancaster Avenue.There are about 20 feet of roadway (from theface of one curb to the face of curb opposite) onCentral Avenue at Lancaster Avenue, whichcurrently operates with one-way traffic. If Cen-tral Avenue is to be redeveloped, the intersec-tion should be evaluated to determine whethertwo-way traffic can be accommodated in the 20-

foot roadway, whether left turns to and/or fromCentral Avenue should be permitted, and if theremaining sidewalk width provides a usable andappealing pedestrian linkage between the pro-posed hospital expansion area and the existingbusiness district.

• Lancaster Avenue corridor. Although the trafficproblem along Lancaster Avenue may be aproblem of perception rather than an actualtraffic problem, even a perceived problem candeter potential business district patrons. Thecomprehensive plan and Bryn Mawr Hospitaltraffic studies need to recommend improve-ments to address this issue. Traffic on Lan-caster Avenue has declined from 20,100 vehiclesper day in the late 1970s (according to the town-ship’s 1979 comprehensive plan) to 9,800 vehi-cles per day currently (based on the OrthRogers & Associates traffic study). Althoughroadway capacities vary considerably depend-ing on factors such as the percentage of turns,access control, and parking maneuvers, it is rea-sonable to say the four-lane Lancaster Avenueis operating at less than one-half its capacityand a three-lane roadway (two-way traffic witha left-turn lane) or a two-lane divided roadwaycould accommodate the existing traffic. Both op-tions would provide opportunities to enhancepedestrian crossings with a median refuge andseparate left-turn traffic with exclusive turnlanes. However, significant changes to the crosssection of Lancaster Avenue would be very dif-ficult to effect. Because it is designated as U.S.Highway 30, it is under the jurisdiction of thePennsylvania Department of Transportation,and the corridor has four-lane continuity formiles in either direction. Other potential im-provements include minimizing direct drivewayaccess to Lancaster Avenue, providing for left-turn lanes at select intersections, and restrict-ing turns at select intersections. The panelnotes that although a closed-loop signal systemrecently was installed to improve traffic pro-gression along the corridor, the timing planshave not yet been implemented; traffic countsto prepare the timings will be collected after theLancaster Avenue utility work is completed.Upon implementation of the new signal timings,

The panel has identifiedseveral intersectionsalong Lancaster Avenuethat could be upgraded toimprove traffic flow.


the corridor is expected to operate with fewerdelays and stops.

Existing Parking ConditionsParking within the study area consists of on-street spaces—both free and metered—plus pub-lic and private surface lots and the hospital’s park-ing structure. Recently completed parking studiesaddress parking within the township (the 2001township report) and within the proposed hospitalexpansion area (the 2002 Walker Parking Consul-tants report). When total peak demand is com-pared with the total supply of parking within BrynMawr, the parking supply appears to be adequate.The existing parking supply, however, lacks a co-hesive wayfinding system, is comprised of on-street meters and several disjointed lots, and in-cludes several locations that operate at or abovecapacity. The parking system therefore does notoperate as well as the specific occupancy numberssuggest. The panel concurs that Bryn Mawr Hos-pital does not have adequate parking within walk-ing distance of the hospital campus.

Parking has long been a concern for the BrynMawr village study area; it was identified as anissue in both the 1937 and 1979 comprehensiveplans. The redevelopment of the study area canprovide the opportunity to enhance the supply andoperation of parking in the study area.

Parking OpportunitiesThe panel identified the following opportunities toimprove the parking situation within the BrynMawr village study area:

• Short-term needs. As noted above, the hospitalhas an immediate need for an additional 500parking spaces. The panel recommends provid-ing these additional spaces in concert with theproposed medical office buildings on the Found-ers Bank Building site. Two levels of parkingshould be provided below the buildings, withthe remaining spaces contained in an above-grade structure east of the existing building.This proposed structure would abut existingand proposed residences, and its exact locationand architectural features need to recognize andsupport this transition.

• Hospital expansion area parking structures.The HOK plans show one or more parkingstructures in the expansion area. These struc-tures are needed to provide adequate parkingfor hospital employees, other employees of thenew commercial development, residents, theexpansion area’s new retail and office patrons,and patrons of existing Lancaster Avenuebusinesses.

• Hospital expansion area on-street parking. Theon-street parking shown on the HOK plans willprovide convenient short-term parking for re-tail and restaurant patrons.

• Hospital medical office buildings. To minimizethe massing of above-ground parking struc-tures, all medical office buildings in the areashould provide as much below-grade parking fortheir tenants and patrons as possible.

• Parking authority. The panel recommends im-plementing a parking authority for the town-ship. This authority should be responsible forthe administration, planning, financing, develop-ment, and operation of the township’s entireparking system, including on-street meters, sur-face lots, and potential parking structures.

• The redevelopment of the Town Square site. The panel believes that the Town Square site(sometimes called “lot seven”) is a critical rede-velopment parcel. The site currently providesapproximately 200 parking spaces and, as dis-

Bryn Mawr Hospital hasan immediate need for500 additional parkingspaces.

cussed previously, the redeveloped site shouldcontinue to include parking for commuters us-ing the train station, for Lancaster Avenuebusinesses, and for the proposed redevelopedtown square retail uses. The majority of theparking should be provided below grade toallow for a village square green space and re-tail development.

• Parking pricing. Although parking often is per-ceived as a free service, especially in suburbancommunities, providing parking structures, sur-face lots, or even on-street parking comes at acost. The proposed parking authority, in cooper-

ation with local business leaders, will need toselect one of the many options available to fundthe capital operating costs of the parking sys-tem. In addition, there are many creative waysto financially support the parking system with-out deterring retail and restaurant patrons.Parking fees should recognize those establishedin adjacent communities, but should not be dic-tated by them. The rates should be set in a waythat provides convenient, short-term parking forretail and restaurant customers while also en-couraging long-term parking in the structures.



The panel recommends development strate-gies for the Bryn Mawr village study areathat respond to Bryn Mawr Hospital’s im-mediate and long-term needs in ways that

also meet the needs of the broader Bryn Mawrand Lower Merion Township community.

Bryn Mawr Hospital’s Immediate NeedsThe panel understands that Bryn Mawr Hospitalhas an immediate need for 120,000 square feet ofadditional medical office space and 500 parkingspaces. This development is important to help re-tain certain medical practices and provide ade-quate parking for existing and new patients andemployees. The panel recommends that the hospi-tal immediately move forward to plan 120,000square feet of medical office space as an additionto the Founders Bank Building site, also known as Block B.

The hospital also should plan and develop 500parking spaces, located in two levels below grade,under the medical office buildings, with additional,adjacent surface parking. To shield the neighbor-hood from the visual impact of development onBlock B, new townhouses should be developedalong the west side of Pennsylvania Avenue in astyle consistent with existing housing on the eastside of the street. The panel understands thatBlock B is mostly zoned commercial, which per-mits medical offices. Lower Merion Townshipshould consider giving the hospital special accom-modations to permit the expeditious developmentof this property.

Bryn Mawr Hospital’s Long-Term Needs Long-term needs encompass the hospital expan-sion area. Bryn Mawr Hospital has acquired muchof the property in the expansion area, which isbounded by Lancaster Avenue, Old LancasterRoad, Bryn Mawr Avenue, and Summit Grove Av-

enue. The hospital wants to redevelop this areainto a mixed-use project with retail, medical office,other office, and various types of residential uses.Citizen groups and local business owners have ex-pressed significant interest in the plans for thisarea. Development issues raised by the hospital’sproposal include transportation, parking, infra-structure, urban design, and the appropriate mixof retail and office tenants and types of housing.

Because of the significant land use issues raisedby the hospital’s larger plan, the panel proposesthat Bryn Mawr Hospital submit its properties inthe expansion area to review by a comprehensiveplan effort to be undertaken by Lower MerionTownship and a steering committee that would becomposed of major stakeholders in the study area,including citizen groups, the hospital, and thetownship. This proposal will be covered in moredetail in the Implementation section of this report.

By submitting its proposal for the expansion areato the comprehensive plan process and steeringcommittee review, the hospital would agree not totake any action with respect to its property for aperiod of 24 months. At the end of an initial re-view period, if plans for the area have not beencompleted, the hospital would have the option ofextending the review period or removing its prop-erty from further review. The panel envisions theeducational institutions in the area playing a sig-nificant leadership role in managing the steeringcommittee and comprehensive plan process, as de-scribed in greater detail in the Implementationsection.

The panel understands that Bryn Mawr Hospitalultimately will sell its property in the expansionarea to a professional real estate developer, whowill construct the project. The hospital should con-sider placing a “right to buy back” clause on thedeal if construction does not commence within 24months after the property sale, or if the subse-quent owner plans a significant departure from

Development Strategies


not been fully defined, but appear to involve re-moving several buildings, adaptive use of otherexisting buildings, and approximately 400,000square feet of new construction. These plans raisesignificant issues, including transportation, park-ing, and infrastructure planning.

The panel recommends that the hospital begin theplanning process for this redevelopment by con-sidering its impact on the surrounding community.In particular, the hospital should consider redevel-oping the Garrett House into a community for se-niors, with both independent and assisted-livingfacilities.

Bryn Mawr Parking FacilitiesSignificant parking demands in the Bryn Mawrvillage study area are not being met by BrynMawr Hospital, Lower Merion Township, or busi-ness and residential owners. The panel recom-mends that a parking authority for the entiretownship be formed to serve its commercial dis-tricts. As a catalyst to capitalizing the parkingauthority, Bryn Mawr Hospital should considercontributing its garage in the trapezoid to the au-thority. In return, the hospital would take back asubordinate promissory note. The parking author-ity would have the authority to issue tax-exemptrevenue bonds and levy reasonable parking fees,as well as fees on commercial properties in thestudy area that do not provide on-site parking.The panel recommends that parking fees becharged only during weekday business hours,thus encouraging people to patronize the com-mercial district’s businesses in the evenings andon weekends.

the development plan approved under the com-prehensive plan.

As part of this process, the township should con-sider implementing a business improvement dis-trict (BID). Although Lower Merion Township ini-tially would fund the BID, over time the financialburden would be shared by businesses in the BIDarea. The BID would be managed by an executivedirector, and would be responsible for planning,marketing, special events, and street and sidewalktreatments.

As discussed in the Planning and Design section,the master plan for the study area should includedesign guidelines, permitted land uses, and a sign-age ordinance to guide the style and quality of uses.In addition, the plan should take into account con-necting visual and transportation links to the R5and R100 rail stations.

Bryn Mawr Hospital RedevelopmentBryn Mawr Hospital has significant plans for re-development of the trapezoid. These plans have

Bryn Mawr Hospital is a major employer andimportant communityinstitution.


Implementation

It is important to prepare a sector plan for theBryn Mawr village study area. It is equally im-portant to ensure that the goals and recom-mendations of the plan ultimately are imple-

mented for the benefit of Bryn Mawr’s residents.The sector plan recommendations will providemore certainty and predictability to the commu-nity as the township considers the appropriate-ness of new development. The principles of transit-oriented development will serve as a useful guidefor the community and developers.

The process of preparing a sector plan should beinclusive. Residents and business leaders, the hos-pital administration, the colleges, and township of-ficials and staff are important stakeholders whoseviews must be carefully considered if the plan is to be truly reflective of community goals, aspira-tions, and needs. The implementation plan recom-mended in this report takes into account the rolesof all stakeholders.

The Bryn Mawr Community

Bryn Mawr residents maintain a strong history ofcommunity service and activism. The sector planapproval process should reflect the community’smany interests. Toward this end, the panel makesthe following recommendations for community in-volvement. Residents and business owners should:

• Take an active role in the development of a sec-tor plan;

• Volunteer to serve on the sector plan steeringcommittee charged with advising townshipcommissioners on plan issues and recommenda-tions; and

• Participate in community discussions and publichearings.

Bryn Mawr HospitalBryn Mawr Hospital provides excellent healthcare and strives to make available state-of-the-artfacilities to carry out its mission. While prior ex-pansions of the hospital have occurred, continuedpopulation growth, advances in medical science re-quiring more extensive facilities, and the desire ofmedical practitioners to locate their offices closeto the hospital result in the need for further ex-pansion. The critical debate for the community ishow the needed expansion can be accommodatedwithout significantly altering or adversely affect-ing the community. The hospital expansion pro-posal is controversial in that it involves a numberof issues of concern to the community. One issue isthe hospital’s purchase of private property foruses other than hospital-related activities. Somestakeholders question whether the hospital shouldbe in the business of commercial and residentialdevelopment.

Another issue important to the community is thelack of supporting analysis to measure the effectsof the expansion on the Bryn Mawr village studyarea. The residents have seen no traffic studiesthat would assure them that the roads will not beadversely affected, nor have they seen informa-tion that would justify the commercial and resi-dential components of the project and the need forpublicly financed and managed parking garages.The effects of the project on the transportationsystem are of particular concern. The number ofpotential vehicular trips created by the projectand their impact on nearby intersections raisesquestions about the need for transportation infra-structure improvements including roadways, side-walks, pedestrian crossings, and signalization.

The hospital’s public forums to discuss the projectwith the community appear to the residents to beone sided, with no real desire on the part of thehospital to consider public input. It is one thing toreject a suggestion, but anyone who presents an


idea or raises a concern should be entitled tospecific feedback, including an explanation of thepros and cons of the suggested action. In this re-spect, the community feels that communicationbetween the hospital and citizens has been ineffec-tive. These issues should be balanced with the factthat the hospital is Bryn Mawr’s largest employerand contributes significantly to the economic well-being of the community.

The panel makes the following recommendationsto address these issues:

• The hospital should take into consideration theviews of all stakeholders, so that all of theseviews can be explored to the benefit of thelarger community.

• The hospital should rethink its public relationsapproach and retain an outside public relationsfirm to establish an effective communicationstrategy and working relationship with thecommunity.

• The hospital should engage in dialogue with thecommunity prior to the formal submission of de-velopment applications to the township. Undercurrent procedures, the panel understands thatthe hospital would submit a special exceptionapplication to the township for staff reviewprior to the township zoning board’s publichearing and decision.

• Alternatively, if the hospital delays its projectuntil a sector plan is approved, the MUST Ordi-nance is enacted, and the hospital land is classi-fied under the new overlay zone, then the hospi-tal’s application for development would not bedecided by the zoning board but, instead, by thetownship commissioners after review by itsstaff and the township planning commission.

• The hospital’s first-phase expansion—which islimited to medical office buildings with someparking garages located across Bryn Mawr Av-enue from the hospital—should be allowed toproceed under current special exception proce-dures and processes.

• The hospital’s second, mixed-use phase of ex-pansion—which is located north of Old Land-caster Road and includes medical offices, gen-eral office space, retail/commercial development,and housing—should be delayed until the town-ship commissioners take action on a sector plan,enact the MUST Ordinance, and rezone theproperty.

Educational InstitutionsSeveral internationally acclaimed colleges and pri-vate schools, as well as a highly regarded publicschool system, enhance the quality of life in BrynMawr. The students attending these schools havebenefited from the opportunities provided by thecommunity’s businesses and services. In addition,students have the opportunity to participate in arange of community activities. A number of com-munity residents have expressed pride that theyattended local colleges and then decided to remainresidents of Bryn Mawr, further contributing toits success. Many members of the colleges’ facultyand staff live in Bryn Mawr and support the activ-ities of the community.

The colleges represent a valuable resource thatwill continue to contribute to the community’s via-bility, augmenting its image as a good place to live,work, and enjoy cultural amenities. These institu-tions also contribute significantly to the commu-nity’s economic viability and quality of life. Thecommunity and the colleges should cooperate inthe following ways to realize better working rela-tionships:

Township leaders mustdevelop a strategy to allowthe hospital to meet itsneeds without adverselyaffecting the community.


• Colleges should encourage students, faculty,and staff to participate in community activities;

• College representation should be included onthe sector plan steering committee;

• The township should create a liaison programthrough the colleges to facilitate community-wide discussion and information exchange on avariety of issues; and

• Colleges should maintain the Community Foun-dation program, which was established to pro-vide financial support to the township to helpoffset the costs of services provided to the col-leges by the township.

The TownshipThe township is responsible for providing neces-sary planning expertise in both the developmentof a sector plan and the implementation of aMUST overlay zone. The plan should clearly iden-tify land uses, recommended densities, and delin-eate appropriate building heights and designguidelines that will ensure that future develop-ment will be compatible with the existing andplanned development in the study area. In addi-tion, the plan should recommend implementationprocedures and processes intended to create amore attractive community that can better utilizeits transit facilities. The panel makes the followingrecommendations regarding the township’s role:

• The township must assume the responsibility oftaking effective actions to assure the successfulimplementation of the sector plan.

• The township is accountable to the citizens ofBryn Mawr and other communities in the town-ship for the success of the overall plan develop-ment and implementation processes. Its pri-mary responsibility is to ensure an open andinclusive public process in which all stakehold-ers are able to participate and be heard.

• The township manager is responsible for direct-ing township staff to work collaboratively withstakeholders and developers to implement thetownship’s plans, policies, and procedures.

• The township needs to carefully examine theneed for a parking authority and a BID. Theseprograms will require careful analysis by thetownship concerning fiscal and tax implications,as well as long-term maintenance and manage-ment requirements.

The MUST OrdinanceThe MUST (Mixed-Use Special Transit) Ordi-nance is being considered as a means of creating a new overlay zone in the R5 and R6 corridorsadjoining transit stations in the township to ac-commodate higher-density, mixed-use, transit-oriented development that fosters greater eco-nomic viability while bringing pedestrian activityand a sense of community. It recognizes the impor-tance of public transit as a viable alternative tothe automobile by permitting appropriate densi-ties and a mix of land uses within walking distanceof transit stops while, at the same time, providingsufficient off-street parking both within and adja-cent to the MUST district.

During the panel’s interviews, citizens expressedconcern that the MUST Ordinance is primarily in-tended to facilitate the hospital’s proposal for com-mercial and residential development with parkingstructures. This does not appear to be the case,because the township has stated that the MUSTOrdinance is intended to facilitate redevelopmentof designated transit station areas— which areoutside the hospital’s expansion area—and applies

The panel recommendsestablishing a businessimprovement district(BID) to provide develop-ment and maintenanceguidelines and maintainthe streetscape in BrynMawr’s business district.


only to commercially zoned property. The panelbelieves that the township should consider theMUST Ordinance only if the sector plan is amend-ed to recommend areas suitable for transit-orienteddevelopment. The panel could not reach consensuson further recommendations regarding the MUSTordinance.

Higher-density mixed-use development within theBryn Mawr village study area requires the incor-poration of sound land use planning principles anddesign concepts as identified in the Planning andDesign section of this report. Such principles andconcepts should be incorporated into a sector planfor the study area. The community must be assuredthat transit-oriented development at the right lo-cations with proper controls will benefit the com-munity and will help implement the long-termcommunity vision. The concept of transit-orienteddevelopment near transit stations is appropriate,but the township must determine the extent andscope of such development, as well as the proce-dures and processes for implementation.

A Business Improvement DistrictIn order to ensure that the retail core is developedand maintained in a manner that is attractive andfunctional for both businesses and residents, thetownship must consider establishing a businessimprovement district. A BID will provide guide-lines for the construction and maintenance of ap-proved streetscape features—including streets,sidewalks, street trees, benches, and other ameni-ties typically located between the curb and build-ing facades—and typically provides for the long-term maintenance of these features. Many BIDsincorporate “safe teams” to assist the public andprovide a measure of security for the benefit ofbusinesses and residences. The panel’s interviews,however, indicate that such security efforts maynot be warranted for Bryn Mawr’s business dis-trict, where safety has not been an issue. Both aparking authority and a BID normally requirespecial taxing districts or other means of financingto provide revenue and financial support for theseimportant public activities.


The panel has attempted to address the is-sues presented by the township. In addition,the panel has made its own observations.Bryn Mawr has many strengths from which

to draw. The community is conveniently located ina highly desirable suburban corridor, with transitin place. Educational institutions bring a wealth of amenities and opportunities to Bryn Mawr. Thelocal housing stock is varied and the commercialcore includes many local business owners whocare about the community’s future. Bryn Mawr’scitizens are highly articulate and are engaged inthe issues facing the community.

Sector plans and a comprehensive plan both mustbe created. Design standards must be developedthat will create and protect community standards.Traffic and parking issues have been identifiedand the panel has proposed solutions, including in-stituting a public parking authority to develop andcontrol strategically placed new parking.

Bryn Mawr offers market potential in a number of sectors. Of those, the most notable are medicaloffice, retail, and residential development. Newmedical office space can and should be developedto support Bryn Mawr Hospital. Such develop-ment will add to daytime street life and will, inturn, support the retail district. Demand exists fora strengthened retail district, which will furtherrevitalize the downtown. In terms of housing, de-

mand exists for a wider variety of housing stock tomeet the needs of an aging population as well asyoung people forming new households.

Phased development, starting at the FoundersBank Building site, can protect most interestswhile the township garners consensus for futuredevelopment. It is critical that all stakeholders—citizens, the township and other community lead-ers, and hospital representatives—stand behindthis proposal and make it a first step toward therevitalization of Bryn Mawr. Once this occurs, atask force–driven sector plan can be developed todetermine how much of what kind of developmentshould take place where, and what should happennext to develop downtown Bryn Mawr. Earlysteps should include recapturing the town squareas a public green space with complementary de-velopment so that a true identity for Bryn Mawrcan begin to be restored.

All constituents can begin to join togetherthrough the steering committee to plan BrynMawr’s future while nurturing the institutionsthat are so important to maintaining a high qual-ity of life. The panel believes that Bryn Mawr willreach its full potential. Residents, businesses, andother stakeholders deserve nothing less.

Conclusion


Suzanne H. CameronWashington, D.C.

In late 1998, Cameron began her consultancy,Cameron & Company, to meet the strategic andmarket positioning needs of the real estate indus-try. This consultancy links her 30 years of experi-ence in visionary strategic planning and market-ing management in the community developmentprocess with notable business partners providingcomprehensive business support to achieve thevalue uplift needed for sustainable profitability.

For ten years, Cameron utilized her experience asa broker and a director of marketing to improvesales at Sea Pines Plantation, Hilton Head, SouthCarolina, by identifying and exploiting new mar-kets. Later, as a project manager, she implementedmany innovative positioning concepts and newproduct initiatives. Subsequently, as vice presi-dent at Disney/Arvida communities in Florida,she leveraged the Disney/Arvida equity and mar-ket position to achieve measurably enhanced cus-tomer preferences as well as increased sales andprofitability for this regional resort and residen-tial community development company.

As senior vice president of marketing, with a port-folio exceeding $2 billion in mixed-use, residential,and resort real estate assets nationwide, Cameronbrought her innovations in residential and resortcommunity development to Mobil Corporation’sreal estate and land development business and es-tablished a vertically integrated national market-ing and sales program to leverage Mobil’s valuedequity, maximize customer awareness, and in-crease margins and revenues.

Cameron has taught real estate resort/communitydevelopment, strategic planning, and integratedbrand marketing strategies at the University ofCalifornia at Berkeley and for the Urban Land In-stitute, and continues to publish and lecture na-

Byron R. KostePanel ChairBoulder, Colorado

Koste joined the University of Colorado (CU) RealEstate Center as its first director in 1996. He cameto the center from Westinghouse Communities,Inc. (WCI), a wholly owned subsidiary of Westing-house Electric, where he held a variety of financialand managerial posts, culminating in his appoint-ment as president in 1992. At WCI, Koste waschiefly responsible for the development of thecompany’s Florida west coast operations, includ-ing Pelican Bay, Bay Colony, and Pelican Marsh in Naples; Pelican Landing in Bonita Springs; and Gateway in Fort Myers.

In 1989, Koste was awarded the Order of Merit,Westinghouse’s highest honor bestowed upon anemployee for distinguished service to the com-pany and the community. He received the 2002ULI Pathfinder award from ULI’s SouthwestFlorida District Council for his pioneering effortsin establishing high-quality master-planned com-munities in that region.

Koste received his bachelor of arts degree, withmajors in economics and fine arts, from DickinsonCollege in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, and a master ofbusiness administration from Duquesne Univer-sity in Pittsburgh. He also graduated from theExecutive Program at Stanford University.

Koste is a member of the board of directors andthe executive committee of the Philharmonic Cen-ter for the Arts at Pelican Bay, a trustee of Dick-inson College, past chair of ULI’s EnvironmentalCouncil, past chair of the ULI Colorado DistrictCouncil, and a member of the board of directors ofthe Colorado chapter of the National Associationof Industrial and Office Properties (NAIOP).

About the Panel


Pat HawleyBrookfield, Wisconsin

Hawley has more than 12 years of project man-agement experience specializing in traffic analysisand parking and transportation planning. Hisareas of expertise include corridor studies, trafficimpact studies, roundabout studies, traffic safetystudies, parking studies, and signalized and stopsign–controlled intersection capacity analyses. Hehas managed large, multidisciplinary projectteams on complex projects, including the recentlycompleted planning study for the 272-mile free-way system in southeastern Wisconsin.

Hawley has served on the board of directors of the Wisconsin section of the Institution of Trans-portation Engineers for the past four years and is its current past president. He also is a memberof the Transportation Research Board’s accessmanagement committee and the Wisconsin De-partment of Transportation’s roundabout designguide committee.

Hawley has taught Marquette University’s in-troduction to transportation engineering coursefor three years, and also teaches several shortcourses through the University of Wisconsin atMadison, including courses on parking studies,parking site design, roundabout planning, and thetransportation impacts of land development. Heregularly speaks at local and national conferenceson a variety of transportation and parking topics.

Hawley received his bachelor’s degree in civil en-gineering from Marquette University and hismaster’s degree in civil engineering from TexasA&M. He is registered as a professional engineerin Wisconsin and has his Professional Traffic Oper-ations Engineer registration.

Joanne MilnerSalt Lake City, Utah

Milner is the community relations, program andfacilities manager at Horizonte Instruction andTraining Center, a nontraditional high school inSalt Lake City serving nearly 10,000 students a year, including youths, teen parents, adults,

tionwide. Since 1976, she has been an active con-tributor within ULI, where she currently sits onthe Recreational Development Council and is amember of various task forces and committees.

Joseph R. DavisWheaton, Maryland

Davis recently became director of the Montgom-ery County Redevelopment Program. He cur-rently is assigned to the Wheaton RedevelopmentProject, a multiyear effort by the MontgomeryCounty government to help revitalize downtownWheaton, a major retail center located approxi-mately 3.5 miles north of Washington, D.C., that isone of four designated central business districts inthe county. The goal of the redevelopment projectis to rejuvenate downtown Wheaton into a vibrantdowntown center with a balanced, urban mix ofresidential, office, and retail uses.

Davis leads a team of professional and adminis-trative staff who work with developers and newbusinesses interested in opportunities in down-town Wheaton. The team also assists existingbusinesses looking to expand or enhance their op-erations, as well as businesses that must be relo-cated or are displaced as a result of ongoing rede-velopment activities. Davis is responsible formarketing and administering the Wheaton Enter-prise Zone, a tax credit incentive program enactedby the state of Maryland to help new and expand-ing businesses to grow. The program offers prop-erty tax and employment tax credits to qualifyingbusinesses for new construction and for addingnew employees in the downtown.

Davis recently retired from the Maryland–National Capital Park and Planning Commission,where he served in a variety of planning positionsin both Montgomery and Prince George’s counties.He holds a master’s degree in social science fromthe University of Northern Colorado and a bache-lor’s degree in political science and geography fromFlorida State University. He is a member of theUrban Land Institute and serves on the Execu-tive Committee of ULI’s Washington DistrictCouncil.


refugees, and new Americans learning English asa second language. She is a former Salt Lake CityCouncil member and a three-term member of theUtah State House of Representatives.

In addition to serving as an Inner-City Adviserfor the Urban Land Institute, Milner serves onthe Utah Advisory Committee for the NationalCommission on Civil Rights. She is a member ofthe board of directors of the National Conferencefor Community Justice (formerly the NationalConference for Christians and Jews). A notedcommunity advocate, Milner has voluntarilyproduced a weekly public affairs radio program,Perspective. She holds a master’s of public admin-istration degree and a bachelor’s degree in com-munications/public relations from the Universityof Utah. She is coauthor of the Utah State FareCookbook, which promotes the state’s culturaldiversity through cooking and traditional familyrecipes.

Paul MoyerAlexandria, Virginia

Moyer, the director of operations and senior asso-ciate for EDAW, Inc., has more than 15 years ofexperience as a senior planner and urban designer.A recognized expert in navy planning, base reuseplanning, master planning, and community revi-talization, he currently is preparing a regionalland management plan for the U.S. Navy’s Mid-Atlantic Region that addresses the navy’s exist-ing and future land needs, including its relocationof activities from St. Julians Creek, Virginia.

Moyer’s experience in base reuse planning in-cludes the preparation of several studies for proj-ects in Suffolk, Virginia; Bermuda; Silver Spring,Maryland; Anniston, Alabama; and South Wey-mouth, Massachusetts. He also has been involvedin an extensive number of community revitaliza-tion projects, including two corridor studies inHampton Virginia, a revitalization plan for LeeHighway in the city of Fairfax, Virginia, anddowntown action plans for the city of St. Louisand the District of Columbia.

Richard L. PerlmutterRockville, Maryland

Perlmutter founded Argo Investment Company in1996. The firm currently is developing several re-tail and office projects in the Washington, D.C.,metropolitan area. Since its inception, Argo hasacquired or developed more than 2 million squarefeet of Class A office, urban retail, and residentialspace. The firm currently is developing DowntownSilver Spring, a 1.2 million-square-foot mixed-useredevelopment project in Montgomery County,Maryland. The project—which includes 500,000square feet of urban retail space, 100,000 squarefeet of civic uses, 200,000 square feet of Class Aoffice space, a 170-room hotel, 170 luxury apart-ments, public plazas, and multilevel parking struc-tures—represents a public/private commitment ofmore than $320 million. All phases are completed,under construction, or will be under constructionshortly.

As senior vice president of South Charles Realty,a division of Bank of America, Perlmutter was re-sponsible for managing its troubled real estateportfolio. From 1990 to 1996, he completed morethan 500 transactions valued at $1.5 billion. Dur-ing his tenure at Bank of America, Perlmutter de-veloped Milestone, a master-planned communitywith 1 million square feet of suburban office space,1 million square feet of community and big-box re-tail space, and more than 2,000 residential units.The project was completed in 1996.

Perlmutter began his real estate career with Ox-ford Development Corporation, where he devel-oped more than 3,000 apartments along the East-ern Seaboard from 1984 to 1990. Upon graduatingfrom law school in 1981, Perlmutter became coun-sel to the U. S. Senate Committee on Commerce,Science, and Transportation and also served as at-torney/adviser to the U.S. Commerce Secretary.He completed undergraduate study in environ-mental design at the School of Architecture andPlanning of the State University of New York atBuffalo and graduate study in urban planning atthe School of Architecture and Urban Design ofthe University of California at Los Angeles.


Perlmutter is active in community and profes-sional organizations. He is a member of the Exec-utive Committee of ULI’s Washington DistrictCouncil; past president of the board of directors ofGreen Acres School; member of the board of direc-tors of Carl M. Freeman Associates, master-planned resort, golf, and retail developers; andchair of the board of directors of the BethesdaCenter of Excellence, a U.S. Whitewater Canoe &Kayak Team training center.

Marc ShawWashington, D.C.

Shaw is a registered architect and senior associatein the Washington, D.C., office of Einhorn YaffeePrescott, Architecture & Engineering P.C. His 26-year career has produced an affection for acute andmental health care environments, education andresearch facilities, and the people who use them.Shaw’s work focuses on projects that require achallenging integration of user needs, commu-nity desires, and technological requirements. Hishands-on experience ranges from master planning,programming, and working with community andgovernment groups through building design, de-velopment of construction documents, construc-tion administration, and post-occupancy evaluation.

Shaw currently is lead medical planner and execu-tive project manager for the District of Colum-bia’s new Saint Elizabeth’s Hospital. The 293-bedfacility will integrate recovery-based forensic andcivil psychiatric programs in a new facility. Shawalso is working with MedCentral College of Nurs-ing to develop a master plan and implement con-struction of the college’s new campus. His pastexperience includes work with the National Hos-pital for Orthopedics and Rehabilitation, Shep-pard Pratt Health Systems, George WashingtonUniversity, and multiple state and federal govern-ment entities.

Shaw has practiced architecture with EinhornYaffee Prescott since he joined the firm when itsWashington, D.C., office opened in 1989. He is afaculty member of the firm’s corporate university,EYP/U, which was awarded the 2003 AmericanInstitute of Architects Continuing Education Sys-tem Award of Excellence. He received his bache-lor of science in architecture from the Universityof Virginia School of Architecture and has been aregistered architect for more than 20 years.

David C. SlaterReston Virginia

Slater has been with Hammer, Siler, George As-sociates since 1972. He has been responsible for a range of economic development, developmentmanagement, housing program, and real estatemarket studies. Before 1972, he worked for theKnoxville, Atlanta, and Baltimore metropolitanplanning agencies and the American Planning As-sociation. He taught real estate economics at theUniversity of Virginia Graduate School from 1981to 2002.

Slater has presented papers at more than 30 con-ferences of the American Planning Association,the National Association of Installation Develop-ers, the American Society for Public Administra-tion, the Maryland Association of Counties, andthe International Economic Development Council.He is the author of the “green book” on manage-ment of local planning published by the Interna-tional City/County Management Association.

Slater holds a master of regional planning de-gree from the University of North Carolina atChapel Hill, a BS degree in city planning fromMichigan State University, and an AS degree inpre-engineering from St. Clair County (Michigan)Community College.

AN ADVISORY SERVICES PANEL REPORT Bryn Mawr...

Documents

Transcript of AN ADVISORY SERVICES PANEL REPORT Bryn Mawr...