TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION

BUILDING AND PLANNING Wednesday, November 29, 2017 COMMITTEE 6:00 PM (Approximately)

Chairperson: Elizabeth Rogan, Philip S. Rosenzweig (Co-Chairs) Vice Chairperson: Joshua L. Grimes, George T. Manos

AGENDA

1. ZONING UPDATE

2. CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION - 211 Belmont Avenue, Bala Cynwyd, CU# 3791C

3. PRELIMINARY LOT LINE CHANGE PLAN - 613 & 617 General Lafayette Road, Merion Station, SD# 3793, Ward 13

1 AGENDA ITEM INFORMATION

ITEM: ZONING UPDATE

The consultant team from DPZ will present a Retail Market Analysis prepared by Gibbs Planning Group and will provide a brief update on the Township-wide zoning project. PUBLIC COMMENT

ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Issue Briefing Issue Briefing Retail Study Backup Material Comprehensive Plan Excerpts Resolution Comprehensive Plan Figures Backup Material

2 TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION

Building & Planning Committee

Issue Briefing

Topic: Retail Market Analysis – Zoning Update

Prepared by: Christopher Leswing, Director, Building & Planning Department

Date: November 21, 2017

I. Action To Be Considered By The Board:

Discuss the Retail Market Analysis prepared by Robert J. Gibbs of the Gibbs Planning Group, a subconsultant of DPZ for the zoning update.

II. Why This Issue Requires Board Consideration:

The Retail Market Analysis was not required by the Township as part of the zoning/land development code update. The Retail Market Analysis has been provided by DPZ as part of their internal analysis of existing Township codes and conditions for consistency with the commercial area vision, goals and recommendations contained within the Comprehensive Plan. The Retail Market Analysis confirms the commercial area findings of the Comprehensive Plan. Public presentation of these findings is an important milestone in the code update process and allows a focused discussion on potential commercial code modifications.

III. Current Policy Or Practice (If Applicable):

Not applicable.

IV. Other Relevant Background Information:

The Retail Market Analysis confirms the commercial area conclusions of the Township’s Comprehensive Plan. The primary intent of the commercial land use recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan is to improve the vitality, functionality, and appearance of the Township’s commercial districts. The commercial area zoning modifications will ensure that future commercial areas exhibit the same high qualities as the Township’s residential districts.

The Land Use Element considers the long-range community objectives of encouraging the revitalization of neighborhood-oriented commercial areas and the redevelopment of the more regionally focused City Avenue District. Pertinent sections of the commercial land use element are attached as outlined below: • Pages 159-161 of the Land Use Plan describes the overall land use vision and how commercial land use integrates with residential, institutional, and public land use. 1

3 • Pages 243-249 provides the Commercial Land Use Summary. • Page 253 includes the Typology Chart identifying the desired form and characteristics of each of the commercial areas. • Page 255 includes the Commercial Area Typology Map showing the location of each of the commercial districts.

The Retail Market Analysis focuses on two major commercial centers that have been identified as needing revitalization, are most likely to experience physical change over time and which may require modifications to existing zoning to meet goals of the Comprehensive Plan: Ardmore and City Avenue. This report identifies needed goods and services for the existing and expanding consumer base of nearby residents, and workers. The zoning concepts applied to these districts may also be applied to other commercial areas less likely to experience significant physical transformation.

Robert J. Gibbs is an expert at writing new code for retail and mixed-use development and is a frequent consultant/advisor for DPZ. He distilled the fundamental retail and merchandising principles for reviving retail downtowns and for promoting successful commerce in new ones.

V. Impact on Township Finances:

This Retail Market Analysis has no immediate impact on Township finances.

VI. Staff Recommendation:

The retail analysis is being presented for information only. There is no staff recommendation and no Board action required.

2

4

Retail Market Analysis Lower Merion Township, Pennsylvania

Prepared for: Lower Merion Township

Prepared by: Gibbs Planning Group

17 November 2017

5

6

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Executive Summary ...... 1 Background ...... 3 Methodology ...... 4 Trade Area ...... 6 Demographic Characteristics ...... 8 Tapestry Lifestyles ...... 9 Employment Base ...... 12

TRADE AREA CHARACTERISTICS ...... 15 Location ...... 15 Access ...... 15 Other Shopping Centers ...... 16

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ...... 18 Retail Category Definitions ...... 19 2017 & 2022 Supportable Retail ...... 20 Shopping Center Definitions ...... 23 Rationale ...... 24 Limits of Study ...... 24

APPENDIX ...... 26 Exhibit A: Primary Trade Area Community Profile ...... 26 Exhibit B: Primary Trade Area Business Summary ...... 33 Exhibit C: Primary Trade Area Housing Profile ...... 35 Exhibit D: Primary Trade Area Tapestry Segmentation ...... 37

7

8

INTRODUCTION

Figure 1: Aerial photo of Lower Merion Township and the two study areas, Ardmore and City Avenue. The primary trade area can presently support an additional 358,600 sf of retail and restaurant development.

Executive Summary This study finds that the two Lower Merion Township study areas, Ardmore and City Avenue, could presently support up to 358,600 square feet (sf) of additional retail and restaurant development, generating up to $137.2 million in sales. By 2022, the retail demand could likely grow in strength to capture $168.8 million in sales. This new development would be considered a community type shopping center by industry definitions and could be absorbed with the opening of 85 to 105 new restaurants and stores.

The subject site can provide needed goods and services for the existing and expanding consumer base of nearby residents, workers and students. With existing retail destinations and access to public transit, the study areas represent meaningful locations for infill development or redevelopment which can add to the critical mass of commercial development and improve each study area’s consumer attraction. The supportable retail includes 2-3 full-service grocery stores, 5-7 hardware, home improvement and garden stores, 8-9 stores carrying department store merchandise, 11-12 general merchandise stores, 6-7 limited-service restaurants, 3-4 full-service restaurants, and a diverse collection of other retail offerings. The household density in Lower Merion Township and a statistical under supply of the supportable retail categories creates the depth of market to support sustainable retail development.

Located along the East Coast, just five miles outside of Center City Philadelphia and eight miles north of Philadelphia International Airport, Lower Merion is an established inner ring suburb of Philadelphia, which was incorporated in the early 1700s. The Township is comprised of 15 unincorporated communities and is home to five higher education institutions. Served by the SEPTA rail line, Lower Merion is a desirable residential location for many professionals employed in Center City and as a result maintains an affluent reputation. The Township is in the process of

Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study 1. Gibbs Planning Group, Inc. 17 November 2017 9

updating its zoning code and would like to encourage infill development along its traditional shopping streets and improved urbanism along its more auto-oriented corridors.

Table 1: 2017 Supportable Retail

2017 Estimated 2017 Estimated No. of Retail Category Supportable SF Retail Sales Stores Retailers Grocery Stores 78,400 sf $43,898,400 3 - 4 Hardware & Garden Stores 39,600 sf $10,516,800 5 - 7 Department Store Merchandise 37,900 sf $13,251,000 8 - 9 General Merchandise Stores 31,900 sf $10,051,650 11 - 12 Furniture & Home Furnishings Stores 18,000 sf $6,603,450 7 - 9 Electronics & Appliance Stores 17,800 sf $6,775,400 4 - 6 Miscellaneous Store Retailers 16,400 sf $4,674,000 6 - 7 Apparel & Shoe Stores 13,900 sf $5,311,850 5 - 7 Pharmacy 13,000 sf $7,112,250 1 - 2 Specialty Food & Beverage Stores 10,900 sf $3,655,350 4 – 6 Sporting Goods & Hobby Stores 10,600 sf $3,404,800 4 - 5 Auto Parts Stores 6,400 sf $2,204,550 2 - 3 Office Supplies & Gift Stores 5,100 sf $1,379,700 2 - 3 Jewelry Stores 3,400 sf $1,508,550 2 - 3 Book & Music Stores 3,400 sf $938,000 2 Florists 1,100 sf $386,900 1 - 2 Retailer Totals 307,800 sf $121,672,650 66 - 86 Restaurants Limited-Service Eating Places 20,600 sf $6,379,800 6 - 7 Full-Service Restaurants 15,900 sf $5,582,500 3 - 4 Bars, Breweries & Pubs 9,600 sf $4,193,400 3 - 5 Special Food Services 4,700 sf $1,336,650 2 - 3 Restaurant Totals 50,800 sf $17,492,350 14 - 19 Retailer & Restaurant Totals 358,600 sf $139,165,000 80 - 105

Table 1: The primary trade area could support as much as 358,600 sf of total retail development with the potential to capture over $139.1 million in sales.

This study further finds that the Lower Merion primary trade area includes 174,300 people and is expected to increase to 177,300 by 2022, at an annual rate of 0.34 percent. Incomes in the primary trade area average $136,700 annually, and are estimated to increase to $151,100 by 2022. Moreover, 55.0 percent of the primary trade area’s households earn above $75,000 per year. The primary trade area’s average household size is 2.41 and the median age is 39.7 years.

2. Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study Gibbs Planning Group, Inc. 17 November 2017 10

Figure 2: The two Lower Merion study areas are located in the established “Main Line” suburbs of Philadelphia, which were historically served by the Pennsylvania Rail Road.

Background Gibbs Planning Group, Inc. (GPG) has been retained by Lower Merion Township to conduct a retail market study to understand the future demand for retail and restaurant development in the two study areas, Ardmore and City Avenue. An effort to update the current zoning code with form- based regulations is currently underway and the potential for new development can influence the types and sizes of buildings the new code can encourage. The Ardmore study area is a traditional “Main Street” that could benefit from growing its critical mass and enhancing the draw to area residents, while the City Avenue study area is conventionally suburban in character and could be “retro-fitted” with infill or redevelopment that makes more efficient use of the land and elevates the quality of life for nearby residents, workers and students. The two study areas were identified in the Lower Merion Comprehensive Plan to have regional and community significance and are viewed as integral to growing the economic base.

GPG addressed the following issues in this study:

• What is the existing and planned retail market in the study and trade area?

• What is the primary trade area for Lower Merion Township?

• What are the population and demographic characteristics in the primary trade area, currently and projected for 2022?

Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study 3. Gibbs Planning Group, Inc. 17 November 2017 11

• What is the current and projected growth for retail expenditures in the primary trade area over the next five years?

• How much additional retail square footage is supportable in the Ardmore and City Avenue study areas and what retail uses should be encouraged? What sales volumes can development achieve in or near the study area?

Figure 3: The Ardmore study area, shown above, is a traditional Main Street, however Lancaster Avenue is four lanes wide with no on-street parking, reducing the overall walkability of the area.

Methodology To address the above issues, GPG defined a trade area that would serve the retail in the study area based on geographic and topographic considerations, traffic access/flow in the area, relative retail strengths and weaknesses of the competition, concentrations of daytime employment and the retail gravitation in the market, as well as our experience defining trade areas for similar markets. Population, consumer expenditure and demographic characteristics of trade area residents were collected using census tracts from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and ESRI (Environmental Systems Research Institute).

Finally, based on the projected consumer expenditure capture (demand) in the primary trade area of the gross consumer expenditure by retail category, less the current existing retail sales (supply) by retail category, GPG projects the potential net consumer expenditure (gap) available to support existing and new development. The projected net consumer expenditure capture is based on household expenditure and demographic characteristics of the primary trade area, existing and planned retail competition, traffic and retail gravitational patterns and GPG’s qualitative assessment of the Lower Merion study area.

Net potential captured consumer expenditure (gap) is equated to potential retail development square footage, with the help of retail sales per square foot data provided by Dollars and Cents of

4. Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study Gibbs Planning Group, Inc. 17 November 2017 12

Shopping Centers (Urban Land Institute and International Council of Shopping Centers), qualitatively adjusted to fit the urbanism and demographics of the study area.

Figure 4: The City Avenue study area, shown above, is an auto-oriented corridor connecting to Interstate-76.

For the purposes of this study, GPG has assumed the following:

• Other major community retail centers may be planned or proposed, but only the existing retail is considered for this study. The quality of the existing retail trade in the study area is projected to remain constant. Gains in future average retail sales per sf reflect higher sales per sf in newly developed retail and selected increases in sales per sf by individual retail categories.

• No major regional retail centers will be developed within the trade area of this analysis for the purposes of this study.

• The region’s economy will continue at normal or above normal ranges of employment, inflation, retail demand and growth.

• Annual population growth for the primary trade area is estimated to be 0.34 percent throughout the five-year period of this study. Annual income growth is estimated to be 2.26 percent.

• Employment distribution is projected to remain constant, without a spike or decline in employment by NAICS categories.

• Development or redevelopment projects in the study area will open with sustainable amounts of retail and anchor tenants at planned intervals and per industry standards.

• Visibility of any new retail is also assumed very good, with signage as required to assure easy visibility of the retailers.

• Parking for new development projects or businesses will meet or exceed industry standards.

Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study 5. Gibbs Planning Group, Inc. 17 November 2017 13

• The projected lease and vacancy rate model is based on our proprietary econometric model of the relationship between changes in employment and changes in vacancy and lease rates. Data was gathered from the U.S. Census Bureau, ESRI, CBRE and local brokerage services.

• The subject site is properly zoned to support infill and redevelopment projects with current and innovative standards, and the existing infrastructure (water, sewer, arterial roadways, etc.) can support additional commercial development.

• Any new construction in the study area will be planned, designed, built and managed to the best practices of the American Institute of Architects, American Planning Association, American Society of Landscape Architects, Congress for the New Urbanism, International Council of Shopping Centers and The Urban Land Institute. Retailers will exemplify the industry best practices in store management and customer service.

Figure 5: The Lower Merion primary trade area map is shown above in green. The study areas offer convenient shopping and dining for households, workers and students within the trade area.

Trade Area Based on GPG’s site evaluation, the existing retail hubs, population clusters, highway access, and the retail gravitation in the market, as well as our experience defining trade areas for similar communities throughout the United States, it was determined that consumers in the primary trade area generate demand to support a variety of retailers. This potential will continue to increase over the next five years, sustained by annual population growth of 0.34 percent and annual household income growth of 2.26 percent.

The primary trade area is the consumer market where the study area has a significant competitive advantage because of access, design, lack of quality competition and traffic and commute patterns. This competitive advantage equates to a potential domination of the capture of consumer expenditure by the retailers in the study area. GPG defined a primary trade area by topography, vehicular access, strength of retail competition and residential settlement patterns

6. Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study Gibbs Planning Group, Inc. 17 November 2017 14

instead of standardized “drive-times.” Consumers inside the primary trade area will account for up to 60 to 70 percent of the total sales captured by retailers in the Ardmore and City Avenue study areas. Due to the strong retail gravitational pull of Manayunk to the north, Philadelphia’s Center City to the east, and King of Prussia to the west, GPG finds that Lower Merion has an approximate three to five-mile primary trade area, where the study areas can provide convenient shopping and dining for a captive consumer market.

The trade areas also contain numerous other commercial districts including: Bala, Bryn Mawr, Gladwyne, Haverford, Merion-Cynwyd, Penn Valley, Penn-Wynne-City Avenue, Suburban Square, Rock Hill Road and Wynnewood. These commercial districts could absorb some of the retail market demand defined by this study.

The following borders approximately delineate the primary trade area: ▪ North – Interstate-76 ▪ South – West Chester Pike ▪ East – Fairmount Park ▪ West – Waterloo Road

Figure 6: The Lower Merion primary and secondary trade area map. The boundaries of the primary trade area are shown in green, and the total trade is shown in red. Consumers in the secondary trade area but not within the primary trade area will shop in Lower Merion however it will not be their primary shopping destination.

Furthermore, the secondary trade area (Figure 6) extends in all directions to include consumers who because of convenient interstate access and the central location of the study area generate expenditure for retailers in Ardmore or City Avenue. The boundaries of the total trade area extend

Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study 7. Gibbs Planning Group, Inc. 17 November 2017 15

to Ridge Pike to the north, Springfield Road to the south, Bear Hill Road to the west and the Delaware River to the east. Residents, who live in the secondary, but not within the primary trade area, will shop study area retailers frequently, but the area will not be their primary shopping destination. Consumer expenditure by these residents will account for 15 to 20 percent of retail sales.

Demographic Characteristics Using data from ESRI and the U.S. Census Bureau, GPG obtained the most recent population and demographic characteristics (2017), and those projected for 2022 for the defined trade areas, as well as regional, statewide and national statistics.

Table 2: Demographic Characteristics

Primary Secondary Philadelphia Demographic Characteristic Trade Trade Pennsylvania U.S.A. MSA Area Area 2017 Population 174,300 1,414,200 6,162,200 12,976,700 318,536,400

2022 Population 177,300 1,448,800 6,294,900 13,138,100 330,622,600

2017-2022 Annual Pop. Growth Rate 0.34% 0.49% 0.43% 0.25% 0.75%

2017 Households 66,300 563,000 1,129,400 5,113,900 120,746,300

2022 Households 67,400 576,100 1,185,200 5,171,400 125,477,600

2017-2022 Annual HH Growth Rate 0.32% 0.49% 0.38% 0.22% 0.77%

Average Household Size 2.41 2.40 2.58 2.45 2.57

Median Age 39.7 35.1 39.0 41.3 37.6

2017 Average Household Income $136,700 $76,900 $92,600 $78,700 $74,700

2017 Median Household Income $84,900 $46,200 $65,400 $56,200 $53,200

2022 Average Household Income $151,100 $87,700 $104,500 $89,800 $84,900

2022 Median Household Income $94,500 $52,700 $75,000 $63,200 $60,700

% Households w. incomes $75,000+ 55.0% 32.9% 45.0% 37.6% 35.6%

% Bachelor’s Degree 29.2% 20.4% 21.9% 18.6% 18.6%

% Graduate or Professional Degree 32.9% 16.7% 14.6% 11.7% 11.4%

Table 2: Key demographic characteristics of the study area’s primary trade area, compared to the secondary trade area, the region, Pennsylvania and the US.

The primary trade area has an estimated 2017 population of 174,300 persons, which will increase at an annual rate of 0.34 percent to 177,300 by 2022. This annual growth rate is outpaced by the secondary trade area and region, but still outpaces the state. The number of households in the primary trade area is 66,300, holding 2.41 persons per household, and is projected to grow to 67,400 by 2022, a 1.6 percent total increase over the five years. Average household income is $136,700 and is expected to increase to $151,100 by 2022. Median income in the primary trade area is $84,900, while 55.0 percent of households earn over $75,000 per year. Higher than the comparison geographies, 62.1 percent of residents over the age of 25 have earned a bachelor’s degree or higher. The median age of 39.7 is only surpassed by the state.

8. Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study Gibbs Planning Group, Inc. 17 November 2017 16

In the total trade area, there are 1,414,200 residents increasing annually by 0.49 percent to 1,448,800 by 2022. The number of households is 563,000 increasing to 576,100 by 2022. Median household income in the area is $46,200 and the average household income is $76,200, both of which are substantially less than the primary trade area. Educational attainment is similarly below the primary trade area figure with 37.1 percent of adults having earned a bachelor’s degree or higher. The average household size is 2.4 and the median age is 35.1.

Correlating to area demographic trends, the primary trade area housing market has seen a decrease in vacancy and increase in new units. Approximately 93.2 percent of homes are occupied, and the median home value is estimated to be $383,400. Of all households, 61.9 percent are owner-occupied, a number that has decreased 1.6 percent since 2010, and is expected to level off through 2022 when 61.7 of homes will be owner-occupied.

Renter-occupied households have increased from 29.1 percent in 2010 to 31.3 percent in 2017, and is expected to level at 31.5 percent in 2022. The vacancy rate has decreased from 7.4 percent in 2010 to 6.8 percent in 2017 and will remain at the level through 2022. The percentage of housing units valued at over $400.000 is expected to increase from 47.3 percent to 50.5 percent – coinciding with an increase in the median home value to $404,000 by 2022. The trade area is expected to average at least 200 new unit deliveries annually through 2022.

Tapestry Lifestyles ESRI has developed Tapestry Lifestyles, which is a catalog of 65 classifications that help illustrate purchasing patterns. These lifestyle segments are qualitative characterizations of neighborhoods and are used by many national retailers to help determine future potential locations. The following Table 3 details the top Tapestry Lifestyles found in the primary trade area.

Due to the established nature of the primary trade area, there are a broad variety of tapestry segments represented. Characteristic of inner-ring suburbs of the East Coast’s major metropolitan areas, the overall density of development allows for neighborhoods catering to exclusive households represented by the trade areas more prominent lifestyle group, Top Tier, to be adjacent to neighborhoods comprised of more modest households represented by Family Foundations or Social Security Set. These households represent a diversity of life-stages ranging from young families to retirees, and incomes ranging from low to high which advances the breadth of retail and restaurants supportable in the study areas.

The trade area’s leading tapestry segment is “Top Tier,” which represents 21.6 percent of households. This group is comprised of married couples with older children or no children, living in older neighborhoods that provide convenient access to major financial or employment centers. Residents are highly-educated, over a third have a postgraduate degree, and successful, earning more than three times the US median household income. The average household size is 2.82 persons and the median age is 46.2 – nearly a decade older than the US figure.

Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study 9. Gibbs Planning Group, Inc. 17 November 2017 17

Table 3: Tapestry Lifestyles

Trade Area Lifestyle Short Description Statistics

Population: 33,700 The residents of the wealthiest Tapestry market, Top Tier, earn more than three times the US household income. Households: 14,300 They have the purchasing power to indulge any choice, but what do their hearts’ desire? Aside from the obvious Median HH Income expense for the upkeep of their lavish homes, consumers $157,000 select upscale salons, spas, and fitness centers for their

21.6% Primary Trade personal well-being and shop at high-end retailers for their Area Households personal effects. Whether short or long, domestic or foreign, Market Share their frequent vacations spare no expense. Residents fill their weekends and evenings with opera, classical music 1.7% National concerts, charity dinners, and shopping. These highly Households educated professionals have reached their corporate career goals. With an accumulated average net worth of over 1.5 Top Tier Market Share million dollars and income from a strong investment portfolio, many of these older residents have moved into consulting roles or operate their own businesses.

Population: 23,700 Urban Chic residents are professionals that live a sophisticated, exclusive lifestyle. Half of all households are Households: 10,700 occupied by married-couple families and about 30 percent are singles. These are busy, well-connected, and well- Median HH Income educated consumers—avid readers and moviegoers, $98,000 environmentally active, and financially stable. This market is a bit older, with a median age of almost 43 years, and 16.2% Primary Trade growing slowly, but steadily. Preferring organic food, Urban Area Household Market Chic shop at Trader Joe’s, Costco, or Whole Foods, drink Share imported wine, and truly appreciate a good cup of coffee. They travel extensively and shop at upscale establishments. In their downtime, they enjoy activities such 1.3% National as skiing, yoga, hiking and tennis. Urban Chic Market Share

Population: 12,500 Independent, active seniors nearing the end of their careers or already in retirement best describes Golden Years residents. This market is primarily singles living alone or Households: 6,100 empty nesters. Those still active in the labor force are

Median HH Income employed in professional occupations; however, these consumers are actively pursuing a variety of leisure $61,000 interests—travel, sports, dining out, museums, and concerts.

They are involved, focused on physical fitness, and 9.2% Primary Trade enjoying their lives. This market is smaller, but growing, Area Households and financially secure. Good health is a priority; they Market Share believe in healthy eating, coupled with vitamins and dietary

supplements. These consumers are well connected: 1.3% National Golden Years internet access is used for everything from shopping or Households paying bills to monitoring investments and entertainment. Market Share

10. Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study Gibbs Planning Group, Inc. 17 November 2017 18

Trade Area Lifestyle Short Description Statistics

Population: 10,200 These high-density city neighborhoods are characterized by a relatively young foreign-born population who have Households: 5,300 embraced the American lifestyle, yet retained their cultural integrity. To support their lifestyle, City Strivers residents

commute long distances to find work in the service or retail Median HH Income industry. Their hard-earned wages and salary income goes $41,000 toward relatively high rents in older multiunit buildings, but

they’ve chosen these neighborhoods to maintain ties to 8.0% Primary Trade their culture. Single parents are often the recipients of Area Households Supplemental Security Income and public assistance, but Market Share their close-knit community provides the invaluable support needed while they work. City Strivers consumers are bold in City Strivers 0.8% National their purchasing decisions; they seek out deals on branded Market Share clothing, sometimes indulge in restaurants and personal services, and splurge on their cable TV package.

Population: 9,100 Prosperous domesticity best describes the settled denizens of Pleasantville. Situated principally in older housing in Households: 4,400 suburban areas, these slightly older couples move less than any other market. Many couples have already transitioned Median HH Income to empty nesters; many are still home to adult children. $85,000 Families own older, single-family homes and maintain their standard of living with dual incomes. These consumers 6.7% Primary Trade have higher incomes and home values and much higher net Area Households worth. Older homes require upkeep; home improvement and remodeling projects are a priority—preferably done by Market Share contractors. Residents spend their spare time participating

in a variety of sports or watching movies. They shop online 2.2% National and in a variety of stores, from upscale to discount, and use Pleasantville Households the Internet largely for financial purposes. Enjoy outdoor Market Share gardening, going to the beach, visiting theme parks, frequenting museums, and attending rock concerts.

Table 3: The top five Tapestry Lifestyle groups profiled above portray the blend of households found within and surrounding the Lower Merion study areas.

Housing units are owner-occupied with the highest home values of any tapestry segment and an above average use of mortgages. The home ownership rate is 90.5 percent and a second home, whether near or far, is common. Corresponding to the location and size of the housing stock, the median home value is $666,000, nearly four times the national average.

These accomplished professionals have achieved their career goals, and many have moved into consulting roles or operate their own business. Top Tier are goal oriented and hardworking, but seek a balanced lifestyle and make time for their kids or grandkids and maintain a close-knit group of friends. Socially responsible, the busy consumers look for variety and meaning in life with an interest in fine arts, frequent book purchases and attentiveness to current events. Hired financial advisers manage their diverse investment portfolios, but with an average net worth of over $1.5 million, these consumers stay abreast of current financial trends and products.

Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study 11. Gibbs Planning Group, Inc. 17 November 2017 19

Tapestry Lifestyles Segmentation

Figure 7: The relative proportions of the top twenty Tapestry Lifestyle segments found in the primary trade area.

Top Tier households maintain healthy lifestyles, cooking organic meals at home, frequently visiting days spa and salons and exercising at exclusive clubs. Household chores are farmed out, from maintenance to housekeeping and home improvement. On vacation, they spare no expense, opting for luxury rental cars, rooms with a view and extravagant meals. Top Tier consumers are shoppers. They prefer high-end retailers such as Nordstrom and don’t mind paying full-price, but are not above shopping at Target, Kohl’s, Macy’s and Bed, Bath and Beyond; they are just beginning to explore the conveniences of online shopping. Their schedules are packed with lunch dates, book club meetings, charity dinners, classical music concerts, opera performances and visits to local art galleries. Top Tier have the purchasing power to indulge any choice.

Employment Base The employment picture found in the primary trade area reflects a concentrated services sector foundation, comprising 51.2 percent of total employment. This represents a higher proportion than in the state or nation, but is less than the secondary trade area. Rounding out the majority of trade

12. Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study Gibbs Planning Group, Inc. 17 November 2017 20

area employment, finance, insurance and real estate (FIRE) and retail trade rank as the second and third highest employment sectors with 17.0 percent and 16.7 percent respectively. As a result, except for the communication sector, all other categories show lesser proportions than the state or nation. Overall, the primary trade area economy is 79.7 percent white-collar.

Table 4: Employment Comparison by Sector (SIC)

Primary Trade Secondary Sector Pennsylvania USA Area Trade Area Agriculture and Mining 0.7% 0.5% 1.2% 2.2% Construction 2.4% 1.8% 4.0% 5.3% Manufacturing 2.8% 4.5% 9.3% 9.6% Transportation 1.1% 1.5% 4.3% 3.4% Communication 2.7% 1.2% 0.7% 1.1% Utility 0.5% 0.8% 0.6% 0.7% Wholesale Trade 2.3% 2.5% 4.5% 4.2% Retail Trade 16.7% 14.5% 19.1% 16.7% Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 17.0% 10.3% 6.1% 6.4% Services 51.2% 56.7% 44.1% 41.8% Government 2.2% 5.2% 5.7% 8.7% Unclassified 0.5% 0.4% 0.3% 0.0%

Table 4: Services, FIRE and retail trade account for 84.9 percent of primary trade area employment.

As shown in Table 4 above, the retail sector accounts for most of employment (51.2 percent) in the primary trade area. Accounting for a significant share of the services employment, other services is 20.0 percent of the total primary trade area employment. This is followed by health services (13.9 percent) and education institutions and libraries (12.4 percent).

As the second leading category of employment, FIRE workers account for17.0 percent of employment within the primary trade area. This is nearly seven percentage points higher than the closest comparison geography. Within the FIRE category, real estate, holding and investment offices and insurance carriers and agents each account for 3.7 percent of total employment, followed by securities brokers (1.6 percent) and banks, savings and lending institutions (1.3 percent).

Daytime employment plays a large role in supporting retail. Within a 10-minute drivetime of the study area there is estimated to be over 44,800 employees; an estimated 19,850 of them are office employees who are known to expend at much higher rates, often eating out for lunch and shopping on the way to and from work. The mix of employees within the 10-minute drivetime is similar to the primary trade area. The fifteen-minute drivetime more than triples the number of workers within a convenient travel distance. With a desirable mix of restaurants and shops, the study area could regularly attract workers from this broader boundary.

Consumer expenditure from daytime employment compliments that captured in the evenings and on weekends by households in the trade area. “Office Worker Retail Spending in a Digital Age”, published by the International Council of Shopping Centers in 2012, provides insight into the impact of office worker employment. Weekly office worker expenditure, adjusted for 2017 dollars,

Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study 13. Gibbs Planning Group, Inc. 17 November 2017 21

Table 5: Trade Area Employment by Industry Sector

Ten-Minute Primary Trade Fifteen-Minute Employment Sector Drivetime Area Drivetime Agriculture & Mining 290 590 1,020 Construction 1,220 2,120 4,120 Manufacturing 940 2,540 5,040 Transportation 780 1,030 1,650 Communication 130 2,390 2,860 Utility 320 420 540 Wholesale Trade 490 2,050 4,270 Retail Trade 8,380 14,960 24,290 Home Improvement 240 550 1,180 General Merchandise Stores 260 910 1,420 Food Stores 1,440 2,450 3,670 Auto Dealers, Gas Stations, 1,070 1,570 1,900 Auto Aftermarket Apparel & Accessory Stores 590 960 1,260 Furniture & Home Furnishings 380 660 1,470 Eating & Drinking Places 2,880 5,410 9,280 Miscellaneous Retail 1,520 2,450 4,110 Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 4,320 15,270 18,190 Banks, Savings, & Lending Institutions 910 1,890 2,150 Securities Brokers 540 3,550 4,470 Insurance Carriers & Agents 350 4,470 5,240 Real Estate, Holding, Other Investment 2,520 5,360 6,330 Services 26,550 45,840 71,280 Hotels & Lodging 290 1,180 1,270 Automotive Services 370 650 1,170 Motion Pictures & Amusements 790 1,400 2,280 Health Services 8,040 12,470 21,010 Legal Services 300 1,100 1,760 Education Institutions & Libraries 7,180 11,120 14,070 Other Services 9,580 17,920 29,720 Government 1,310 1,940 3,560 Unclassified Establishments 140 450 510 Total Employment 44,870 89,600 137,330

Table 5: Approximately 50 percent of trade area employees are within a 10-minute drive of the study area. is estimated at $180. Weekly non-office worker expenditure is estimated at 37 percent of office workers. Non-office workers are estimated to have slightly less disposable income, to have multiple work locations including at home, and typically are on the road more during their workweek. Retail purchases (general merchandise, apparel, home furnishings, electronics, grocery and convenience items) make up the majority of the office worker dollars, at $120 per week. Restaurant expenditures (full service, limited service and drinking places) account for the balance at $60 per week. Annualized, each office worker expends $9,360 before, during and after work.

The annual impact of over 44,870 workers within a 10-minute drivetime of the study area is $272.4 million. This expenditure breaks down to include $90.8 million in prepared food and beverage establishments, $45.4 million in grocery purchases, $105.9 million in retail sales and $30.2 million in convenience items.

14. Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study Gibbs Planning Group, Inc. 17 November 2017 22

Table 6: Ten-Minute Drive Time Worker Expenditure

Non-Office Weekly Annual Office Worker Category Worker Total Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure 19,850 Workers 25,020 Workers Prepared Food &

Beverage Limited & Full-Service Restaurants $44 $2,288 $45,416,800 $21,180,931 $66,597,731 Drinking Places $16 $832 $16,515,200 $7,702,157 $24,217,357 Retail Goods General Merchandise, Apparel, Home $70 $3,640 $72,254,000 $33,696,936 $105,950,936 Furnishings, Electronics Grocery $30 $1,560 $30,966,000 $14,441,544 $45,407,544 Convenience Items $20 $1,040 $20,644,000 $9,627,696 $30,271,696 Total $180 $9,360 $185,796,000 $86,649,264 $272,445,264

Table 6: Employees within a 10-minute drivetime of the study area expend nearly $272.4 million dollars annually.

TRADE AREA CHARACTERISTICS

Location The study area is in eastern Pennsylvania, approximately five miles northwest of Center City Philadelphia. Lower Merion was incorporated prior to the Revolutionary War and is considered a Main Line inner ring suburb; it was previously served by the Pennsylvania Rail Road, making regular commuting into the Center City possible for successful businesspeople. Due to this favorable location, Lower Merion has long been a desirable residential community, with well- regarded schools and public services. Lower Merion is also home to five colleges and universities including Saint Joseph’s University, a private Roman Catholic Jesuit university boasting an enrollment of over 8,400 students, as well as Bryn Mawr College, Harcum College, Rosemont College and Haverford College. Also within the primary trade area are Villanova University and the Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine, bringing the trade area student population to over 27,000.

Access Regional linkage is available to the study area via Lancaster Avenue and City Avenue. Lancaster Avenue connects to Interstate-476 to the northwest and into the Center City via Chestnut Street to the southeast; City Avenue connects to Interstate-76 to the northeast and the Interstate-476 to the southwest. Lancaster Avenue is estimated to carry 20,300 vehicles daily, and City Avenue supports 36,000 daily trips. Interstates 76 and 476 are well-used, represented by traffic counts of 97,100 and 101,300 respectively.

The study area is served by the Paoli/Thorndale Line of the SEPTA Regional Rail service, which boasts the highest annual ridership in the system with 24,000 daily riders. The Paoli/Thorndale Line stops at City Avenue (Overbrook Station) and Ardmore (Ardmore and Haverford Stations). City Avenue is served by the Cynwyd Line, which has the lowest ridership of the system (700 daily riders) and stops at the Bala Station. Lower Merion is additionally served by eight bus routes with weekday average ridership totaling 83,500.

Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study 15. Gibbs Planning Group, Inc. 17 November 2017 23

Other Shopping Centers As part of GPG’s evaluation, neighborhood, community and regional shopping centers near the site were identified and studied to assess their retail appeal, strength of tenant mix, general maintenance and accessibility. In addition to the onsite inspection of the most significant competing shopping concentrations to the study area, GPG used information from the International Council of Shopping Centers’ Global Shopping Center Directory.

Figure 8: Suburban Square is one of the oldest shopping centers in the country.

Suburban Square Opened in 1928, Suburban Square was the first shopping center to be anchored by a department store. Today, the center contains 376,000 sf of retail space and features desirable tenants such as West Elm, Trader Joe’s, Urban Outfitters, Apple, Kate Spade, Lil Pulitzer, Lululemon Athletica, Madewell, J Crew and Ann Taylor. With Macy’s closure in 2015, the center is no longer anchored by a department store (West Elm replaced Macy’s). The center also includes a farmer market and recently began a major multi-million dollar renovation that will include expanding Trader Joe’s, the construction of a 600 car parking garage, and an addition of a restaurant row surrounding a square. Located adjacent to the Ardmore study area, the center is responsible for attracting a significant number of shoppers to the area and will continue to be an asset as Lancaster Avenue evolves.

Figure 9: Bala Cynwyd Shopping Center is well located within the study area and services a significant number of primary trade area residents.

16. Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study Gibbs Planning Group, Inc. 17 November 2017 24

Bala Cynwyd Shopping Center Located along the City Avenue study area, Bala Cynwyd Shopping Center is a 294,000 sf community center anchored by Lord & Taylor and Acme Markets. Owned and operated by Federal Realty Investment Trust, other notable tenants include Michael’s, Dressbarn, Foot Locker, Vitamin Shoppe, LA Fitness, Honeygrow, Chili’s, Corner Bakery Café and Olive Garden. Less than one-half mile from the center is a stand-alone Saks Fifth Avenue (100,000 sf, estimated) and a stand-alone Target (160,000 sf, estimated). Combined, this collection of retailers along City Avenue creates a regional draw and provides a wide-variety of goods for the primary trade area.

Figure 10: King of Prussia is one of the country’s premier shopping destinations.

King of Prussia Approximately ten miles to the northwest of the study areas, King of Prussia is the largest shopping mall in the US, after a 2016 expansion connected The Plaza and The Court buildings. Standing with 2.9 million sf of retail, the center is anchored by Lord & Taylor, Neiman Marcus, Nordstrom, Macy’s, Bloomingdale’s, Primark and Dick’s Sporting Goods. There are over 400 tenants in the mall and a strong luxury line-up distinguishes King of Prussia as one of the elite malls in the country. Adjacent to the mall is the Village at Valley Forge, a mixed-use development consisting of retail, residential, office and a hospital. The King of Prussia Town Center, is the retail component of the village and includes an additional 390,000 sf of open-air retail.

Figure 11: Plymouth Meeting Mall tenants reflect a dining and entertainment focus.

Plymouth Meeting Mall East of King of Prussia is the Plymouth Meeting Mall, a 952,000 sf mall built in 1966. Anchored by Boscov’s and Whole Foods, the center has added major entertainment tenants such as AMC

Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study 17. Gibbs Planning Group, Inc. 17 November 2017 25

Theater, Dave and Buster’s and Legoland Discovery Center. There are several sought after dining options such as Redstone American Grill, P.F. Chang’s and Benihana and key retailers including H&M, Jos. A. Bank, Orvis, The Children’s Place, LOFT and J. Crew.

Figure 12: Lancaster Avenue is considered the Main Street of the Main Line.

SUMMARY of FINDINGS This study finds that the two Lower Merion study areas are presently supportable with up to 358,600 sf of additional retail and restaurant space which could potentially capture $139.1 million of expenditures in 2017. By 2022, the sales capture could grow to $146.4 million. This new retail development could include:

• Convenience Centers: Three to four 20,000 to 30,000 sf convenience centers. These centers can include a wide range of retailers such as apparel, beer, wine and liquor stores, bakeries or butchers, electronics or cellular stores, full-service and limited-service restaurants, hardware and general merchandise.

• Neighborhood Centers: One to two 60,000 sf to 100,000 sf neighborhood center anchored by a full-service grocery store and complemented with apparel and shoe stores, electronics, cosmetics, gifts, general merchandise, hardware, home furnishings, sporting goods and a collection of four to five restaurants.

• Community Centers: One to two 150,000 sf to 200,000 sf community center anchored by a full-service grocery store and junior department store along with apparel and shoe stores, books and music, electronics, furniture and home furnishings, gifts, general merchandise, hardware, pharmacy sporting goods and a number of sit-down and fast- casual restaurants.

• Town Centers: One 200,000 to 350,000 sf town center incorporating a mixture of land uses such as retail, civic, office, residential and hospitality. The town center would be arranged in a walkable street-grid and feature one to two anchor tenants as well as apparel, books and music, department store merchandise, electronics, furniture and home furnishings, general merchandise, jewelry, gifts, pharmacy and other health and beauty stores, specialty food, sporting goods and a critical mass of dining and entertainment options.

18. Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study Gibbs Planning Group, Inc. 17 November 2017 26

These retail centers could be developed as stand-alone, single site conventional shopping centers or integrated into the study areas as mixed-use developments oriented to the existing street grid and including on-street parking, public spaces and urban storefronts.

The demographics of the primary trade area show a population base of 174,300, which will increase to 177,300 by 2022, at an annual rate of 0.34 percent. The persons per household is 2.41, and the median age is 39.7 years old. Median household income of $84,900 in the primary trade area is higher than state and national averages. The average household income is $136,700 demonstrating a positive effect on spending potential from the top wage earners in the area. Over 62.1 percent of trade area adults have earned a bachelor’s degree or higher.

Employment in the primary trade area favors the services sector (51.2 percent) followed by FIRE (17.0 percent). At present, there are nearly 89,600 employees within the primary trade area and 44,870 within a 10-minute drivetime of the study area. These daytime consumers expend over $272.4 million annually before, after and during the workday.

The most prevalent tapestry lifestyle in the market is Top Tier, which represents 21.6 percent of households. This group is comprised of married couples with older children or no children, living in older neighborhoods that provide convenient access to major financial or employment centers. Top Tier consumers are shoppers. They prefer high-end retailers such as Nordstrom and don’t mind paying full-price, but are not above shopping at Target, Kohl’s, Macy’s and Bed, Bath and Beyond; they are just beginning to explore the conveniences of online shopping. Their schedules are packed with lunch dates, book club meetings, charity dinners, classical music concerts, opera performances and visits to local art galleries

Retail Category Definitions Retail categories in the Supportable Retail Table correspond to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), the standard used by Federal statistical agencies in classifying business establishments for the purpose of collecting, analyzing, and publishing statistical data related to the U.S. business economy. The U.S. Census Bureau provides the following NAICS codes and definitions:

Retail Auto Supply Stores (4411): establishments known as automotive supply stores primarily engaged in retailing new, used, and/or rebuilt automotive parts and accessories, automotive supply stores that are primarily engaged in both retailing automotive parts and accessories and repairing automobiles; establishments primarily engaged in retailing and installing automotive accessories; and establishments primarily engaged in retailing new and/or used tires and tubes or retailing new tires in combination with automotive repair services.

Furniture Stores (4421): establishments primarily engaged in retailing new furniture, such as household furniture (e.g., baby furniture box springs and mattresses) and outdoor furniture; office furniture (except those sold in combination with office supplies and equipment); and/or furniture sold in combination with major appliances, home electronics, home furnishings and/or floor coverings.

Home Furnishings Stores (4422): establishments primarily engaged in retailing new home furnishings (except furniture).

Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study 19. Gibbs Planning Group, Inc. 17 November 2017 27

A detailed examination of the supportable sf of retail uses is found in the following Table 7:

Table 7: 2017 & 2022 Supportable Retail Table Lower Merion Township

Estimated 2017 2017 Estimated 2022 2022 Estimated No. of Retail Category Supportable Sales/SF Retail Sales Sales/SF Retail Sales Stores SF

Retailers

Apparel Stores 10,240 $380 $3,891,200 $400 $4,096,000 4 - 5

Auto Parts Stores 6,390 $345 $2,204,550 $360 $2,300,400 2 - 3

Beer, Wine & Liquor Stores 4,920 $385 $1,894,200 $405 $1,992,600 2 - 3

Book & Music Stores 3,350 $280 $938,000 $295 $988,250 2 Department Store Merchandise 37,860 $350 $13,251,000 $370 $14,008,200 8 - 9

Electronics & Appliance Stores 17,830 $380 $6,775,400 $400 $7,132,000 4 - 6

Florists 1,060 $365 $386,900 $385 $408,100 1 - 2

Furniture Stores 13,530 $365 $4,938,450 $385 $5,209,050 5 - 6

General Merchandise Stores 31,910 $315 $10,051,650 $330 $10,530,300 11 - 12

Grocery Stores 78,390 $560 $43,898,400 $590 $46,250,100 3 - 4

Hardware 32,690 $270 $8,826,300 $285 $9,316,650 2 - 3

Home Furnishings Stores 4,440 $375 $1,665,000 $395 $1,753,800 2 - 3

Jewelry Stores 3,390 $445 $1,508,550 $465 $1,576,350 2 - 3

Lawn & Garden Supply Stores 6,900 $245 $1,690,500 $255 $1,759,500 2 - 3

Miscellaneous Store Retailers 16,400 $285 $4,674,000 $300 $4,920,000 6 - 7

Office Supplies & Gift Stores 5,110 $270 $1,379,700 $285 $1,456,350 2 - 3

Pharmacy 13,050 $545 $7,112,250 $570 $7,438,500 1 - 2

Shoe Stores 3,690 $385 $1,420,650 $405 $1,494,450 1 - 2 Specialty Food Stores 5,970 $295 $1,761,150 $310 $1,850,700 2 - 3

Sporting Goods & Hobby Stores 10,640 $320 $3,404,800 $335 $3,564,400 4 - 5

Retailer Totals 307,760 $358 $121,672,650 $376 $128,045,700 66 - 86

Restaurants

Bars, Breweries & Pubs 9,640 $435 $4,193,400 $455 $4,386,200 3 - 5

Full-Service Restaurants 15,950 $350 $5,582,500 $370 $5,901,500 3 - 4

Limited-Service Eating Places 20,580 $310 $6,379,800 $325 $6,688,500 6 - 7

Special Food Services 4,690 $285 $1,336,650 $300 $1,407,000 2 - 3

Restaurant Totals 50,860 $345 $17,492,350 $363 $18,383,200 14 - 19

Retailer & Restaurant Totals 358,620 $356 $139,165,000 $374 $146,428,900 80 - 105

Table 7: Sales stated in constant 2017 dollars.

Electronics and Appliance Stores (4431): establishments primarily engaged in retailing the following new products: household-type appliances (refrigerator, dishwasher, oven), cameras, computers/software, televisions and other electronic goods.

20. Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study Gibbs Planning Group, Inc. 17 November 2017 28

Hardware Stores (4441): establishments primarily engaged in retailing new building materials and supplies (lumber, plumbing, electrical, tools, housewares, hardware, paint, and wallpaper). Lawn and Garden Supply Stores (4442): establishments primarily engaged in retailing new lawn and garden equipment and supplies. (Nursery, farm and garden products, outdoor power equipment).

Grocery Stores (4451): establishments primarily engaged in retailing a general line of food products (canned/frozen food, fruits and vegetables, meat, fish, poultry, milk, bread, eggs, soda).

Specialty Food Stores (4452): establishments primarily engaged in retailing specialized lines of food (meat, fish/seafood, fruits/vegetables, baked goods, candy, nuts, confections, popcorn, ice cream, items not made on the premises).

Beer, Wine, and Liquor Stores (4453): establishments primarily engaged in retailing packaged alcoholic beverages, such as ale, beer, wine and liquor.

Health & Personal Care Stores (4461): establishments primarily engaged in retailing health and personal care products (pharmacies/drug stores, first aid, beauty products, household supplies, candy, prepackaged snacks, optical goods, vitamins/supplements).

Clothing stores (4481): men’s and boys’ clothing stores; women’s and girls’ clothing stores; children’s and infants’ clothing stores; family clothing stores; clothing accessories stores.

Shoe Stores (4482): Shoes (men’s, women’s, child/infant, athletic). Jewelry Stores (4483): Jewelry, luggage, and leather goods (silverware, watches, clocks, handbags, briefcases, belts, gloves).

Sporting Goods Stores (4511): establishments primarily engaged in retailing new sporting goods (fitness equipment, bikes, camping, uniforms and footwear).

Book & Music Stores (4512): establishments primarily engaged in retailing new books, newspapers, magazines, and prerecorded audio and video media.

Department Stores (4521): establishments known as department stores primarily engaged in retailing a wide range of the following new products with no one merchandise line predominating: apparel; furniture; appliances and home furnishings; and selected additional items, such as paint, hardware, toiletries, cosmetics, photographic equipment, jewelry, toys and sporting goods. Merchandise lines are normally arranged in separate departments.

General Merchandise Stores (4529): establishments primarily engaged in retailing new goods in general merchandise stores (except department stores) (warehouse clubs, supercenters, apparel, auto parts, dry goods, hardware, groceries, housewares, no line predominating).

Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study 21. Gibbs Planning Group, Inc. 17 November 2017 29

Florists (4531): establishments known as florists primarily engaged in retailing cut flowers, floral arrangements, and potted plants purchased from others. These establishments usually prepare the arrangements they sell.

Office Supplies & Gift Stores (4532): establishments primarily engaged in one or more of the following: (1) retailing new stationery, school supplies, and office supplies; (2) retailing a combination of new office equipment, furniture, and supplies; (3) retailing new office equipment, furniture, and supplies in combination with retailing new computers; and (4) retailing new gifts, novelty merchandise, souvenirs, greeting cards, seasonal and holiday decorations and curios.

Miscellaneous Retailers (4539): establishments primarily engaged in retailing new miscellaneous specialty store merchandise (except motor vehicle and parts dealers; furniture and home furnishings stores; consumer-type electronics and appliance stores; building material and garden equipment and supplies dealers; food and beverage stores; health and personal care stores; gasoline stations; clothing and clothing accessories stores; sporting goods, hobby, book, and music stores; general merchandise stores; florists; office supplies, stationery, and gift stores; and used merchandise stores). Pet supplies, art dealers, manufactured home dealers, tobacco/cigar stores,

Restaurants Full-Service Restaurants (7221): establishments primarily engaged in providing food services to patrons who order and are served while seated (i.e., waiter/waitress service) and pay after eating. Establishments that provide these types of food services to patrons with any combination of other services, such as carryout services are classified in this industry.

Limited-Service Restaurants (7222): establishments primarily engaged in providing food services where patrons generally order or select items and pay before eating. Most establishments do not have waiter/waitress service, but some provide limited service, such as cooking to order (i.e., per special request), bringing food to seated customers, or providing off-site delivery (cafeterias, snack/ juice bar, ice cream/soft serve shops, cookie shops, popcorn shops, donut shops, coffee shops, bagel shops).

Special Food Services (7223): establishments primarily engaged in providing one of the following food services (2) a location designated by the customer; or (3) from motorized vehicles or non-motorized carts. • Food Service Contractors: Establishments may be engaged in providing food services at institutional, governmental, commercial, or industrial locations of others based (cafeteria, restaurant, and fast food eating-place) on contractual arrangements with these types of organizations for a specified period of time. The food services contractor always provides management staff. • Caterers: providing single event-based food services. These establishments generally have equipment and vehicles to transport meals and snacks to events and/or prepare food at an off-premise site. Banquet halls with catering staff are included in this industry. Examples of events catered by establishments in this industry are graduation parties, wedding receptions, business or retirement luncheons and trade shows. • Mobile Food Services: establishments primarily engaged in preparing and serving meals and snacks for immediate consumption from motorized vehicles

22. Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study Gibbs Planning Group, Inc. 17 November 2017 30

or non-motorized carts. The establishment is the central location from which the caterer route is serviced, not each vehicle, or cart. Included in this industry are establishments primarily engaged in providing food services from vehicles, such as hot dog carts and ice cream trucks.

Drinking Places (Alcoholic Beverages) (7224): establishments primarily engaged in preparing and serving alcoholic beverages for immediate consumption (bars, taverns, nightclubs).

Shopping Center Definitions This study utilizes the shopping centers typologies defined by the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC) as follows:

• Convenience Centers: Convenience centers are 30,000 sf or less, unanchored, and generally will service a trade area of up to one mile. These centers include banking, carryout foods, florists, mail centers, small restaurants, small food markets, and professional services such as real estate and financial consulting. The centers typically include six to eight businesses.

• Neighborhood Centers: Neighborhood centers are anchored with a full-sized supermarket and typically range from 60,000 to 100,000 sf. They service a trade area of two to three miles and can include apparel, banks, carryout food, hardware, mail centers, restaurants, sporting goods and professional services such as financial consulting and real estate.

• Community Centers: Community centers typically range from 150,000 to 300,000 sf and are almost always anchored with a full-sized department store. They also include junior anchor retailers selling books, crafts, shoes, and sporting goods. Community centers often include large home improvement stores and medium-sized discount apparel stores. Their service area is typically five to seven miles in suburban locations.

• Lifestyle Centers: Lifestyle centers average 150,000 to 200,000 sf and feature popular apparel, book, and home furnishing stores, as well as cinemas and a wide selection of themed restaurants. The centers are frequently planned as walkable areas with main streets. Recently, lifestyle centers have included large anchors such as department stores, public libraries, and supermarkets. These centers typically have a trade area of four to six miles when developed in suburban settings. Lifestyle centers that include civic, employment, and residential buildings along with the retail land use are defined as ‘town centers.’

• Regional Centers: Regional centers average trade areas of eight to 12 miles and are anchored with multiple department stores. The centers can range from 800,000 to 1,500,000 sf, and often include cinemas along with 200,000 sf of national brand fashion.

Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study 23. Gibbs Planning Group, Inc. 17 November 2017 31

Rationale The rationale for the findings in this study follows:

• Favorable demographic characteristics: Lower Merion is a desirable “Main Line” suburb of Philadelphia that has attracted high-wage earning households with advantageous spending potential. The average household income of $136,700 is more than $50,000 higher than the state and nation. Additionally, the trade area is steadily growing at an annual rate of 0.34 percent. High-incomes and a growing population create a favorable environment for existing retailers to expand their footprint, new retailers to enter the market and new commercial development.

• Excellent location and access: Just five miles from the major employment base of Center City Philadelphia, Lower Merion is proximate to a vast supply of residents, workers and students. A central location within the region and access to major expressways translates to convenient access for the primary trade area’s 174,300 residents and the increased likelihood of patronage from the secondary trade area’s 1,414,200 residents. A captive audience of consumers with convenient access to the study areas suggest Lower Merion can increase market share.

Limits of Study The findings of this study represent GPG’s best estimates for the amounts and types of retail projects that should be supportable in the study area. Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that the data contained in this study reflect the most accurate and timely information possible and are believed to be reliable. This study is based on estimates, assumptions, and other information developed by GPG independent research effort, general knowledge of the industry, and consultations with the client and its representatives. This study is designed as objective third-party research and GPG does not necessarily recommend that any or all of the supportable retail be developed in the study area.

No responsibility is assumed for inaccuracies in reporting by the client, its agent and representatives or in any other data source used in preparing or presenting this study. This report is based on information that was current as of October 24, 2017 and GPG has not undertaken any update of its research effort since such date.

This report may contain prospective financial information, estimates, or opinions that represent GPG’s view of reasonable expectations at a particular time, but such information, estimates, or opinions are not offered as predictions or assurances that a particular level of income or profit will be achieved, that particular events will occur, or that a particular price will be offered or accepted.

The actual amounts of supportable retail could be significantly higher or lower depending on multiple market and not market variables including the type, design and quality of the new development. It is plausible that a walkable town center, with well-designed buildings and public realm, could draw visitors from beyond this study’s estimated trade area boundaries and considerably outperform the site’s location and limited market potential. This would require an extraordinary development team and retailer mix unique to the market, including anchor retailers. On the other hand, a poorly implemented commercial center or badly managed businesses could underperform the location.

Actual results achieved during the period covered by our prospective financial analysis may vary from those described in our report, and the variations may be material. Therefore, no warranty or

24. Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study Gibbs Planning Group, Inc. 17 November 2017 32

representation is made by GPG that any of the projected values or results contained in this stud will be achieved. This study should not be the sole basis for programming, planning, designing, financing, or development of any commercial center.

- End of Study -

Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study 25. Gibbs Planning Group, Inc. 17 November 2017 33

EXHIBIT A-1: Community Profile - Primary Trade Area

Gibbs Planning Group Community Profile

PTA Lower Merion Twp. Prepared by Esri Area: 46.3 square miles

Population Summary 2000 Total Population 174,972 2010 Total Population 170,134 2017 Total Population 174,330 2017 Group Quarters 14,452 2022 Total Population 177,299 2017- 2022 Annual Rate 0.34% 2017 Total Daytime Population 181,030 Workers 88,788 Residents 92,242 Household Summary 2000 Households 66,751 2000 Average Household Size 2.40 2010 Households 64,762 2010 Average Household Size 2.40 2017 Households 66,280 2017 Average Household Size 2.41 2022 Households 67,363 2022 Average Household Size 2.42 2017- 2022 Annual Rate 0.32% 2010 Families 40,292 2010 Average Family Size 3.06 2017 Families 40,827 2017 Average Family Size 3.08 2022 Families 41,308 2022 Average Family Size 3.09 2017- 2022 Annual Rate 0.23% Housing Unit Summary 2000 Housing Units 70,024 Owner Occupied Housing Units 64.7% Renter Occupied Housing Units 30.6% Vacant Housing Units 4.7% 2010 Housing Units 69,900 Owner Occupied Housing Units 63.5% Renter Occupied Housing Units 29.1% Vacant Housing Units 7.4% 2017 Housing Units 71,145 Owner Occupied Housing Units 61.9% Renter Occupied Housing Units 31.3% Vacant Housing Units 6.8% 2022 Housing Units 72,289 Owner Occupied Housing Units 61.7% Renter Occupied Housing Units 31.5% Vacant Housing Units 6.8% Median Household Income 2017 $84,915 2022 $94,511 Median Home Value 2017 $383,400 2022 $404,070 Per Capita Income 2017 $53,772 2022 $59,159 Me dia n Age 2010 38.7 2017 39.7 2022 40.3 D ata N o te: Household population includes persons not residing in group quarters. Average Household Size is the household population divided by total households. Persons in families include the householder and persons related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption. Per Capita Income represents the income received by all persons aged 15 years and over divided by the total population. So urce: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2017 and 2022 Esri converted Census 2000 data into 2010 geography.

Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study 26. Gibbs Planning Group, Inc. 31 October 2017 34

EXHIBIT A-2: Community Profile - Primary Trade Area

Gibbs Planning Group Community Profile

PTA Lower Merion Twp. Prepared by Esri Area: 46.3 square miles

2017 Households by Income Household Income Base 66,276 <$15,000 8.6% $15,000 - $24,999 6.6% $25,000 - $34,999 6.4% $35,000 - $49,999 9.7% $50,000 - $74,999 13.8% $75,000 - $99,999 10.8% $100,000 - $149,999 15.5% $150,000 - $199,999 9.2% $200,000+ 19.5% Average Household Income $136,747 2022 Households by Income Household Income Base 67,359 <$15,000 8.1% $15,000 - $24,999 6.0% $25,000 - $34,999 5.3% $35,000 - $49,999 8.1% $50,000 - $74,999 12.8% $75,000 - $99,999 11.9% $100,000 - $149,999 17.2% $150,000 - $199,999 9.8% $200,000+ 20.9% Average Household Income $151,091 2017 Owner Occupied Housing Units by Value Total 44,037 <$50,000 1.4% $50,000 - $99,999 4.3% $100,000 - $149,999 8.0% $150,000 - $199,999 7.5% $200,000 - $249,999 7.4% $250,000 - $299,999 7.6% $300,000 - $399,999 16.6% $400,000 - $499,999 11.0% $500,000 - $749,999 15.5% $750,000 - $999,999 11.1% $1,000,000 + 9.7% Average Home Value $486,465 2022 Owner Occupied Housing Units by Value Total 44,571 <$50,000 0.9% $50,000 - $99,999 3.4% $100,000 - $149,999 7.7% $150,000 - $199,999 7.6% $200,000 - $249,999 6.7% $250,000 - $299,999 6.8% $300,000 - $399,999 16.4% $400,000 - $499,999 11.6% $500,000 - $749,999 16.7% $750,000 - $999,999 12.0% $1,000,000 + 10.2% Average Home Value $506,005

D ata N o te: Income represents the preceding year, expressed in current dollars. Household income includes wage and salary earnings, interest dividends, net rents, pensions, SSI and welfare payments, child support, and alimony. So urce: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2017 and 2022 Esri converted Census 2000 data into 2010 geography.

Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study 27. Gibbs Planning Group 17 November 2017 35

EXHIBIT A-3: Community Profile - Primary Trade Area

Gibbs Planning Group Community Profile

PTA Lower Merion Twp. Prepared by Esri Area: 46.3 square miles

2010 Population by Age Total 170,136 0 - 4 5.3% 5 - 9 5.9% 10 - 14 6.2% 15 - 24 18.3% 25 - 34 10.3% 35 - 44 11.8% 45 - 54 14.1% 55 - 64 12.5% 65 - 74 7.4% 75 - 84 5.3% 85 + 2.9% 18 + 78.6% 2017 Population by Age Total 174,331 0 - 4 4.8% 5 - 9 5.5% 10 - 14 6.1% 15 - 24 18.1% 25 - 34 10.7% 35 - 44 10.5% 45 - 54 12.5% 55 - 64 13.4% 65 - 74 9.7% 75 - 84 5.4% 85 + 3.2% 18 + 80.0% 2022 Population by Age Total 177,299 0 - 4 4.8% 5 - 9 5.2% 10 - 14 5.7% 15 - 24 17.3% 25 - 34 11.3% 35 - 44 10.9% 45 - 54 11.6% 55 - 64 13.0% 65 - 74 10.9% 75 - 84 6.2% 85 + 3.2% 18 + 80.8% 2010 Population by Sex Males 78,720 Females 91,414 2017 Population by Sex Males 81,055 Females 93,275 2022 Population by Sex Males 82,823 Females 94,476

So urce: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2017 and 2022 Esri converted Census 2000 data into 2010 geography.

28. Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study Gibbs Planning Group, Inc. 17 November 2017 36

EXHIBIT A-4: Community Profile - Primary Trade Area

Gibbs Planning Group Community Profile

PTA Lower Merion Twp. Prepared by Esri Area: 46.3 square miles

2010 Population by Race/Ethnicity Total 170,133 White Alone 70.1% Black Alone 21.6% American Indian Alone 0.1% Asian Alone 5.5% Pacific Islander Alone 0.0% Some Other Race Alone 0.7% Two or More Races 1.9% Hispanic Origin 2.7% Diversity Index 48.7 2017 Population by Race/Ethnicity Total 174,330 White Alone 67.2% Black Alone 22.3% American Indian Alone 0.1% Asian Alone 7.0% Pacific Islander Alone 0.0% Some Other Race Alone 0.9% Two or More Races 2.5% Hispanic Origin 3.7% Diversity Index 52.9 2022 Population by Race/Ethnicity Total 177,300 White Alone 64.7% Black Alone 22.8% American Indian Alone 0.2% Asian Alone 8.3% Pacific Islander Alone 0.0% Some Other Race Alone 1.1% Two or More Races 2.9% Hispanic Origin 4.6% Diversity Index 56.4 2010 Population by Relationship and Household Type Total 170,134 In Households 91.4% In Family Households 73.8% Householder 23.7% Spouse 18.0% Child 28.2% Other relative 2.6% Nonrelative 1.2% In Nonfamily Households 17.6% In Group Quarters 8.6% Institutionalized Population 1.1% Noninstitutionalized Population 7.5%

D ata N o te: Persons of Hispanic Origin may be of any race. The Diversity Index measures the probability that two people from the same area will be from different race/ethnic groups. So urce: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2017 and 2022 Esri converted Census 2000 data into 2010 geography.

Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study 29. Gibbs Planning Group 17 November 2017 37

EXHIBIT A-6: Community Profile - Primary Trade Area

Gibbs Planning Group Community Profile

PTA Lower Merion Twp. Prepared by Esri Area: 46.3 square miles

2017 Population 25+ by Educational Attainment Total 114,307 Less than 9th Grade 1.3% 9th - 12th Grade, No Diploma 3.0% High School Graduate 14.0% GED/Alternative Credential 1.2% Some College, No Degree 13.6% Associate Degree 4.8% Bachelor's Degree 29.2% Graduate/Professional Degree 32.9% 2017 Population 15+ by Marital Status Total 145,894 Never Married 39.9% Married 46.0% Widowed 6.3% Divorced 7.8% 2017 Civilian Population 16+ in Labor Force Civilian Employed 95.0% Civilian Unemployed (Unemployment Rate) 5.0% 2017 Employed Population 16+ by Industry Total 83,802 Agriculture/Mining 0.2% Construction 2.7% Manufacturing 4.5% Wholesale Trade 1.7% Retail Trade 7.7% Transportation/Utilities 2.8% Information 2.1% Finance/Insurance/Real Estate 8.9% Services 66.3% Public Administration 3.2% 2017 Employed Population 16+ by Occupation Total 83,800 White Collar 79.7% Management/Business/Financial 21.6% Professional 37.2% Sales 9.9% Administrative Support 11.0% Services 13.6% Blue Collar 6.7% Farming/Forestry/Fishing 0.1% Construction/Extraction 2.1% Installation/Maintenance/Repair 1.1% Production 1.2% Transportation/Material Moving 2.2% 2010 Population By Urban/ Rural Status Total Population 170,134 Population Inside Urbanized Area 100.0% Population Inside Urbanized Cluster 0.0% Rural Population 0.0%

So urce: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2017 and 2022 Esri converted Census 2000 data into 2010 geography.

30. Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study Gibbs Planning Group, Inc. 17 November 2017 38

EXHIBIT A-6: Community Profile - Primary Trade Area

Gibbs Planning Group Community Profile

PTA Lower Merion Twp. Prepared by Esri Area: 46.3 square miles

2010 Households by Type Total 64,762 Households with 1 Person 31.1% Households with 2+ People 68.9% Family Households 62.2% Husband- wife Families 47.4% With Related Children 22.1% Other Family (No Spouse Present) 14.8% Other Family with Male Householder 3.2% With Related Children 1.5% Other Family with Female Householder 11.6% With Related Children 6.6% Nonfamily Households 6.7%

All Households with Children 30.4%

Multigenerational Households 2.9% Unmarried Partner Households 4.3% Male- female 3.6% Same- sex 0.7% 2010 Households by Size Total 64,761 1 Person Household 31.1% 2 Person Household 31.7% 3 Person Household 15.5% 4 Person Household 13.3% 5 Person Household 5.8% 6 Person Household 1.7% 7 + Person Household 0.8% 2010 Households by Tenure and Mortgage Status Total 64,762 Owner Occupied 68.5% Owned with a Mortgage/Loan 47.6% Owned Free and Clear 21.0% Renter Occupied 31.5% 2010 Housing Units By Urban/ Rural Status Total Housing Units 69,900 Housing Units Inside Urbanized Area 100.0% Housing Units Inside Urbanized Cluster 0.0% Rural Housing Units 0.0%

D ata N o te: Households with children include any households with people under age 18, related or not. M ultigenerational households are families with 3 or more parent- child relationships. Unmarried partner households are usually classified as nonfamily households unless there is another member of the household related to the householder. M ultigenerational and unmarried partner households are reported only to the tract level. Esri estimated block group data, which is used to estimate polygons or non-standard geography. So urce: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2017 and 2022 Esri converted Census 2000 data into 2010 geography.

Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study 31. Gibbs Planning Group 17 November 2017 39

EXHIBIT A-7: Community Profile - Primary Trade Area

Gibbs Planning Group Community Profile

PTA Lower Merion Twp. Prepared by Esri Area: 46.3 square miles

Top 3 Tapestry Segments 1. Top Tier (1A) 2. Urban Chic (2A) 3. Golden Years (9B) 2017 Consumer Spending Apparel & Services: Total $ $239,314,463 Average Spent $3,610.66 Spending Potential Index 167 Education: Total $ $188,268,605 Average Spent $2,840.50 Spending Potential Index 195 Entertainment/Recreation: Total $ $340,467,035 Average Spent $5,136.80 Spending Potential Index 165 Food at Home: Total $ $530,070,444 Average Spent $7,997.44 Spending Potential Index 159 Food Away from Home: Total $ $359,439,959 Average Spent $5,423.05 Spending Potential Index 163 Health Care: Total $ $591,982,409 Average Spent $8,931.54 Spending Potential Index 160 HH Furnishings & Equipment: Total $ $209,349,197 Average Spent $3,158.56 Spending Potential Index 162 Personal Care Products & Services: Total $ $88,041,037 Average Spent $1,328.32 Spending Potential Index 167 Shelter: Total $ $1,866,654,614 Average Spent $28,163.17 Spending Potential Index 173 Support Payments/Cash Contributions/Gifts in Kind: Total $ $260,612,348 Average Spent $3,931.99 Spending Potential Index 168 Travel: Total $ $243,562,293 Average Spent $3,674.75 Spending Potential Index 177 Vehicle Maintenance & Repairs: Total $ $113,578,382 Average Spent $1,713.61 Spending Potential Index 160

D ata N o te: Consumer spending shows the amount spent on a variety of goods and services by households that reside in the area. Expenditures are shown by broad budget categories that are not mutually exclusive. Consumer spending does not equal business revenue. Total and Average Amount Spent Per Household represent annual figures. The Spending Potential Index represents the amount spent in the area relative to a national average of 100.

So urce: Consumer Spending data are derived from the 2013 and 2014 Consumer Expenditure Surveys, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Esri. So urce: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2017 and 2022 Esri converted Census 2000 data into 2010 geography.

32. Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study Gibbs Planning Group, Inc. 17 November 2017 40

EXHIBIT B-1: Business Summary – Primary Trade Area

1.1%

1.1%

1.2%

1.6%

1.3%

2.1%

1.8%

1.0%

0.5%

2.2%

0.7%

6.0%

5.0%

4.0%

2.7%

6.0%

0.7%

2.7%

0.6%

2.3%

0.5%

2.7%

2.8%

2.4%

0.7%

12.4%

13.9%

51.2%

17.0%

16.7%

20.0%

100.0%

Percent

551

417

447

648

656

955

908

585

1,101

Employees

1,185

1,944

1,399

1,890

5,410

1,574

1,026

2,122

11,124

5,363

4,468

3,549

2,449

2,453

2,048

2,395

2,545

17,918

12,467

45,841

15,270

14,957

89,596

Number

Prepared by Esri

51

7,172

89,596

174,330

1.1%

1.1%

1.1%

1.8%

6.1%

3.1%

6.1%

1.4%

1.9%

2.1%

2.1%

0.1%

1.0%

1.9%

1.2%

6.6%

3.5%

2.3%

8.9%

2.7%

0.4%

2.4%

2.0%

5.2%

0.4%

0.8%

4.9%

19.1%

13.6%

27.5%

47.2%

100.0%

Percent

8

81

71

32

82

28

55

79

88

131

165

196

174

145

103

138

154

154

134

474

249

638

438

220

977

376

434

352

7,172

1,972

1,369

Businesses

3,383

Number

which usescensus which block groups to allocate business summarytodata custom areas.

Esri’s Data allocation

Area: 46.3 square miles

PTA Lower Merion Twp.

Business Summary

: Dataon Businessthe : reportSummary calculatedis

Copyright 2017 Infogroup, Inc. AllInfogroup,rights TotalEsrireserved. Inc. CopyrightResidential2017 Population forecasts for 2017.

Gibbs Planning Group Gibbs

D ate N o te

So urce:

Other ServicesOther

EducationInstitutions Libraries &

Legal ServicesLegal

HealthServices

M otionPictures Amusements&

AutomotiveServices

HotelsLodging&

Real Estate,RealHolding, InvestmentOther Offices

Insurance Carriers & AgentsCarriersInsurance&

SecuritiesBrokers

Banks,InstitutionsLending Savings&

M iscellaneousRetail

Eating & DrinkingPlaces& Eating

Furniture & HomeFurniture& Furnishings

Apparel & AccessoryApparel& Stores

AutoStations,GasDealers, Auto Aftermarket

FoodStores

General MGeneral erchandiseStores

HomeImprovement

Totals

UnclassifiedEstablishments

Government

ServicesSummary

Finance, Insurance, Real EstateReal Insurance, Finance,Summary

RetailSummaryTrade

WholesaleTrade

Utility

Communication

Transportation

M anufacturing

Construction

AgricultureM& ining

by SIC Codes SIC by

Employee/ResidentialPopulation Residents) Ratio 100 (per

TotalResidential Population:

TotalEmployees: TotalBusinesses: Data for all businesses in area

Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study 33. Gibbs Planning Group 17 November 2017 41

EXHIBIT B-2: Business Summary – Primary Trade Area

1.3%

1.4%

3.1%

1.3%

1.0%

1.2%

1.6%

0.5%

2.2%

0.6%

6.5%

6.2%

7.6%

0.9%

7.0%

4.3%

5.4%

4.2%

2.0%

5.0%

0.8%

0.3%

0.9%

0.4%

0.2%

0.9%

2.4%

0.6%

0.4%

0.3%

2.3%

2.6%

2.6%

0.4%

0.0%

0.0%

11.7%

18.4%

12.2%

10.4%

100.0%

Percent

11

22

141

551

429

504

847

705

269

824

908

400

838

373

275

392

Employees

1,185

1,821

1,081

2,181

1,944

1,275

1,207

6,312

1,433

2,341

5,856

5,587

6,772

2,753

3,852

4,877

3,792

4,470

9,275

2,023

2,368

16,488

10,972

10,490

89,596

Number

Prepared by Esri

1.1%

1.4%

1.8%

1.4%

1.6%

1.8%

0.1%

0.1%

0.1%

6.6%

6.3%

0.4%

6.7%

3.8%

4.0%

0.3%

2.5%

5.8%

2.5%

3.4%

2.0%

7.9%

3.2%

0.8%

0.3%

2.4%

0.4%

0.9%

2.3%

0.4%

0.8%

0.6%

0.7%

0.8%

2.0%

5.4%

11.6%

11.7%

12.8%

12.6%

100.0%

Percent

4

4

4

81

32

20

55

24

28

66

28

55

43

50

54

101

118

131

481

128

176

917

413

178

143

170

167

102

145

473

835

449

838

274

288

244

565

229

904

384

7,172

Businesses

Number

which usescensus which block groups to allocate business summarytodata custom areas.

Esri’s Data allocation

Area: 46.3 square miles

PTA Lower Merion Twp.

Business Summary

: Dataon Businessthe : reportSummary calculatedis

Copyright 2017 Infogroup, Inc. AllInfogroup,rights TotalEsrireserved. Inc. CopyrightResidential2017 Population forecasts for 2017.

Gibbs Planning Group Gibbs

D ate N o te

So urce:

AutomotiveM& Repair aintenance

FoodServicesDrinking Places&

Accommodation

Legal ServicesLegal

Insurance Carriers & RelatedCarriersInsuranceActivities;& TrustsFunds, Other &

Securities,Commodity Contracts FinancialOther &

CentralBank/Credit Intermediation RelatedActivities&

NonstoreRetailers

M iscellaneousStore Retailers

General MGeneral erchandiseStores

SportGoods, Book,Hobby, M& usicStores

ClothingClothing& Accessories Stores

GasolineStations

Health & PersonalHealth& StoresCare

FoodBeverage& Stores

BldgMDealersSuppliesEquipment & Garden & aterial

ElectronicsAppliance& Stores

Furniture & HomeFurniture& Furnishings Stores

M otorParts& Vehicle Dealers

Total

UnclassifiedEstablishments

PublicAdministration

Other ServicesOther Public(except Administration)

AccommodationFood& Services

Arts,Entertainment Recreation&

Health Care & SocialHealth& CareAssistance

EducationalServices

AdministrativeSupportMWaste& & Remediation anagement&

M anagementof Companies Enterprises&

Professional,Scientific TechServices&

Real Estate,RealLeasingRental &

Finance & InsuranceFinance&

Information

TransportationWarehousing&

RetailTrade

WholesaleTrade

M anufacturing

Construction

Utilities

M ining Agriculture,Forestry, HuntingFishing& by NAICS Codes NAICS by

34. Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study Gibbs Planning Group, Inc. 17 November 2017 42

EXHIBIT C-1: Housing Profile – Primary Trade Area

Gibbs Planning Group Housing Profile

PTA Lower Merion Twp. Prepared by Esri Area: 46.3 square miles

P opula tion House holds 2010 Total Population 170,134 2017 Median Household Income $84,915 2017 Total Population 174,330 2022 Median Household Income $94,511 2022 Total Population 177,299 2017- 2022 Annual Rate 2.16% 2017- 2022 Annual Rate 0.34%

Census 2010 2 0 17 2022 Housing Units by Occupancy Status and Tenure Numbe r P e rc e nt Numbe r P e rc e nt Numbe r P e rc e nt Total Housing Units 69,900 100.0% 71,145 100.0% 72,289 100.0% Occupied 64,762 92.6% 66,280 93.2% 67,363 93.2% Owner 44,390 63.5% 44,043 61.9% 44,576 61.7% Renter 20,372 29.1% 22,237 31.3% 22,787 31.5% Vacant 5,138 7.4% 4,865 6.8% 4,926 6.8%

2 0 17 2022 Owner Occupied Housing Units by Value Numbe r P e rc e nt Numbe r P e rc e nt Total 44,035 100.0% 44,570 100.0% <$50,000 610 1.4% 381 0.9% $50,000-$99,999 1,886 4.3% 1,529 3.4% $100,000- $149,999 3,522 8.0% 3,445 7.7% $150,000- $199,999 3,297 7.5% 3,386 7.6% $200,000-$249,999 3,267 7.4% 2,984 6.7% $250,000-$299,999 3,349 7.6% 3,052 6.8% $300,000-$399,999 7,298 16.6% 7,298 16.4% $400,000-$499,999 4,831 11.0% 5,160 11.6% $500,000-$749,999 6,845 15.5% 7,432 16.7% $750,000-$999,999 4,873 11.1% 5,348 12.0% $1,000,000+ 4,257 9.7% 4,555 10.2%

Median Value $383,400 $404,070 Average Value $486,465 $506,005

Census 2010 Housing Units Numbe r P e rc e nt Total 69,900 100.0% In Urbanized Areas 69,900 100.0% In Urban Clusters 0 0.0% Rural Housing Units 0 0.0%

D ata N o te: Persons of Hispanic Origin may be of any race. So urce: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1.

Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study 35. Gibbs Planning Group 17 November 2017 43

EXHIBIT C-2: Housing Profile – Primary Trade Area

Gibbs Planning Group Housing Profile

PTA Lower Merion Twp. Prepared by Esri Area: 46.3 square miles

Census 2010 Owner Occupied Housing Units by Mortgage Status Numbe r P e rc e nt Total 44,390 100.0% Owned with a Mortgage/Loan 30,807 69.4% Owned Free and Clear 13,583 30.6%

Census 2010 Vacant Housing Units by Status Numbe r P e rc e nt Total 5,213 100.0% For Rent 2,548 48.9% Rented- Not Occupied 118 2.3% For Sale Only 691 13.3% Sold - Not Occupied 208 4.0% Seasonal/Recreational/Occasional Use 523 10.0% For Migrant Workers 0 0.0% Other Vacant 1,125 21.6%

Census 2010 Occupied Housing Units by Age of Householder and Home Ownership Owner Occupied Units Oc c upie d Numbe r % of Occupied Total 64,761Units 44,390 68.5% 15- 24 2,668 200 7.5% 25- 34 8,155 2,930 35.9% 35- 44 10,696 7,465 69.8% 45- 54 13,422 10,405 77.5% 55- 64 12,637 10,272 81.3% 65- 74 7,865 6,448 82.0% 75- 84 6,072 4,613 76.0% 85+ 3,246 2,057 63.4%

Census 2010 Occupied Housing Units by Race/Ethnicity of Householder and Home Ownership Owner Occupied Units Oc c upie d Numbe r % of Occupied Total 64,765Units 44,391 68.5% White Alone 45,662 33,653 73.7% Black/African American 14,877 8,791 59.1% AmericanAlone Indian/Alaska 88 39 44.3% AsianNative Alone Alone 3,057 1,431 46.8% Pacific Islander Alone 15 9 60.0% Other Race Alone 290 91 31.4% Two or More Races 776 377 48.6%

Hispanic Origin 1,205 564 46.8%

Census 2010 Occupied Housing Units by Size and Home Ownership Owner Occupied Units Oc c upie d Numbe r % of Occupied Total 64,760Units 44,389 68.5% 1-Person 20,148 9,991 49.6% 2- Person 20,499 14,911 72.7% 3- Person 10,064 7,598 75.5% 4- Person 8,620 7,230 83.9% 5- Person 3,752 3,242 86.4% 6- Person 1,130 966 85.5% 7+ Person 547 451 82.4%

D ata N o te: Persons of Hispanic Origin may be of any race. So urce: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1.

36. Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study Gibbs Planning Group, Inc. 17 November 2017 44

EXHIBIT D-1: Tapestry Segementation – Primary Trade Area

Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study 37. Gibbs Planning Group 17 November 2017 45

EXHIBIT D-2: Tapestry Segementation – Primary Trade Area

Gibbs Planning Group Tapestry Segmentation Area Profile

PTA Lower Merion Twp. Prepared by Esri Area: 46.3 square miles

Top Twenty Tapestry S e gme nts 2017 Households 2017 U.S. Households Cumula tiv Cumula tiv Ra nk Tapestry Segment P e rc e nt P e rc e nte P e rc e nt P e rc e nte Inde x 1 Top Tier (1A) 21.6% 21.6% 1.7% 1.7% 1261 2 Urban Chic (2A) 16.2% 37.8% 1.3% 3.0% 1,218 3 Golden Years (9B) 9.2% 47.0% 1.3% 4.3% 681 4 City Strivers (11A) 8.0% 55.0% 0.8% 5.1% 1,024 5 Pleasantville (2B) 6.7% 61.7% 2.2% 7.3% 303 S ubtota l 6 1.7 % 7 .3 %

6 Family Foundations (12A) 6.0% 67.7% 1.1% 8.4% 570 7 Savvy Suburbanites (1D) 5.4% 73.1% 3.0% 11.4% 181 8 Emerald City (8B) 4.3% 77.4% 1.4% 12.8% 305 9 City Lights (8A) 4.2% 81.6% 1.5% 14.3% 286 10 Social Security Set (9F) 3.8% 85.4% 0.8% 15.1% 466 S ubtota l 2 3 .7 % 7 .8 %

11 Trendsetters (3C) 3.2% 88.6% 1.1% 16.2% 298 12 Metro Renters (3B) 2.5% 91.1% 1.6% 17.8% 163 13 Old and Newcomers (8F) 2.5% 93.6% 2.3% 20.1% 107 14 Modest Income Homes (12D) 1.6% 95.2% 1.3% 21.4% 125 15 College Towns (14B) 1.5% 96.7% 1.0% 22.4% 152 S ubtota l 11.3 % 7 .3 %

16 Retirement Communities (9E) 0.8% 97.5% 1.2% 23.6% 67 17 Laptops and Lattes (3A) 0.8% 98.3% 1.1% 24.7% 73 18 Professional Pride (1B) 0.8% 99.1% 1.6% 26.3% 47 19 Exurbanites (1E) 0.7% 99.8% 1.9% 28.2% 36 20 In Style (5B) 0.3% 100.1% 2.2% 30.4% 11 S ubtota l 3 .4 % 8 .0 %

Tota l 10 0 .0 % 3 0 .4 % 329

Top Ten Tapestry Segments Site vs. U.S. Social Security Set (9F)

City Lights (8A)

Emerald City (8B)

Savvy Suburbanites (1D)

Family Foundations (12A)

Pleasantville (2B)

City Strivers (11A)

Golden Years (9B) Site Urban Chic (2A) U.S. Top Tier (1A) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Percent of Households by Tapestry Segment

D ata N o te: This report identifies neighborhood segments in the area, and describes the socioeconomic quality of the immediate neighborhood. The index is a comparison of the percent of households or Total Population 18+ in the area, by Tapestry segment, to the percent of households or Total Population 18+ in the United States, by segment. An index of 100 is the US average. So urce: Esri

38. Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study Gibbs Planning Group, Inc. 17 November 2017 46

EXHIBIT D-3: Tapestry Segementation – Primary Trade Area

Gibbs Planning Group Tapestry Segmentation Area Profile

PTA Lower Merion Twp. Prepared by Esri Area: 46.3 square miles

2017 Tapestry Indexes by Households 2017 Tapestry Indexes by Total Population 18+ Index Index 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200

14C 14C

14A 14A

13D 13D

13B 13B

12D 12D

12B 12B

11E 11E

11C 11C

11A 11A

10D 10D

10B 10B

9F 9F

9D 9D

9B 9B

s t

s 8G

t 8G

n

n e

e 8E

8E m

m

g

g e

e 8C

8C S

S

y

r

y t

r 8A t

8A s

s

e e

p 7E p

7E a

T a T 7C 7C 7A 7A 6E 6E 6C 6C 6A 6A 5D 5D 5B 5B 4C 4C 4A 4A 3B 3B 2D 2D 2B 2B 1E 1E 1C 1C 1A 1A

D ata N o te: This report identifies neighborhood segments in the area, and describes the socioeconomic quality of the immediate neighborhood. The index is a comparison of the percent of households or Total Population 18+ in the area, by Tapestry segment, to the percent of households or Total Population 18+ in the United States, by segment. An index of 100 is the US average. So urce: Esri

Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study 39. Gibbs Planning Group 17 November 2017 47

EXHIBIT D-4: Tapestry Segementation – Primary Trade Area

Gibbs Planning Group Tapestry Segmentation Area Profile

PTA Lower Merion Twp. Prepared by Esri Area: 46.3 square miles

Tapestry LifeMode Groups 2017 Households 2017 Adult Population Numbe r P e rc e nt Inde x Numbe r P e rc e nt Inde x Tota l: 66,280 100.0% 139,377 100.0%

1. Affluent Estates 18 ,8 7 6 2 8 .5 % 288 4 2 ,9 7 1 3 0 .8 % 294 Top Tier (1A) 14,338 21.6% 1261 33,701 24.2% 1335 Professional Pride (1B) 498 0.8% 47 972 0.7% 39 Boomburbs (1C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Savvy Suburbanites (1D) 3,571 5.4% 181 7,274 5.2% 163 Exurbanites (1E) 469 0.7% 36 1,024 0.7% 38

2. Upscale Avenues 15 ,14 7 2 2 .9 % 403 3 2 ,8 3 2 2 3 .6 % 397 Urban Chic (2A) 10,716 16.2% 1,218 23,735 17.0% 1,361 Pleasantville (2B) 4,431 6.7% 303 9,097 6.5% 265 Pacific Heights (2C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Enterprising Professionals (2D) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0

3. Uptown Individuals 4 ,3 0 4 6 .5 % 17 6 7 ,8 9 8 5 .7 % 18 7 Laptops and Lattes (3A) 512 0.8% 73 845 0.6% 70 Metro Renters (3B) 1,675 2.5% 163 2,699 1.9% 160 Trendsetters (3C) 2,117 3.2% 298 4,354 3.1% 327

4. Family Landscapes 0 0 .0 % 0 0 0 .0 % 0 Soccer Moms (4A) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Home Improvement (4B) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Middleburg (4C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0

5. GenXurban 16 9 0 .3 % 2 1,7 8 7 1.3 % 12 Comfortable Empty Nesters (5A) ( 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 In Style (5B) 169 0.3% 11 1,787 1.3% 61 Parks and Rec (5C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Rustbelt Traditions (5D) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Midlife Constants (5E) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0

6. Cozy Country Living 0 0 .0 % 0 0 0 .0 % 0 Green Acres (6A) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Salt of the Earth (6B) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 The Great Outdoors (6C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Prairie Living (6D) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Rural Resort Dwellers (6E) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Heartland Communities (6F) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0

7. Ethnic Enclaves 0 0 .0 % 0 0 0 .0 % 0 Up and Coming Families (7A) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Urban Villages (7B) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 American Dreamers (7C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Barrios Urbanos (7D) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Valley Growers (7E) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Southwestern Families (7F) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0

D ata N o te: This report identifies neighborhood segments in the area, and describes the socioeconomic quality of the immediate neighborhood. The index is a comparison of the percent of households or Total Population 18+ in the area, by Tapestry segment, to the percent of households or Total Population 18+ in the United States, by segment. An index of 100 is the US average. So urce: Esri

40. Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study Gibbs Planning Group, Inc. 17 November 2017 48

EXHIBIT D-5: Tapestry Segementation – Primary Trade Area

Gibbs Planning Group Tapestry Segmentation Area Profile

PTA Lower Merion Twp. Prepared by Esri Area: 46.3 square miles

Tapestry LifeMode Groups 2017 Households 2017 Adult Population Numbe r P e rc e nt Inde x Numbe r P e rc e nt Inde x Tota l: 66,280 100.0% 139,377 100.0%

8. Middle Ground 7 ,3 0 9 11.0 % 10 1 14 ,5 7 7 10 .5 % 10 3 City Lights (8A) 2,788 4.2% 286 5,339 3.8% 256 Emerald City (8B) 2,873 4.3% 305 5,948 4.3% 350 Bright Young Professionals (8C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Downtown Melting Pot (8D) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Front Porches (8E) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Old and Newcomers (8F) 1,648 2.5% 107 3,290 2.4% 118 Hardscrabble Road (8G) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0

9. Senior Styles 9 ,12 7 13 .8 % 238 17 ,4 8 7 12 .5 % 250 Silver & Gold (9A) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Golden Years (9B) 6,073 9.2% 681 12,462 8.9% 751 The Elders (9C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Senior Escapes (9D) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Retirement Communities (9E) 545 0.8% 67 1,194 0.9% 84 Social Security Set (9F) 2,509 3.8% 466 3,831 2.7% 411

10. Rustic Outposts 0 0 .0 % 0 0 0 .0 % 0 Southern Satellites (10A) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Rooted Rural (10B) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Diners & Miners (10C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Down the Road (10D) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Rural Bypasses (10E) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0

11. Midtown Singles 5 ,3 0 5 8 .0 % 12 9 10 ,16 7 7 .3 % 13 2 City Strivers (11A) 5,305 8.0% 1,024 10,167 7.3% 903 Young and Restless (11B) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Metro Fusion (11C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Set to Impress (11D) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 City Commons (11E) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0

12. Hometown 5 ,0 7 7 7 .7 % 12 4 9 ,9 8 9 7 .2 % 12 2 Family Foundations (12A) 3,985 6.0% 570 8,063 5.8% 535 Traditional Living (12B) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Small Town Simplicity (12C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Modest Income Homes (12D) 1,092 1.6% 125 1,926 1.4% 109

13. Next Wave 0 0 .0 % 0 0 0 .0 % 0 International Marketplace (13A) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Las Casas (13B) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 NeWest Residents (13C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Fresh Ambitions (13D) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 High Rise Renters (13E) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0

14. Scholars and Patriots 962 1.5 % 90 1,6 6 3 1.2 % 52 Military Proximity (14A) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 College Towns (14B) 962 1.5% 152 1,663 1.2% 115 Dorms to Diplomas (14C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0

Unclassified (15) 4 0.0% 480 6 0.0% 2

D ata N o te: This report identifies neighborhood segments in the area, and describes the socioeconomic quality of the immediate neighborhood. The index is a comparison of the percent of households or Total Population 18+ in the area, by Tapestry segment, to the percent of households or Total Population 18+ in the United States, by segment. An index of 100 is the US average. So urce: Esri

Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study 41. Gibbs Planning Group 17 November 2017 49

EXHIBIT D-6: Tapestry Segementation – Primary Trade Area

Gibbs Planning Group Tapestry Segmentation Area Profile

PTA Lower Merion Twp. Prepared by Esri Area: 46.3 square miles

Tapestry Urbanization 2017 Households 2017 Adult Population Groups Numbe r P e rc e nt Inde x Numbe r P e rc e nt Inde x Tota l: 66,280 100.0% 139,377 100.0%

1. Principal Urban Center 9 ,6 0 9 14 .5 % 205 18 ,0 6 5 13 .0 % 19 4 Laptops and Lattes (3A) 512 0.8% 73 845 0.6% 70 Metro Renters (3B) 1,675 2.5% 163 2,699 1.9% 160 Trendsetters (3C) 2,117 3.2% 298 4,354 3.1% 327 Downtown Melting Pot (8D) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 City Strivers (11A) 5,305 8.0% 1,024 10,167 7.3% 903 NeWest Residents (13C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Fresh Ambitions (13D) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 High Rise Renters (13E) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0

2. Urban Periphery 7 ,8 6 5 11.9 % 70 15 ,3 2 8 11.0 % 61 Pacific Heights (2C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Rustbelt Traditions (5D) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Urban Villages (7B) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 American Dreamers (7C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Barrios Urbanos (7D) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Southwestern Families (7F) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 City Lights (8A) 2,788 4.2% 286 5,339 3.8% 256 Bright Young Professionals (8C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Metro Fusion (11C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Family Foundations (12A) 3,985 6.0% 570 8,063 5.8% 535 Modest Income Homes (12D) 1,092 1.6% 125 1,926 1.4% 109 International Marketplace (13A) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Las Casas (13B) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0

3. Metro Cities 8 ,7 0 6 13 .1% 72 17 ,7 13 12 .7 % 75 In Style (5B) 169 0.3% 11 1,787 1.3% 61 Emerald City (8B) 2,873 4.3% 305 5,948 4.3% 350 Front Porches (8E) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Old and Newcomers (8F) 1,648 2.5% 107 3,290 2.4% 118 Hardscrabble Road (8G) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Retirement Communities (9E) 545 0.8% 67 1,194 0.9% 84 Social Security Set (9F) 2,509 3.8% 466 3,831 2.7% 411 Young and Restless (11B) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Set to Impress (11D) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 City Commons (11E) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Traditional Living (12B) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 College Towns (14B) 962 1.5% 152 1,663 1.2% 115 Dorms to Diplomas (14C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0

D ata N o te: This report identifies neighborhood segments in the area, and describes the socioeconomic quality of the immediate neighborhood. The index is a comparison of the percent of households or Total Population 18+ in the area, by Tapestry segment, to the percent of households or Total Population 18+ in the United States, by segment. An index of 100 is the US average. So urce: Esri

42. Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study Gibbs Planning Group, Inc. 17 November 2017 50

EXHIBIT D-7: Tapestry Segementation – Primary Trade Area

Gibbs Planning Group Tapestry Segmentation Area Profile

PTA Lower Merion Twp. Prepared by Esri Area: 46.3 square miles

Tapestry Urbanization 2017 Households 2017 Adult Population Groups Numbe r P e rc e nt Inde x Numbe r P e rc e nt Inde x Tota l: 66,280 100.0% 139,377 100.0% 4. Suburban Periphery 4 0 ,0 9 6 6 0 .5 % 19 1 8 8 ,2 6 5 6 3 .3 % 19 5 Top Tier (1A) 14,338 21.6% 1,261 33,701 24.2% 1,335 Professional Pride (1B) 498 0.8% 47 972 0.7% 39 Boomburbs (1C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Savvy Suburbanites (1D) 3,571 5.4% 181 7,274 5.2% 163 Exurbanites (1E) 469 0.7% 36 1,024 0.7% 38 Urban Chic (2A) 10,716 16.2% 1,218 23,735 17.0% 1,361 Pleasantville (2B) 4,431 6.7% 303 9,097 6.5% 265 Enterprising Professionals (2D) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Soccer Moms (4A) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Home Improvement (4B) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Comfortable Empty Nesters (5A) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Parks and Rec (5C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Midlife Constants (5E) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Up and Coming Families (7A) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Silver & Gold (9A) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Golden Years (9B) 6,073 9.2% 681 12,462 8.9% 751 The Elders (9C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Military Proximity (14A) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0

5. Semirural 0 0 .0 % 0 0 0 .0 % 0 Middleburg (4C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Heartland Communities (6F) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Valley Growers (7E) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Senior Escapes (9D) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Down the Road (10D) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Small Town Simplicity (12C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0

6 . Rura l 0 0 .0 % 0 0 0 .0 % 0 Green Acres (6A) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Salt of the Earth (6B) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 The Great Outdoors (6C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Prairie Living (6D) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Rural Resort Dwellers (6E) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Southern Satellites (10A) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Rooted Rural (10B) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Diners & Miners (10C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0% 0 Rural Bypasses (10E) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0

Unclassified (15) 4 0.0% 480 6 0.0% 2

D ata N o te: This report identifies neighborhood segments in the area, and describes the socioeconomic quality of the immediate neighborhood. The index is a comparison of the percent of households or Total Population 18+ in the area, by Tapestry segment, to the percent of households or Total Population 18+ in the United States, by segment. An index of 100 is the US average. So urce: Esri

Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study 43. Gibbs Planning Group 17 November 2017 51

EXHIBIT E-8: Tapestry Segementation – Primary Trade Area

44. Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study Gibbs Planning Group, Inc. 17 November 2017 52

EXHIBIT E-9: Tapestry Segementation – Primary Trade Area

Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study 45. Gibbs Planning Group 17 November 2017 53

EXHIBIT E-10: Tapestry Segementation – Primary Trade Area

46. Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study Gibbs Planning Group, Inc. 17 November 2017 54

EXHIBIT E-11: Tapestry Segementation – Primary Trade Area

Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study 47. Gibbs Planning Group 17 November 2017 55

EXHIBIT E-12: Tapestry Segementation – Primary Trade Area

48. Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study Gibbs Planning Group, Inc. 17 November 2017 56

EXHIBIT E-13: Tapestry Segementation – Primary Trade Area

Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study 49. Gibbs Planning Group 17 November 2017 57

EXHIBIT E-14: Tapestry Segementation – Primary Trade Area

50. Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study Gibbs Planning Group, Inc. 17 November 2017 58

EXHIBIT E-15: Tapestry Segementation – Primary Trade Area

Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study 51. Gibbs Planning Group 17 November 2017 59

EXHIBIT E-16: Tapestry Segementation – Primary Trade Area

52. Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study Gibbs Planning Group, Inc. 17 November 2017 60

EXHIBIT E-17: Tapestry Segementation – Primary Trade Area

Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study 53. Gibbs Planning Group 17 November 2017 61

EXHIBIT E-18: Tapestry Segementation – Primary Trade Area

54. Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study Gibbs Planning Group, Inc. 17 November 2017 62

EXHIBIT E-19: Tapestry Segementation – Primary Trade Area

Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study 55. Gibbs Planning Group 17 November 2017 63

EXHIBIT E-20: Tapestry Segementation – Primary Trade Area

56. Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study Gibbs Planning Group, Inc. 17 November 2017 64

EXHIBIT E-21: Tapestry Segementation – Primary Trade Area

Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study 57. Gibbs Planning Group 17 November 2017 65

EXHIBIT E-22: Tapestry Segementation – Primary Trade Area

58. Lower Merion Township Retail Market Study Gibbs Planning Group, Inc. 17 November 2017 66

January 2016 e m e n t l E

s e ennsylvania U , P a n d L c o u n t y

e r y m o n t g o A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPREHENSIVE A of and Redevelopment Infill, Preservation, for the TOWNSHIP MERION LOWER M

A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR LOWER MERION TOWNSHIP Montgomery County PA 67 LAND USE 159

Background/ Residential Institutional Commercial Historic Relationship to Other Conclusions Introduction Land Use Land Use Land Use Preservation Planning Documents

THE LAND USE ELEMENT residents. Additionally, institutional Preservation, Infill and The Land Use Element consists uses provide significant open space Redevelopment of the several Township-wide maps necessary to maintain the Township’s The Preservation, Infill and Re- and a series of recommendations and low density character and also pre- development map complements the strategies addressing the issues and serve important historical resourc- Future Land Use Map. The Preserva- opportunities associated with the var- es. The Land Use Element includes tion, Infill and Redevelopment Map ious land uses and land use typolo- a detailed analysis of institutional indicates areas of the Township which gies throughout the Township. The uses and provides recommendations should be preserved primarily be- Land Use Element has synthesizes for the continued modernization of cause of their relationship to sensitive the land use planning objectives with regionally-scaled institutions while natural features, particularly the Mill the realities of the planning context, also ensuring that future institutional Creek Watershed, areas which should defining land use characteristics and expansion is in harmony with sur- remain low density, areas which land use planning considerations. rounding low intensity residential should be preserved because of their The Township’s current land use uses. unique physical form and character, plan projects an ultimate popula- areas which lack defined character tion and build out of approximate- The Role of Preservation but where new constructive should ly 90,000. The Township’s current Current Township codes are ori- be sensitively scaled and areas where population is approximately 60,000. ented towards the continued devel- redevelopment and/or modernization Current zoning permits the Town- opment of vacant land or the rede- should occur. ship’s population to increase beyond velopment of vacant land to meet To address the different types this number, primarily through rede- established levels of density. As the and unique impacts of future growth velopment of commercial areas and Township has continued develop- upon the existing community the en- higher density teardown/infill of es- ment of vacant land and/or the rede- tire Comprehensive Plan will follow tablished residential neighborhoods. velopment of the existing pattern, the these three distinct sets of growth Without implementation of the rec- impact upon the character and qual- management strategies. The growth ommendations current development ity of established neighborhoods has management strategies are based the trends will most likely result in un- increased. physical and environmental char- desirable levels of growth in inappro- For close to 30 years the Township acteristics where growth will occur, priate locations. The land use recom- has been utilizing various open space address the desired density and form mendations and strategies have been and historic preservation tools in or- of the new development and ensure prepared to provide physical im- der to protect essential architectural that new growth is appropriately co- provements and regulatory controls and open space elements of Lower ordinated with other planning efforts, necessary to accommodate a modest Merion from loss or degradation. In particularly stormwater management amount of physical growth and addi- many ways open space and historic and circulation. tional population. preservation have served as band aids Preservation Strategies – Preser- The Land Use Element considers to temporary fix the wounds created vation strategies are primarily orient- the long range community objectives by unrelenting development. This ed toward preserving areas of envi- of allowing for the modernization of plan proposes turning the develop- ronmental sensitivity and/or historic regionally scaled institutional uses in ment/preservation dynamic around merit, while incorporating infill strat- harmony with surrounding low in- by basing future planning and regu- egies. Preservation strategies include tensity residential neighborhoods, the latory efforts towards preserving and traditional neighborhood develop- revitalization of neighborhood-ori- enhancing the established pattern ment guidelines to promote visual ented commercial areas and the rede- through modest, targeted growth consistency between new construc- velopment of the City Avenue, Pen- where it is appropriate. This Preserva- tion and established neighborhoods. coyd Waterfront, and Rock Hill Road tion Orientation is necessary to retain Preservation strategies also promote areas into mixed-use districts. the value of Lower Merion Township density modifications to promote ap- Institutional uses, such as private as a unique place and is based upon a propriate levels of new development schools, hospitals and clubs are a de- reevaluation of community priorities in environmentally sensitive areas. fining feature of the Township. Insti- and changing land use realities. The Infill Strategies - Infill strategies tutional uses have numerous benefits preservation orientation integrates are primarily oriented towards refin- to the community and they provide historic and open space preservation ing the replacement and moderniza- a diverse range of amenities, services with the goal of preserving, modern- tion of housing stock within estab- and employment opportunities for izing and enhancing the Township’s lished neighborhoods. Infill strategies natural and built environments. 68 COMPREHENSIVE 160 PLAN

Background/ Residential Institutional Commercial Historic Relationship to Other Conclusions Introduction Land Use Land Use Land Use Preservation Planning Documents

The idea of Preservation presented by the Plan is rooted in the practical belief that the overwhelming majority of Lower Merion Township works very well and should not be materially changed. Preservation, in terms of this plan, is to be considered as a means towards the logical and appropriate evolution of the community to meet changing realities. While preservation is sometimes seen as focusing on specific properties or individual buildings, this plan is focused on preserving the larger patterns which the individual historic elements collectively comprise as well as preserving individual historic resources. Historic Preservation is re-imagined as the preservation of Lower Merion Township as a series of distinct neighborhoods each reflecting specific building eras is crucial to maintaining the character and value of the Township as a whole.

encourage logical modernization of Structure of the Element compromise the essential defining residential housing stock consistent The remainder of this Element is characteristics will be a challenge in with neighboring properties and fo- divided into five chapters: Residen- coming years. The Land Use Element cus on design standards and density tial Land Use; Institutional Land Use; includes recommendations towards modifications to ensure harmony be- Commercial Land Use; Historic Pres- controlling the location, density, and tween new construction and the es- ervation; and Conclusions. Each land form and new development to meet tablished pattern. use chapter includes an inventory of this challenge. This Land Use Ele- Redevelopment Strategies – Re- each land use as well as a presentation ment has been coordinated with the development Strategies are designed and discussion of issues facing each other Elements of the Comprehensive to guide the targeted modernization/ land use. Although technically not a Plan to ensure that the Township’s redevelopment of commercial areas. use, historic preservation has been in- community development objectives Redevelopment strategies promote cluded in the Land Use Element due are achieved. the upgrading of the built environ- to its orientation towards maintaining ment through architectural and land- and perpetuating a high quality built scape design standards, as well as nec- environment and because of the in- essary transportation improvements terrelationship between historic pres- such as new roads, wider sidewalks ervation and residential, institutional or multi-use trails. Redevelopment and commercial land use planning strategies are designed to allow the and regulatory controls. Each chapter targeted, high-quality modernization includes specific recommendations to of commercial areas while preserv- address specific geographic or topical ing/modernizing core historic assets issues and achieve the community de- within commercial districts. velopment objectives. Maintaining the identity, desirabil- ity and vitality of the Township while insuring that future growth does not

69 LAND USE 161

Background/ Residential Institutional Commercial Historic Relationship to Other Conclusions Introduction Land Use Land Use Land Use Preservation Planning Documents

L1 PRESERVATION, INFILL AND REDEVELOPMENT MAP

Legend Preservation-Form and Scale Preservation-Natural Features & Low Density Infill Redevelopment Township Parks Open Space - Cemeteries

L2 FUTURE LAND USE MAP

Legend Low & Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Commercial Institutional Industrial Parks Private Open Space Other Private Open Space Public Land Public Utility

70 LAND USE 243

Background/ Residential Institutional Commercial Historic Relationship to Other Conclusions Introduction Land Use Land Use Land Use Preservation Planning Documents

COMMERCIAL LAND USE

TOWNSHIP-WIDE COMMERCIAL LAND USE VISION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Commercial Land Use Mission Statement Attractive, convenient, and vi- brant commercial areas are hallmarks of the finest residential suburbs and are an essential component of good places to live. The Township’s com- mercial areas are intended to be dis- tinct places, each with their own unique identity, and convenient con- nections to its surrounding neighbor- hood. The Township’s commercial ar- eas are civic centers, providing access to public transportation, shopping, employment, and a wide variety of FIGURE 5.28 TOWNSHIP REAL ESTATE TAX REVENUE public and private services. BY LAND USE The Township’s commercial areas are places for communal gathering, 0.1% Public Utilities socializing, and their design and op- 0.2% Other eration should be a source of commu- 0.3% Institutional nity pride. 0.7% Land 1.6% Hospital & Medical Background Vibrant and attractive commercial 8.7% Multiple Family Residential districts are an integral component of a successful residential suburb. Al- 11.1% Commercial though only 4% of Lower Merion’s land area is comprised of commer- cial use, commercial real estate taxes account for 11% of the Township’s real estate tax revenue (Figure 5.28). 77.3% Single Family Detached Dwelling Additionally, business and mercantile real estate transfer tax, franchise fees and other various licenses and per- mits account for over $10 million of the Township’s revenue.1 Traditionally centered on public transit nodes, along heavily traveled streets or at prominent intersections, suburban commercial districts are a restaurants, dry cleaners, florists, and or informally socialize. Because of natural extension of their immedi- post offices. The Township’s various their prominent locations along ma- ate residential neighborhoods and commercial districts are essentially jor roadways, the visual appearance provide locations for the day-to-day the “downtown” of their respective of commercial districts helps define services and operations necessary for neighborhoods, places where resi- the identity of the neighborhood modern life, such as grocery stores, dents can conduct business, gather, which it represents.

1 Lower Merion Township Budget, 2015 71 COMPREHENSIVE 244 PLAN

Background/ Residential Institutional Commercial Historic Relationship to Other Conclusions Introduction Land Use Land Use Land Use Preservation Planning Documents

Planning Assumption er density residential neighborhood though the survey was not statistical- The Township has a sufficient which they serve. Commercial dis- ly valid, it did provide a framework to supply of land designated for com- tricts should be encouraged to “ful- understand the ideas, opinions and mercial activities to serve local needs ly-function” as commercial areas as concerns of residents and business and support the local tax base (Fig- long as commercial activities do not owners. Stakeholder interviews were ure 5.29). No net increase in com- unreasonably intrude into non-com- also conducted with local business mercial areas is recommended, but mercial areas. Specific regulations owners to discuss factors impacting it is recommended that there be no should be crafted to address off-site community businesses. Understand- further loss of commercial land area externalities from commercial uses. ing the citizens’ needs and interests to non-commercial land uses. Capital and programmatic improve- was necessary to help formulate Lower Merion Township will ments have been identified to im- commercial area recommendations continue to attract residential devel- prove the functionality, vitality, and to benefit the community overall. opment so care should be taken to appearance of various districts. The proposed recommendations ensure that areas currently designat- were thoroughly vetted by the Land ed for commercial land use remain Planning Approach Use Committee at 13 separate pub- commercial and that commercial ar- The Land Use Committee identi- lic meetings held in 2013 and 2014. eas evolve to serve community needs. fied thirteen (13) distinct commercial Commercial area recommendations districts distributed across the Town- focus on maintaining the unique Planning Intent ship. Each commercial district has identity of each commercial district The primary intent of the com- been evaluated according to its spe- while functionally integrating adja- mercial land use recommendations is cific location within the Township as cent districts together into a Town- to improve the vitality, functionality, well as its particular function within ship-wide commercial plan in order and appearance of the Township’s the Township’s overall Commercial to achieve transportation efficiencies commercial districts and to ensure Land Use Plan. A public opinion sur- and to establish an attractive, visually that higher intensity commercial uses vey was conducted for each of the coherent streetscape. are properly integrated with the low- commercial areas (Table 5.31). Al-

FIGURE 5.29 PERCENT COMMERCIAL FIGURE 5.30 PERCENT TOTAL COMMERCIAL NET PROPERTY TAX REVENUE BY LAND USE LEASABLE AREA BY LAND USE

1% Industrial 1% Industrial

21% Mixed Use 21% Mixed Use

28% Retail 24% Retail

50% Office 54% Office

Data source: Montgomery County Board of Assessment, 2013 Data source: Montgomery County Board of Assessment, 2013

72 LAND USE 245

Background/ Residential Institutional Commercial Historic Relationship to Other Conclusions Introduction Land Use Land Use Land Use Preservation Planning Documents

TABLE 5.31 COMMERCIAL AREA SURVEY RESPONSES

Other (e.g., employees, elected Land Use Residents & Civic Business officials, frequent visitor/ District Total Committee Staff Group Members Owners shopper) Penn Wynne (Manoa Road) 106 13 4 83 1 5 Penn Wynne (City Avenue) 38 12 4 22 0 0 Gladwyne 44 11 5 18 4 6 Merion-Cynwyd 277 9 6 250 4 8 10 Penn Valley 184 18 7 129 7 Plus, 13 from Narberth Bala Avenue 107 9 5 64 5 24 Rock Hill Road 49 8 5 26 0 10 City Avenue North 31 7 4 13 3 4 City Avenue South 33 8 4 13 1 7 Ardmore 282 10 9 166 64 33 Wynnewood 215 8 9 168 5 25 Haverford 31 7 7 14 0 3 Bryn Mawr 90 8 9 55 12 6 Total 1,487 128 78 1021 106 154

Commercial Area Typologies For planning purposes, each of the Township’s commercial districts can be broadly classified into one of four typologies based on similarities be- tween various characteristics includ- ing service area, scale, and relation- ship to the transportation network. The four commercial area typologies serve as the framework for the com- mercial area recommendations. There are general recommendations ad- dressing the unique characteristics of each typology and specific strategies relating to each district. A detailed summary of the characteristics of each commercial area typology and a map of the Township’s commercial districts are provided on the follow- ing pages.

73 COMPREHENSIVE 246 PLAN

Background/ Residential Institutional Commercial Historic Relationship to Other Conclusions Introduction Land Use Land Use Land Use Preservation Planning Documents

“Village” — Lower Merion’s Villages are physically compact, convenient, walkable commercial areas that serve the immediate residential neighborhood with small-scale office spaces and local retail and services while maintaining a historic village form and scale. Residential uses play a minor role in the Villag- es and may be located in space over street-level commercial uses. “Neighborhood Main Street” — Neighborhood Main Streets characterize the commercial uses along Montgomery Avenue, Rock Hill Road and parts of Lancaster Avenue and City Avenue. These districts have generally developed haphazardly over time and lack visual or functional continuity. In this con- Gladwyne text Neighborhood Main Streets are more auto-oriented than Traditional Main Streets and may also include more national chains. Residential uses are sec- ondary in Neighborhood Main Street commercial areas and, if residential uses are located within Neighborhood Main Street commercial areas, they should be located above street level retail and include adequate parking to not con- flict with commercial uses. “Traditional Main Street” — Traditional Main Streets characterize the Township’s traditional shopping districts of Bryn Mawr, Ardmore, and Bala. These districts developed around train stations and have expanded linearly over time. Traditional Main Streets serve the entire township and include a Suburban Square variety of retail and service uses. Residential uses are integral to these districts and are located in mixed use buildings over street level commercial. Tradi- tional Main Streets are pedestrian-oriented, fine grained, and include shared parking facilities, centralized municipal parking, and unique public gathering spaces. “Regional Center” — The Regional Center typology encompasses the re- gional office and commercial uses along the City Avenue corridor. The goal of the Regional Center is to transform the predominant auto-oriented, office based environment into a more functionally diverse live/work/shop environ- ment and a pedestrian-friendly district. The Regional Center has a regional Bryn Mawr Theater service area for office uses and a more township-wide orientation for com- mercial uses. Residential uses are integral to the Regional Center and may be vertically or horizontally integrated. The Regional Center has been designated as the primary growth area within the Township. As a result, there is great opportunity to expand transportation options in the Regional Center and to integrate on-site greening and civic space as properties redevelop over time.

**While this plan addresses the major concentrations of commercial land use throughout the Township, there are a handful of smaller, individual com- mercial sites scattered throughout the Township. These uses are primarily low City Avenue intensity, neighborhood-oriented uses such as corner stores and restaurants. It is recommended that specific standards be prepared to ensure that these smaller uses continue to harmonize with their neighborhoods, where appropriate.**

74 LAND USE 247

Background/ Residential Institutional Commercial Historic Relationship to Other Conclusions Introduction Land Use Land Use Land Use Preservation Planning Documents

Recommendation Categories maximize the use of the existing each of the 13 commercial districts. ƒƒ Use — These recommendations parking supply and to identify op- The Comprehensive Plan acknowledg- define the specific uses within portunities to increase the parking es that future growth with the Town- each of the commercial areas, in- inventory where needed. ship will primarily occur through infill cluding the role that residential ƒƒ Greening — Large trees and lush of scattered vacant lots, small subdivi- use contributes to each typology. landscaping contribute signifi- sions, or tear down/rebuilds of existing ƒƒ Form — Commercial districts are cantly to Lower Merion’s natural properties, conversion and/or modern- prominently located along major beauty as one of the first garden ization of institutional properties, and roadways and as a result they vi- suburbs. While residential neigh- redevelopment/modernization of com- sually define the areas which they borhoods offer scenic vistas the mercial properties. serve. Recommendations will en- commercial areas often lack street To address the different types and sure that future developments cre- trees or landscaping. Each com- unique impacts of future growth upon ate visually attractive and appro- mercial typology has been identi- the existing community the Compre- priately-scaled architecture and fied for a particular type of green- hensive Plan includes three distinct streetscape. ing treatment based on its scale sets of growth management strategies. ƒƒ Historic Resources— Many of the and location to the road network. The growth management strategies are Township’s commercial districts ƒƒ Civic Space — Commercial areas based the physical and environmental include historic properties and provide a place where residents characteristics where growth will oc- embody a unique character and can interact and gather. Recom- cur, address the desired density and scale that serve as planning assets mendations are intended to pro- form of the new development and en- for the Township. mote inclusion of appropriately sure that new growth is appropriately ƒƒ Public Transportation — Com- scaled and located civic space. coordinated with other planning ef- mercial districts developed in ƒƒ Partnerships— By partnering with forts, particularly stormwater manage- accordance with the public trans- extra-governmental organizations ment and circulation. portation network and are situat- and groups stakeholders, the Infill Strategies - Infill strategies ed on or adjacent to transit nodes. Township can advance the vision are primarily oriented towards refin- Recommendations ensure that fu- of a particular district through ing the replacement and moderniza- ture improvements enhance and programming or targeted im- tion of structures within an established promote access to public trans- provements. and desirable built environment. Infill portation network. strategies encourage building form that ƒƒ Vehicular Circulation — Com- Strategies is consistent with neighboring proper- mercial districts are located along The strategies outlined in this plan ties and focus on design standards to heavily traveled roads within the will be implemented through public ensure harmony between new con- Township and the intensity and actions, private actions, extra-govern- struction and the established pattern. form of commercial uses impact mental actions, or a combination of Preservation Strategies – Pres- the Township-wide road network. the three. Public actions are primarily ervation strategies incorporate infill Future improvements to commer- initiated by the Township including strategies and also address areas of en- cial areas should be designed to capital expenditures, regulatory con- vironmental sensitivity and/or historic improve roadway efficiency. trols, and partnerships with adjacent merit, such as the Gladwyne Historic ƒƒ Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation municipalities. Private actions are District. — Commercial districts are locat- primarily initiated by private entities Redevelopment Strategies – Re- ed in close proximity to residen- such as commercial business owners, development Strategies are designed tial neighborhoods. Recommen- commercial property landlords, or to guide the targeted redevelopment dations are intended to promote business improvement organizations. of commercial areas. Redevelopment safe, accessible pedestrian and Extra-governmental actions are under- strategies promote the upgrading of bicycle connections from adjacent taken by smaller independent organi- the built environment through archi- residential neighborhoods to re- zations such as civic associations or or- tectural and landscape design stan- duce strain on major roads and to ganizations with a specific focus, such dards, as well as necessary transporta- avoid unnecessary use of limited as the Lower Merion Conservancy. tion improvements such as new roads, parking spaces. wider sidewalks or multi-use trails. Re- Preservation, Infill and ƒƒ Parking — Parking is essential to Redevelopment development strategies are designed to suburban commercial districts but Strategies were developed for the allow the targeted, high-quality mod- it is difficult to increase supply Township overall, for each of the four ernization of commercial areas while in already-developed areas. Rec- commercial area typologies and for preserving/modernizing core historic ommendations are intended to assets within commercial districts. 75 COMPREHENSIVE 248 PLAN

Background/ Residential Institutional Commercial Historic Relationship to Other Conclusions Introduction Land Use Land Use Land Use Preservation Planning Documents

TABLE 5.32 COMMERCIAL LAND USE BREAKDOWN BY COMMERCIAL AREA TYPOLOGY Assessed Value Municipal Tax Commercial NLA Parcels % NLA Mixed Use $ 2,548,790 $ 10,680 36,283 14 41% Retail $ 3,216,330 $ 13,477 35,140 5 40% Office $ 2,211,360 $ 9,265 16,549 4 19% Villages Total $ 7,976,480 $ 33,422 87,972 23 Mixed Use $ 49,035,930 $ 205,461 491,596 110 28% Retail $ 65,510,880 $ 274,493 689,772 67 39% Office $ 48,638,490 $ 212,656 515,384 57 29% Industrial $ 6,878,090 $ 16,521 62,890 8 4% Main Streets Neighborhood Total $ 170,063,390 $ 709,131 1,759,642 242 Mixed Use $ 110,653,935 $ 463,648 1,456,052 295 45% Retail $ 115,611,810 $ 484,413 1,062,490 87 33% Office $ 57,914,670 $ 242,658 647,660 53 20% Streets Industrial $ 2,157,650 $ 9,041 40,751 4 1%

Community Main Total $ 286,338,065 $ 1,199,760 3,206,953 439 Retail $ 29,810,660 $ 124,907 380,039 4 9% Office $ 273,320,460 $ 1,145,210 3,817,552 24 91% Center Regional Total $ 303,131,120 $ 1,270,117 4,197,591 28 Mixed Use $ 162,238,655 $ 679,789 1,983,931 419 45% Retail $ 214,149,680 $ 897,290 2,167,441 163 33% Office $ 382,084,980 $ 1,609,789 4,997,145 138 20% wide Industrial $ 9,035,740 $ 25,562 103,641 12 1%

Overall Township- Total $ 767,509,055 $ 3,212,430 9,252,158 732 Data Source: Montgomery County Board of Assessment, 2013 FIGURE 5.33 PERCENT COMMERCIAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUE BY TYPOLOGY Lower Merion Township 1% Village Population Density and Food Store Distribution

Observations Most of Lower Merion’s food 22% Neighborhood Main Street stores are located on major roadways such as Lancaster Avenue, Montgom- ery Avenue, and City Avenue (Map L30). 15% of Lower Merion’s popula- tion lives within a ¼-mile radius of a full-scale grocery store (approximate- ly “walking distance”). 80% of Lower Merion’s population lives within a 1-mile radius of a full- 37% Traditional Main Street scale grocery store (distance shown with dark red circles). 40% Regional Center

Data Source: Montgomery County Board of Assessment, 2013

76 LAND USE 249

Background/ Residential Institutional Commercial Historic Relationship to Other Conclusions Introduction Land Use Land Use Land Use Preservation Planning Documents

L30 LOWER MERION TOWNSHIPLower POPULATION Merion Township DENSITY Population AND FOOD Density STORE and FoodDISTRIBUTION Store Distribution MAP

Lower Merion Food Stores

FAYETTE Store Type ! Full-Scale Grocery Store ! Large Specialty Food Store ! Small Specialty Food Store

MATSONS FORD ! Convenience Store Lower Merion Population Density 2010 Population / Acre 0 - 4.209 4.21 - 10.37 SPRING MILL 10.38 - 19.36 19.37 - 40.14 Legend 40.15 - 85.24 Lower Merion Food Stores HOLLOW 1-Mile Radius Store Type GREEN

! Full-Scale Grocery Store COUNTY LINE MONTGOMERY ! Large Specialty Food Store LANCASTER

CONSHOHOCKEN STATE ! Small Specialty Food Store RIDGE CITY AVENUE ! Convenience Store BELMONT BUCK Lower Merion Populatio Density

BALA 2010 Population/Acre WINDING

WYNNEWOOD 0 - 4.209 BOWMAN 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 CITY 4.21 - 10.37 Miles 54TH 10.38 - 19.36 Montgomery HAVERFORD 19.37 - 40.14 County ¯ 63RD Planning 40.15 - 85.24 Commission Base map prepared October 2013

Montgomery County Courthouse - Planning Commission PO Box 311 Norristown, PA 19404-0311 1 - Mile Radius (p) 610.278.3722 (f) 610.278.3941 planning.montcopa.org This map is based on 2010 ortho photography and official sources. Property lines were compiled from individual block maps from the Montgomery County Board of Assessment Appeals, with no verification from the deed. This map is not meant to be used as a legal definition of properties or for engineering purposes. TOWNSHIP LINE Data Sources: 2010 U.S. Census, Montgomery County Board of Assessment, Field Observation

Commercial Needs Analysis2 While the existing retail square TABLE 5.34 PERCENT OF TOTAL In 2010, the Township’s median footage is roughly 30% greater than JOBS BY NAICS INDUSTRY SECTOR household income was $111,165, of the calculated retail need, it does allow % of Total which $21,148 is used for consum- for a small vacancy rate and the addi- NAICS Industry Sector Jobs er retail expenditures according to tional retail square footage needed to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. With foster a competitive marketplace. Health Care and Social Assistance 25.00% 22,473 total households in Lower This analysis only looks at the Merion Township, the total average retail need generated by township Retail Trade 11.10% household expenditures on retail households, and assumes it is all goods and services is $475,259,004. spent within the township, and does Using an Urban Land Institute es- not reflect the retail demand generat- Finance and Insurance 10.70% timate of $250 in expenditures per sq. ed from outside the township. Specif- Professional, Scientific, and ft. of retail space, the estimated retail ic retail centers with a larger regional 8.50% Technical Services square footage needed to satisfy the market, such as the City Avenue cor- Township’s total retail expenditures is ridor, will need to consider consumer Administration & Support, Waste 7.10% 1,901,036 sq. ft. expenditures for a wider geographic Management and Remediation Based upon Montgomery Coun- area when determining retail need. ty Board of Assessment Appeals data Top Five Employment Sectors Data Source: US Census, OnTheMap Application, for “goods and services” oriented re- http://lehdmap.ces.census.gov, 2011] tail uses, including the first floor of In 2011, 36,301 persons were em- mixed use buildings in Ardmore and ployed in Lower Merion Township. Bryn Mawr, the Township’s existing 93% of those commuted from outside retail square footage is no more than the Township to get to their jobs. The 2,274,938. top five employment sectors in 2011 included major retail and professional office sectors that contribute to Lower 2 Data sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics; Urban Land Merion’s commercial districts (Table Institute; U.S. Census; Montgomery County Board of 5.34). Assessment, 2013. 77 LAND USE 255

Background/ Residential Institutional Commercial Historic Relationship to Other Conclusions Introduction Land Use Land Use Land Use Preservation Planning Documents

L31 COMMERCIAL AREA TYPOLOGIES MAP CONSHOHOCKEN

former Re INE ading R IL L ailro RA ad P BOROUGH hil T ad GH el IE ph FR ia L & A R WHITEMARSH TOWNSHIP D e MO ad ER R iv in T e g IN r N b D ER e iv TH n is R U io SO d n E Fayette Street LK V RFO Bridge I NO Commercial Area Typologies S R C L L WEST CONSHOHOCKEN H U Y L K I Woodmont Bry G DISTRICT TYPOLOGY n h a L a n e inkg o T A l ay yd o ssw d pre yn x E Lane ry La BOROUGH l nt n kil Driv Se e uyl Sch 6 e ate 7 Interst Penn Wynne rive D n

o

n i

g VILLAGE

i v Wo A S . . A v N o ig i d n m Gladwyne o n on t

d

a o

W D R o e Ro

e g us sl w o o H a

e o d y d ub Penn Wynne-City Avenue

l

s R C o

a d Robin Road

oad R ad R u ne n ill Ro e M R g in pr Simpson Island S Y City Avenue South Road lley T UPPER MERION TOWNSHIP Va Philadelphia Country Club ane C L N

M ns Y i ti o r ar U a M n b T e

ad a a

o u l O

Haverford

R y

s r

L r N ll W a

i h n e C

H e b a k

t t Calvary ec o c U sp e a Pro l r h f B Y o O r Kenealy Road o d R

Cemetery k C

an C

c E

b o

Nature Park u Wynnewood NEIGHBORHOOD MAIN STREET

Stony Lane VFW

adow k r

t Me M e A

P I a n ane g O L M e o u H e n Te S G s t r Ashburn o r P Matsons B a t R c T r Pl ad e Circle y a e o L M n a R ne ad Rock Hill Road Field d s S l t La a a k e n n Ro N w i E R P D t m in e R n w e i O o W ver Road r y r o R n N yette O oa A o C D o E R ont St o fa Ivyw m d

C o d La

ha e R R r L

t

ea a k t

N u a o a L d a h

ane L l M A L a R f

d o g a o in

o ye a L

od unn L H A T d a G a e t I L n an te R e L n d y Merion-Cynwyd W G d Ston H d Roa oa iel ad f o d U d R P A O Woo

ama

d d R M

ar a a

o Y an R o

P a l R E l l S i n

E yl

H w

ma

s e

va i d nt Penn Valley

u

L R n v

H n r

C u

e

o L

M v

a i

Y R n

a e

R

e

l O l r a n K rd a S n L d D tony Lane o a e n C o n U m The r a F R y o L air a c

I s d w wa

O i l t. Ve r d N e a l a Kenealy

e i M G e y n F a Bala F k d o i La o a L r C l Henry R t Hermitage a o e U et n S R r Hill T h r v ia Ro o i Br ad

M n Nature Park

t Y N C lto Dr Ford L o a C n Foundation M o t l s or e l T o r Country g b n e ce i u u n R t o R Y Matsons Ford Road o r a a R n Y d L d y a St. Andrewsa o G e Interstate 476 Mid County Expressway f o Bryn Mawr COMMUNITY MAIN STREET R c L f r M r W e a l a a d e Clu i in e n n s

s t I

n Br o a t H e Foxwood Circle t n b s L e Roa C Appleford b r ep re a d C n Lafayette Road we ie r e Ro S C b Exete V r urn Ridgeview e D t a d s d r 0 e i a r Cir v 0 D e 1 r C d y a

r d R L Oxfor Ro on E a n t n L Waverly n S oad B e o le R Ardmore A a ls N a l T am mm Broadmoor Road l P o co rtd R E r os a L t R r Hi S a h H a CITY OF PHILADELPHIA Heights i n e r e ane n B N L La W te a o ar ry re g r d u n d Crestmont Road t e b o h C f r i o S e e W to S t l n St pring d Drive y Lane o e n ne R a S Lane an W Lafayette Road City Avenue North REGIONAL CENTER

t C o a d n Road L

in y a e ad e e id ro t Baron iv g edar o us Henry Lane o R r e C M M n o R M i D a dg t. i La M l R l H L Spruce Lane e k k ane o ne c L e e e o wi Park a r n L r y b rth r o a y d L S y t l o n a No r h m S t S a a p n um r s e s o ne ri t m p d d eni

R n Pl Mt. a o er e a R e He F

o n o

gm v R H v k i e n

w i S r y ll a

e r

i r

o D e Mo

v n b

r e r

t a Old

a asa y B

Devereux

C W r

F ne

r a

d i nt Lim r a L

Foundation for d a a

o o c

R y R B b

l

e e

e Foundation r

Road b ad l

o o Co s b R

d

t A Islamic Education n

o o n Lane Young

t o

h h k

ig w

e o on

Rock e Ridg M

u r J

C Old Gulph Road Fenimore

Road

nty Line Road

e e

n

v a

i L

r

g

i

D

a

d

r s

a d

S x C d a d o

a F t Spring Mill o Road a

o u R R ord Road

o

n e R

r

e m s Ro e y L r e

v a Fa ring ll m

R e r a a V s R

R k r i

D Sp o Shipley v n e

id le e N

r

e

g

r

g a reat G Morris Road Soccer Field

e L E R o a G ld Lane a n ie d ADNOR TO rf Flat Rock Park L e e a A e n rb L D e a o n d r e oa S s R c L o Road t

n s t

e g

d Roa l in E Rose Gle t r Ro n R

W Orio n Sp a o d d a il d iremon lo k ive w ws E a Dr

b o d O nt d g S

ro a e wyn Lane aumo Cla e h e

o r B Sh M e

k O A

l a Lafayette Road C First l

e k L b rwo a a Presbeterian n R e r i ad Saunders o o k d o g R Church cle d Cir e n L k ne Flat Rock Dam a e y R re w o C Woods d s a k a d oc l h & Fishladder K R G yn Harriton Gr o d d e a o t e o o o at nw n ad h R e High School o re R G R oad oad S d o pr el eek irfi r

y c ing Edwin Lane Mt. Pleasant Road u

a M C k M

s l W a

plehill Road il oad Righters Mill Road

e

North Ithan Avenue R M R d Rose Glen R Gladwyne oa e n Mill Creek Valley Park d Rolling d Oa w o De Rock Creek Road k o o o d d e r Harriton Road S o v W r i o T in r w t e g r H D e r d o h a Hill Park ra P L t w

a Oakwoo

a a c

r e r

d t e

t Pa H d

r s ane a n

i t o e Ri

d u R dd v

r e i e g e H r

e ld R ad North R

i o o o L

a

a

w a

e ord R d F n

L le d R n e s

a l

e L

a Id s Hagy c

W d n r Harry Olson Trail o r a e

e i t kwood Waverly Road C o a in Beaumont ro W t aintree Ro W B d s B oo re Retirement d lec N. Ithan Middle R le ap av M N Lane Drive e ne La Y n Community es Sorrel Lane o to i u C h R m n h g o G A gs Ford P e u North Ithan Avenue a atem r ro bank Roa o d m B n d H ne ar L ad a a

V L n

Gree T o ic e

SH h re kor o e ans R l h r n R n o y e b a a Ln aug l L i V d r g c o r

d h o i n k d t o W Idlewild a e C Gladwyne P o r y o P A R s d

o i n v d n l Montessori M ne e e e a

La S

n a ck

v Farm i rr o l

u e a R l B

e R o R IP R e ive o k a e W o iv

u a ac en d l a r i v d l A M li B d D d an V a Merion Square Road th i Gladwyne a y I m Iv c rt d y to a F h s o e t o r m aw l n r Harriton Road R o n a o Hoffman Dr r R e L N Montgomery Avenue o e n L n a e ad a n Park & MWB b n l n t a a une n J o o L H ne Ro R B e t R B e s o i n e n ll a c o d June n w L we d h e Memorial ur a Gladwyne o C R P a l a n Curwen Cir o h l S a Harriton d e t o p d r P o o e N n a d School gu n r R H Park s o t F o e n s

e Black Rock g

R n

u d R

G o e o n

a oad Y r H r d Road Site La T Fa e o aves ow agys w a d re n t oa F G e H r il ad R l Ro F Lane ad lat Rock e S F iv p gs Twin Arch s or Ro r rin R d Dixon Lane Williamson E D g o ck as Roa n Rosemont College a Road Site Ro County Line Road d n t Society of the lat o O F s u d r ld e Rosemont School o G of the Holy Child Holy Child Road G Y u Fairview Road C

P o l G

l p o e l e t b h ts r n o m

o

L

R L o W

k ak

ve o a Do e a e S

l

LM r

Lane

n sh n p

a r

o R L e a

o

g a a u

Baptist e d R d Leed o To Ro a a o Ashbridge Park Church d w Welsh Valley d m e West Hill r t Wendover Avenue Ashbridge Road Glenmeade ee C Str

La i nes r Jo Middle School c n l e e Millbank Road t J

ree effe

St Price S

Caversham Road

n r R s Orchard Way Road Fishers erso o o n Road Dove Lane Jeff t le s Airda Wyndon reet e eet S

m Pencoyd Str ve t

L re Hig

k ary A y

North Roberts Road er e

Ringwood e z t

n G ee e d r

emere R emere h n l a L Eben l

d envi l ck a Wakefield Road d a an o a N R Ro Ro n d Park . Green Lane e d e l ad W

a Road New Gulph Road e d o Mill C

r w n Roa R ue Ai a en

A v sh R Bryn Mawr College ne w w A Bridge a Ford ve e L o o al rvi

be r i i . i

o Fa n a Caversham Road m s n Ter n o B y d g

c a ue

ag H

d t

at en

Wyndon Avenue e H

t e o

n G n

a l n

e

L L

e

n n y Ce

a e n l

C oad Manayunk C e a Austin ar rd L v i R o e

s a W i A y e b Rocky r r G t nu ve o b Ave Memorial o y C M Land Uses s a bor k Shipton Lane ra n Viaduct n e s d a Park Mo R Crest n lanE u n el n h p e o Hillbrook Road tre i As l e mw l Cro a Rosemont Avenue a n e

nt Summi

d L e

e G ue O

r Preserve r S. n

e l os a ood v

d

G A n

Norwood Avenue e Wa

e L an ld i L e e e B

Av Rose Lane nk dds e gfi Do e M rin u

R Lane u sh p e Sta t l

rs Aven S n o u m h a n Ladbroke Road s n e a en v

Kennedy Lane d P d in P

u e o R A c v i t a e Morris Avenue igh so

g r n Franklin Avenue e ree d A t u k t a y o d t n o e s y ers o Rus St co Rose Ln R n A n Merion Avenue Pembro ey Roa McMoran l Pe k c e o v e n in A l cho en W Mulberry Lane Mill Road au A b hoo S d ve c r d o Park S G Bryn Mawr i Ch d o u Manayunk Yarrow Street n Ro i in le W nu e l Roberts Road s H ad r Montgomery Avenue f i h ar t a g t il o nk o h or l e M nue S Merion Avenue d c R d r R N r ap ra Shipley School d e le Ave o F Markee Ter s ter R R ad t a o West o o r

a ad Sm W Floyd Ter b o d i R n b Belmont

Mill Creek o

L s Ro s it a a o Montrose Ave Sa n h

r d Q u n d i D RESIDENTIAL ge ua r Waldron Park Drive Lan Park a Hills nt e e m

Roa r l G Doyle Alley s ry ad a Lewis J. r Lan o Rock Hillh Roadriv e R School e L L g l a a e Rees Avenue Fishe n Smith

n n Baldwin School i

Rose Lane e Richard Knoll ane l d

rnda e Franklin Knoll ia a

N Warner Ave

L o

e dr d

n a

N. Warner F R B Park

n r n Roberts Road e H o

nt o e a d fo g t r a

r r S o r Blackie Bridge d R CM a n F

O v e Morton Road l M d F e Church of d The Penn Valley air rs

Farm Road C v

e s a iew

G t t

o Gateway u d R a R l Morton Terrace p R h oa W

d o Westminster d a

the Redeemer d School R a o C School y

o ad r ircle B

Thomas Avenue d

o e

Bryn Mawr o

Ma lmont T ue d w l

l a i n o R H on Roa Presbyterian R Radnor Street Avon Road o t PUBLIC d v Far en o m Cemetery

o A Ro v F

M w a o South Warner Avenue s d d er Mor n aw n r n A C r r r

e d a

A

P ce Eco Valley Nature Park a v

Bry en h Prospect Avenue

m o

th u am Morris Lane e

Harcum College e

Friends’ d b or a l

Summit Grove Ave F R o i

Summit Grove Avenue L ig n R Y r South Merion Avenue

N ht i i a

a ers a d R

u k r

b l

s M l ge o

r illl l e T Gulley Run Park e e a rnbur Booth Lane A Central School d c o y l y Ro O d d Central Ave dr a o h Ivy Lane L d Corn T y Maison Place i a o xfo L L enn g e a M rk H R R w a c G ne C d a W a o ad n n NM a Ro o e le a s r and R e r o a l rn y L n p v d e Saeter Road a o St a g a d L e u a

n h R H e d t

Old Lancaster Road a r r

r n l d C

ne ad d l enu Cuylers Lane M a oa

L l e l R a

vvenu Grays Lane il o o r

l o HOSPITAL B K a

h

Town Place rth n s R c s

S S R

an o e e a y A Merion a r o V

n o

d e

Mondella Ave M m ma R R

o ad

arino g N o t r on oa Rose Lane M a r d w Lee Avenue Ave Glyn-Wynne Road Memorial Park e d

Bryn Mawr nu Road Beech Hill Road Hill Beech

a e Lane Gypsy Elliot Ave uth Fuller Tract o Lancaster Avenue tm M Cemetery ar Pennswood Road D Hospital O ne d a Evans L H a r Av x o w e e ryn Ma nue oad a f R B R W Dartmouth an r o yn C l L B

Booth Lane he o r v r s . ll r Barret Avenue wold Va o o a i d Pencoyd Bridge lley h a D h Jennifer Sunset Lane c d r S a r c d e BBr y res Rock Hill a v r Moreno Road t d e Ro a C ad es r o O m em t o L a W R h r m th st Hemlock Road g ou R h t C er

n cle h o tht o PUBLIC PARK esw ir m P M . A a e K T E n nue C u d n a n e i s g l y v h o l o l Ro A Elbow Lane t v Booth Orchard Road s d o a l b a T n SoS ia d r d West Old Railroad Avenue id o r a a Circle Ro d

H R n W. Montgomery Avenue ge e d rive t n Road a e

i d s D rs o o

l d e a s l o R

a n R cet R

o P n a re t Amhe n

o l N

Wayside Cherry Lane e h ri

K Ott R

County Line Road Old Lancaster Road R Gilpin Road e v es l a e o L P i West

Old Lancaster Road i e H W . t o R d h Polo Field d n d B E M

woo r n a o

Old Buck Road Grays Lane t n n m r

h e r

Millers Lane r y g B

S V a u il in

l n r

y Bryn Mawr Avenue t Bala h a b d o H C ad ve e l e M e d

Merion b n Ro l L a a d y o o Laurel Hill

u e a C Manor Road r Manayunk Road a o Ro em ad r y R l h n w ad R y to N. Buck Lane e B il o Cynwyd Ac c m R s L am a r ne w Ch o H d R Cricket a e d COMMERCIAL a o a A k o n a irc l g L Sharpe l r Br C le lin d e r Gypsy Lane d o o v e y A S. Sydbury Lane a d e on R e Cemetery d a Booth Lane o W yd Trail C Middle Lane a R n w Park c yn nmor Berkley Road i r e h u C d

e Club r s i n

e t i n Le T c Moreno Road Hansell Road y Bala Cynwyd Park olk S

s d e e rf o t n

l o

n H d a e w N u R e a L t in v t o t d o School oad n h d y S e H R e e V oa ad w S n y M d Cheswold Lane n R a g s o r Buck Lane a Arlingto a r n f P u m C Llanalew a o u e W ncet i o City Ave a Greenway i t n I

o r n i R Glenn Road L t P nu

n l t A General g R l a H t W. a e n a

o e r u m o P m t a y o m o en g d r a en n Av ad o t rcle e e W t e R n n R i Bridge ER rs i C Av n d R R u n o n S Wayne Park r a in o kh R l e oad b t t ha e l P o s a o P a p i R e o i o r e o d r re d S M t dy L B Clevelend Avenue R a R e n R a r e G s d a rs Rou c e c ing e b t hu nd Cherry Lane a Ro i H l e l o

S rt P v ver r

an e e o

C en L d

A t

e i

y

Haverford School r L l a i t e

t

d L e a n l e e n d o ir es n n i

r a p R oa i d r e e a NM PUBLIC SCHOOL R R o n Table s t o r T S a o Snowden er k e Schiller Avenue e a d d a erwen u P l

n D erf e d

rac v C d r e e Mercer a LovesLane t lan e B Ct T

FO od m L H o Schiller Avenue d El NM e e

e n o A a l L ynnew Monroe Road m d C r d a l Roa

u W an yw r North Essex Avenue y

oa nue h Ro d y u L Old Railroad Avenue R E. Montgomery Avenue art Gordon Avenue n Dreycott B R

Edgewood Road

r r Le Pe rry Schiller Avenue B ind d d o e Ave d

a e

in R R ry E. Lodges L l

r o

e C a Woodside Road

a

o n en vo

iste n

Llanfair Road r d e

R ver e s F e n d R a

oad Winding Way

W e i a

Wynnedale Sab w o v L r

Dudley Avenue Willow Way r

De r a

t e

St. Georges Road d Haverford

Ma R D

T v

Ber

W Avenu w

Owen Road e ht

Valley Road l

is Derwen Road i f t ee

e B ch G o i g

Haverford College r Wynmere Road w Conway Avenue yn ng i w f

kl o i a

Road ray Iona Avenue o a Wa l

RD TOWNSHI Ho o

ey Road c r

l R ad d r d e R

o d r m L a T

o n a South Woodbine Avenue A

l a l R

R d ewood

n i a

Powell n v d e M

i Meeting House Lane L

PRIVATE SCHOOL N. Wyoming d

g A d e

R Mary J. n

Bleddyn Road y

n

y h

i l t

ll u n

School House Lane House School n Ave v ar Drexel Home

w

Price Avenue Maplewood Avenue n y B Club Cynwyd

M ol en e e es

s

n

d Wi P dg

a Hamilton Road o W n R Lo

o ue ue C

Cross Road Lower Merion v Langdon L y ll R

College Lane e y

s i r

n Bala Two Bala Plaza

ams Av e C

t o

o d oa

N w

r R e R w y o K d n

e Wister Road a a

o n a a

Waldron (Merion)

b H d nue e y a

High School a H e L

v

o o

d L o d Pe nt d

YMCA A

R

am

ne

Du Locust Avenue e R

S n a Ardmore y n r No a y

W. Lancaster Avenue a L m lw

r Armat Ave e Road s o b t i

c th rr p e R e C

Mercy Academy n e m i a b k S. Wyoming Avenue NARBERTH n de West Spring Avenue n B d e n

u u Cynw o P Lan odg r n a Owen Road e o w e Penwyn Road venu L o v l L

T Cynwyd

A A l C

o o C Ruby’s r k i twy

n ne D

i i

B d r Wy A S e e

c db hi a e E. Montgomery Avenue

ga l Merion-Cynwyd dr o venu

Lot l r a cke

e n l R y Station

L B

n

Wo e e A G n

y r d

d B

a

Lan a y

on

c a

l

n ue Cir r

Shirley R r

oad a

n r

e w B

nn L

y

CULTURAL INSTITUTION e

e d

l

Park Holland Avenue y

e R

v Channel 10

e

n

A R K o m hyl R o

Suburban

y d Ll C CM e o ul

Levering St e Ci M CrossWorld One Bala Plaza

W. Athens n e BOROUGH rcle a i n e

a b e L Greenfield ter La Penn Valley d d s n a n a e e w t a r Three v

nfa h Gr S d o c La Ave P w n f ar St. James Place Square i l rt R a f h l a e o n a u e R ood h St r i d

C x a

i o r m rd M Bala Plaza

y K

Park Ter r y

F N th Nar A o r

c r

li oa on e i Greenfield Avenue a e ve C F n W Athens Ave b

West Spring Avenue Coulter Avenue n Barbara v Anderson Avenue r Roosevelt Ter g n Ave b F g d s o Arnold Field r C ti r Haverford Avenue nu s B r a R A o es orr Ave ok air e ay G

St anf

o l a o d b L t ns A h W r k n e d a e e ons g a ue v n nu e i g

d r e d a n n so T

a v R l

d t u A e C P t d t y o i

a W e

e h a tl r f

o a Aven e l R o

d en w r r eg r Dr

School Lane R r o B e a k i I Par

ck Sibley Avenue n A n N o o d R l v Oak R l n Anthwyn Road iv a o i S t e d et u H a

h ro s e 78 d Oak Road

r Maybrook nu Terrace Ford R

i ue a A d

R yn E h E. Lancaster Avenue a w Ea RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION R a e r m v

F a L e n d

o e N e Rockavon Road Te a p e P n n

r n i oh R

r d a ery Av e d u a e u

e m c o n C r

e Roa

g a T e t

e L n n

o

M yn H s i

Packer A r

h A w r s

S. Cricket

e n South

e o City Ave

v Avon Road u w nb c n la h t

d

e e L Llanfair o r v a y Greenfield Avenue A

e p

d n d n e u West County Line Road Park a a kl Linden R R c y c Ch

h u

Walton Ave Rittenhouse Place o M y e d s

e e R r Bala Cynwyd Eas

r r

6 k

r Winsor Avenue y N n

C y West Athens Avenue O B d e A

b e a c ar o Wa a Shopping Center

R d e rc h e u n g

Argyle Road Circle n t

d be

P A h e in a

n Ro RC

e g C n

M y Lane d a n

y e

e w Av e d y rth r w o n rd c a

d R r La o e

a i n R H A e

Ardmore Avenue ue u t

en Me W Linden Lane w d n

Simpson Road M Av n R m a e n

ord O re o Sta i

Cricket Avenue Elm AvenueWalnut Avenue erf M o ra y R v

A a

T Kent Road a a G a d A P

Hav ion me B S

Maple Ter e

R is ven e d k s

iv a r A

D r h r e y t ion

COLLEGES, UNIVERSITIES A

e w d G

n m i u n Saint

i l

L a t nu

K i l S

nue u y en Un

South Essex Avenue o Saint st

n v

G

i

m R

ve n t P e Marlboro Road a e Sheldon Lane M A rove Andrew w R m o A M h S Asaphs

ls Road S u u Wynnewood d od R y a Matthias C Bala E E a o Pla o o S d Bir a e

Pa Hathaway Lane ro w Road M a w Rectory P il c a e Melrose Avenue N East Spring Avenue St T Ra Elm d e d H R d r

Dr Ca ri kw c A Mansion Lan a M B an az Bala Ave City Ave North

Station ni o l h Park G S Church Road a o Roa v ap o gh e a e d S yl n r Av e x R Hi Ave n

Brookfield t ns l B l E oa o a le A v R e 5 n e t e

oa ti P Avenu e e l East County Line Road g on ad er nu o land L R R Ro Park nu n R e r h h

i rm a nu l E t l t Ro g a

Walnut Avenue fo venue dside d i r Map e G o e n

m Wynnewood IO oo d Av H N e e R d

W W n

a n N

wood

h n R d A a CMl ue A t L y o a r a d e h PA d Akiba Academy Roa Square S I Drexel Road Linwood Avenue C B Williamsburg Road SE Avenue Rockla Sycamore Avenue e L Lippincott NG al d ER A a RAIL Val rd wyn o v e al a R W Brookway e b B INSTITUTIONAL OPEN SPACES lsArnold Road n A c estnut au South Narberth Avenue l e u t

P ill Ch e n e

es d Merion a e c i

Lak id i y L a v St e a Valley View Road Merion Pl l

a R e P n e

R m o enue C n Bala e O

o v a H R o d Simpson Road a s R r in L C e

Ave d Wynnewood s ad o L e erion A School s h c o s l

ut k M Cedar Ln Temple err ka r h tn ad e s s Y d tc e e d Road Rd Melrose Avenue a u m od Adath L n y wo Shopping Center . o Ch Hoo R N ve r

Sheas Ter o Israel A

. Wynne Rex Rd Broome Lane e L

a W e

Saint Paul’s on

d i

Midfield Road d

l ill Road a n

h E u

O ver B U

o n l a d C n

ce a

Cemetery a i a

r r o

e c r

S d

s e

h v T

R a ad

o Winchester Road o

R t d ll

M r A

i H

od s n

Grandview Road o t

d h

a

w P

e r Heath Road e a

a

n Roa e a t pl g

S i

Linwood Avenue n Lakeside Rd v W mp

p

y d

U d

gro r O

W

h e l dar k g

t

s e ak E

e e

R

W C v e Kenilworth Road

o t r

i North Highland Avenue l

n y o

e D a

St. Sahag & o

r

n A n

w

a

r a d

t

n venue

i

D d

Red v Kenmore Rd

r

l

e T

Torah a r e m

f i n R e

St. Mesrob i

v

Edgemont Avenue

e d Glenwood Road

Sutton Road R r

y

e w o o a

g

Strawbridge W Lapsley Lane

a

Sussex Road

o

Academy

d a O

e w

Morris Ro r

Cloverhill Road

C East Lancaster Avenue e

B g a

d

in k

l P

r o l

EastNM Athens Avenue

l

l o

K H

D an

o

a t

n o o Z

h

Delmont Avenue rd

l r d

o

Merion

i o l

e

y

x k

Inwood Road f d

r

L

Sussex Road

a Circle an

c R i

Knox t

R n vi

Barrie Road Upland Terrace

S

o e R Barnes

C

o Ashton Road North Latchs Lane

Tribute

a

a

d a o

Home M d Wi Road

d

W

d a

a

lli l l O

o Edgehill Road

l Foundation

e

Sussex Road Ballytore Road o w

Argyle Road d

House rchard

a Bedford Pl fi

d

y

ms

k

l

ic d

N e

W

ad y

ic Roa Ro R

h n R o

o s a

o ol o Stoneway Lane d R l a

d h

Argyle Circle s NM c d

Wynnewood o

o i

a n N

B Welsh Ter

d

R e

Sussex Road o r Hazelhurst Avenue

a k

d e

l

e

y

e Matthew Rd

C R n o l a

o W a

i

t ld L d h f H lo Grenox Road ie w e

B er o

South Ardmore r Ln s n R a Road Idris o l o a e Fo d ly e r l y Saint Joseph’s University COMMERCIAL AREA TYPOLOGIES t Remington Road M

c s r

o r r e u i n c es Park re C a k e Greythorne Road L East County Line Road l t ri East Spring Avenue s e e Lan R W l e o o (Former Episcopal Academy) oad i R n x ll ar a Greno Botanical Park Ln ia h d Rayn

R ms C Avenue y r o Fariston Road R r

ayfield R d n Merion W Prim e o oa a a b h

a ma Periwinkle Lane aw d

d o d r am t d

R S B ow a

a e Berwick Road B o

F lly r a R to R

ate South Highland Avenue

r ng R o

i y M a Latham Drive s o d

James Road t W a a in d d o d o r d Knox Road a R e Ingeborg Road n e o n d R W Iris m D n t City Ave South i a e a L r w y d r i i n M v e r L e ls B e w e il o

H fl r Beacom Lane y b

a

r

M

Foxglove Lane o

ad

o

aisy o D R k

C e n d

Roa to B

Knox o s y City Avenue

l

VILLAGES t e

s d Lane Gr a

Dale Rd Dale w n

e n

Roslyn Lane

B

o c

V d

a South Latchs Lane

l o V

o

i k

d R o

l

e o

k

t y e

L Saint Charles o

e La

Medford Road r ne

r d

a

d C

b

a n n

r

a

e

o i R

e

R d e

d CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

o

M

a n

n

Haverford Road a

e I

o Borromeo a

L

t

R

d

a

k

ive g k e W

ad r e

n e r

a e

o D y r C

W i r

c n

R k Seminary

i C a

t W R i

d o

l ad

e

n d

d o

y n

a

I

o i

R

o

ea d

Oakwynne Dr w a Rutland Lane

t I

d n n h I dia

c n C

e

e r

e

mes B

e o

k

l

H G en d

R

Beechwood Road k D a

c rive o e

l

o o c a

r

R i

d

R C

d Morris Road o ane o L W Delmont Drive e on nn NEIGHBORHOOD MAIN STREETS t y

ive g Palmer Theological Seminary r w NM D n r

r i a o

b B

T

w r e

v

A i i em

n r O n R Tomkenn Road e D ak l s k G D r r a i v P e n

o L t l n o i yd oad Lankenau Hospital Saunders r rydo R Lan B n e B e L ir an h

ts

il

e

W House

Lloyd Lane

Powder Mill Lane

Brookhaven Road

Weymouth Road

H

COMMUNITY MAIN STREETS

e

Suffolk Road a iv

CM r Penn

Lane D v k on Wynne e t e e H

y o

r l

a li

Trent Road r r n

C g

School D e

f s v

n

i w

a

i r

or d o

In D r Penn Wynne

t th d Drayton Lane k a Wynnewood Valley ParkHenley Road s Ro

d e e Manoa Road

W e Friends Central

r Rockglen Road Park Penn WynneC R Harrowgate Road ian oa Ind School Crosshill Road d Garden Road Arden Road Yarmouth Road Drayton Lane 1/4 mile Green Hill Lane

Overbrook Road REGIONAL CENTERS Wiltshire Road Andover Road RC Arbordale Rd

Hampstead Hampstead Road Braddock Ln BroadlawnMeredith Rd Road

y 1/2mile Garden Rd wa k Beverly Road V r Allandale Road Manoa Road Pa

rook rb e Crest Road v O JCC / Harrowgate Road

Perelman Jewish

O Rockglen Road Dorset Lane

l C

d Day School r

osshil

F Westwood Lane o

Trent Road r l Greywall Lane

e

s

t

R Henley Road R o d o Cliff Road a a o a d Surrey Lane d R

e l d a R Carroll d Saxham Way

e O Ashford Way

s Edgevale Rd

v

o

e

R walking distance

r

brook P

Surrey Lane

a

r

Surrey Lane

k

e

w

Rolling Road

a Hunters Ln y venu NM A Sheffield Lane y COMMERCIAL LAND USE IN ADJACENT MUNICIPALITIES Cit N

Severn Lane Penn Wynne-CityTY Ave Y N 1km .75 .5 .25 0 T OU UN C O IA Scale in kilometers TRAIN STATIONS C H E LP AR E W AD Scale in miles LA IL DE PH 1mile 3/4 1/2 1/4 0 LAND USE 253

Background/ Residential Institutional Commercial Historic Relationship to Other Conclusions Introduction Land Use Land Use Land Use Preservation Planning Documents

FIGURE 5.36 COMMERCIAL AREA TYPOLOGIES CHART

Commercial Area Characteristics Use Form Transportation Character District Type Service Area Commercial Role of Residential Desired Form Relationship to Public Relationship Parking Relationship to Public Greening Civic Space Mix Land Use within the Transit Network to Vehicular Pedestrian and Bicycle Commercial Area Transportation Network Network Penn Wynne Specifically Primarily local Residential apartments One- to two-story Limited bus access Located at a neighborhood On-street parking available; Complete sidewalk network Small-scale greening Streetscape is primary oriented to services (i.e., on 2nd floor, but not buildings with access intersection. Focal point of off-street parking located to with direct pedestrian standards (i.e., civic space. Parking serve the restaurants, provided in stand-alone from the street; compact, neighborhood the side and rear of buildings connections to adjacent window boxes, lots used for seasonal/ Gladwyne immediate hardware stores, structures walkable, buildings with neighborhoods and bicycle planters, street trees) temporary gathering neighborhood coffee shops) small footprints accessible activities VILLAGES

Rock Hill Road Neighborhood, Variety of services Residential is secondary Multi-story, low- to Varies, some regional rail Located on primary road On-street parking available; Complete sidewalk network Street trees; Streetscape is primary with some and retail. May and complementary mid-rise buildings with and some bus. off-street parking located to with direct pedestrian landscaped setbacks; civic space; often Penn Valley destination or may not to commercial use. If ground floor commercial the side and rear of buildings; connections to adjacent parking lot greening connected to nearby Merion-Cynwyd retail include national included, apartments are uses; pedestrian friendly, conveniently located public neighborhoods; bicycle open spaces. Parking chains, shopping located over ground floor but auto oriented; mix parking may be available; accessible lots used for seasonal Haverford NEIGHBORHOOD centers, and pad retail of foot prints; buildings shared parking activities MAIN STREETS sites. Low-impact may or may not touch; Wynnewood industrial uses may landscaped front yards and Penn Wynne be appropriate in setbacks (City Avenue) some districts.

City Avenue South Bala Township Variety of services, Integral - apartments Multi-story, low- to mid- Connections to transit hubs, Located on primary road On-street parking available; Complete sidewalk network Street trees; parking Has a defined civic community located over shops rise buildings punctuated including regional rail, off-street parking located to with direct pedestrian lot greening; space, such as town Bryn Mawr facilities, and local on major roadways. by a handful of taller and buses exist; commuter the side and rear of buildings; connections to adjacent greening standards square or pocket park and national retail Apartments as stand-alone buildings; retail on the parking is available conveniently located public neighborhoods; bicycle (i.e., window boxes, Ardmore structures on side streets ground floor; desired parking available; may have accessible planters, street trees) form complements parking structures and shared TRADITIONAL existing historic character; parking MAIN STREETS buildings located along street or with limited front

79 yards; connected buildings with uniform building massing; compact, walkable, and fine-grained

City Avenue North Regional Variety of services Integral - vertically- Multi-story, mid- to Strong public transit Located on primary road On-street parking available; Complete sidewalk network Street trees; Contiguous public and retail. May integrated apartments high rise buildings; (regional rail and bus) near highway access and off-street parking located to with connections to adjacent landscaped setbacks; gatherings spaces include national over shops along major modern architecture, other road types the side and rear of buildings; neighborhoods parking lot greening and trails form chains, shopping roads. Horizontally- pedestrian-friendly, but may have parking structures network of pocket centers, offices, integrated stand alone auto-oriented; mix of foot and shared parking parks. Connection to REGIONAL and pad sites apartment houses on prints regional trail network CENTERS minor roads and Cynwyd Heritage Trail. COMPREHENSIVE 254 PLAN

Background/ Residential Institutional Commercial Historic Relationship to Other Conclusions Introduction Land Use Land Use Land Use Preservation Planning Documents 80 AGENDA ITEM INFORMATION

ITEM: CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION - 211 Belmont Avenue, Bala Cynwyd, CU# 3791C

Consider for recommendation to the Board of Commissioners approval of a conditional use application to develop the property to the requirements of the underlying C2 zoning provisions, rather than the Rock Hill Overlay (ROHO) District provisions, as permitted in Zoning Code Section 155-200.B.2. The Hearing Officer's recommendation will be provided prior to the meeting.

Expiration Date: 12/7/2016...... Zoning: C2/ROHO

Applicant: John Lombardo, LCB Senior Living, LLC Applicant's Representative: Jonathan Spergel, Esquire, Manko Gold Katcher and Fox, LLP Property Owner: 211 Belmont Associates, LP PUBLIC COMMENT

ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Hearing Officer's Recommendation Backup Material

81

Before the Conditional Use Hearing Officer Lower Merion Township, Montgomery County Pennsylvania

Application CU# 3791C

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER

This is a conditional use application filed by LCB Senior Living, LLC, seeking approval to develop the property to the requirements of the underlying C2 zoning provisions, rather than the Rock Hill Overlay District (“ROHO”) provisions, pursuant to

Lower Merion Township Zoning Code § 155-200.B.2. If conditional use approval is granted, the Applicant will seek land development approval for construction of a six- story building to be used as a home for the aged/modern senior living apartments including independent and assisted living, as well as memory care services with 84 units,

98 beds and 68 parking spaces together with a landscaped public park and other related improvements. A Conditional Use Hearing was held on October 23, 2017 before the

Conditional Use Hearing Officer.1

I. FINDINGS OF FACT

A. The Parties

1. The Applicant is LCB Senior Living, LLC, (“LCB” or “Applicant”) in care of John Lombardo, LCB Senior Living LLC, 3 Edgewater Drive, Suite 101,

Norwood, MA 02062.

2. LCB is the equitable owner of property known as 211 Belmont Avenue,

Bala Cynwyd, Lower Merion Township, Montgomery County, PA (“Property”). The

Property is the subject of this application.

1 The Conditional Use Hearing Officer is authorized to conduct the hearing pursuant to Code §155- 141.2.A.5. 1

82

3. The fee owner of the Property is 211 Belmont Avenue Associates, L.P, in care of Jerry O’Connor, O’Neill Properties, 2701 Renaissance Blvd., 4th Floor, King of

Prussia, PA 19406.

4. LCB entered into an Agreement of Sale dated February 2, 2017 with 211

Belmont Avenue Associates, L.P. to purchase the Property.

5. On June 28, 2017, LCB filed a conditional use application (“Application”) pursuant to Lower Merion Township Zoning Code § 155-141.2.A. seeking approval to develop the Property to the requirements of the underlying C2 zoning provisions, rather than the Rock Hill Overlay District (“ROHO”) provisions pursuant to Zoning Code §155-

200.B.2.

6. LCB is represented by Jonathan H. Spergel Esq., Suzanne Ilene Schiller,

Esq. and Zachary J. Koslap, Esq. of Manko, Gold, Katcher & Fox, LLP.

B. Prior Zoning Relief

7. On May 17, 2012, the Lower Merion Zoning Hearing Board granted a

Special Exception, pursuant to Code §155-156.C, to delineate the Gulley Run floodplain to within the flume in Appeal No. 4278 which was filed by a prior owner of the Property.

The relief was conditioned on adherence to the plans and testimony presented at the hearing, including but not limited to the removal of a bridge over the flume. Relief was further conditioned on the approval of the Federal Insurance Administrator for the re- delineation. The prior owner did not obtain approval from the Federal Insurance

Administration for the re-delineation. LCB, the current equitable owner, intends to seek such approval which will establish the limits to where development can occur on the property.

2

83

8. On October 2, 2017, the Lower Merion Township Planning Commission met with LCB and discussed this Application and recommended approval subject to the following conditions:

A. The applicant shall demonstrate conceptual compliance with the Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Code requirements at the conditional use hearing; B. The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the parking requirement at the conditional use hearing; C. All parking and exterior loading areas shall be screened from any adjacent pedestrianway by planting shade trees and providing a six-foot- wide landscaped area with a continuous row of two-foot-high shrubs or a seating wall not less than two feet and not more than three feet high; D. The plan shall include pedestrian oriented gateway landscaping and bicycle amenities in the design of the site, which links the proposed development to the streetscape; E. The applicant shall incorporate and consider the flume in the design of the proposed project; F. The applicant shall comply with the architectural design standards or shall seek conditional use with the Preliminary Plan application to deviate from the requirements; G. The applicant shall comply with the architectural design standards or shall seek conditional use with the Preliminary Plan application to deviate from the requirements; H. The applicant shall demonstrate a plan to maximize access to the pocket park to encourage pedestrian access to Gulley Run given the existing features; I. A cross-section across Rock Hill Road and through the site shall be provided during the conditional use hearing to help evaluate topographic changes.

9. On September 5, 2017, the Township Engineer reviewed the Application.

He noted roadway improvements, stormwater management and floodplain location as areas of concern. The Applicant and Township Staff subsequently met to discuss these concerns, as described in detail in the memo dated 9/29/2017 by Christopher Leswing to the Planning Commission. (Ex. T-2)

10. On October 23, 2017, a Conditional Use hearing was held.

3

84

11. LCB presented testimony in support of its Application from the following witnesses:

a. Edward Doyle, VP of Marketing & Communication LCB Sr. Living, LLC; b. Christos N. Dinoulis, P.E. employed by Bohler Engineering; c. Michael Breau, Licensed Architect employed by The Architectural Team; d. Nicole Kline, PE, PTOE employed by McMahon Associates; e. Jonathan H. Spergel Esq.; f. Suzanne Ilene Schiller, Esq.; and g. Zachary J. Koslap, Esq.

12. LCB offered documentary exhibits, marked A-1 to A-30 for identification, all of which were subsequently admitted into the record. A list of LCB’s exhibits is available for review in the Township’s file for this application.

13. Jillian Puleo Dierks, Planner, Lower Merion Township, Building &

Planning Department was present at the hearing but did not testify. Dierks offered four documents marked T-1 to T-4 and they were admitted into evidence. A list of the

Township’s exhibits is available for review in the Township’s file for this application.

13. There was an opportunity to cross examine the LCB’s witnesses, present additional witnesses and submit documents into evidence at the hearing. No one else appeared at the hearing and no questions or other comment on the Application were given.

14. The hearing subsequently was closed with no further evidence or testimony and all documents were moved into evidence without objection.

15. LCB submitted a post-hearing brief summarizing testimony and compliance with applicable ordinances.

C. The Property and Surrounding Area

4

85

16. The Property is located at the intersection of Belmont Avenue and Rock

Hill Road on the north-west side. The residential neighborhood of Belmont Hills is located to the north and commercial uses are located to the west along Rock Hill Road.

The Cynwyd Heritage Trail is located across Belmont Avenue to the east and trailhead parking is located across Rock Hill Road to the south.

17. The Property is split zoned between the R-5 and C-2 zoning districts and is subject to the Rock Hill Overlay District Zoning Overlay (“ROHO”) pursuant to the

Township’s zoning map.

18. Gulley Run traverses the Property from east to west and is partially enclosed in a concrete flume. The ZHB granted a Special Exception to delineate the

Gulley Run floodplain to within the flume and relief was conditioned on removal of a bridge over the flume, and approval of the Federal Insurance Administrator for the re- delineation, inter alia, see supra paragraph 7. The developable area of the Property will be determined by re-delineation of the floodplain and approval by the Federal Insurance

Administrator. The portion of the property lying within the R-5 residence district will remain undisturbed.

19. There are steep slopes on the Property. Natural, undisturbed steep slopes are located in the northern portion of the Property. Manmade steep slopes are adjacent to

Rock Hill Road.

20. The Property contains 4.84 acres and was previously used for industrial purposes. It has been improved with the former Lee’s Shoddy Mill, a Class II resource on the Township’s Historic Resource Inventory. The Applicant must obtain permission from the Lower Merion Historical Commission and Board of Commissioners to demolish the

5

86

structure because permission previously granted to a prior owner in 2003 expired without a demolition permit being secured.

21. Existing conditions on the site are deteriorating industrial buildings and structures, and overgrown vegetation, as depicted in Ex. A-14.

22. The proposed development will site most of the buildings and improvements on the north side of Gulley Run.

D. The Proposed Modern Senior Living Facility

23. The Applicant proposes to redevelop the Property with a modern senior living facility ("Proposed Development").

24. The Applicant’s Conditional Use Development Plans dated June 27, 2017 were last revised on August 10, 2017 ("Plans") after receiving numerous reviews from

Township Staff, the Township Engineer and the Planning Commission. More specifically, LCB’s Proposed Development includes:

a. A six-story modern senior living facility with 84 apartment units and 96

beds, including independent and assisted living, as well as memory care

services. The apartment units will range from studios, 1-bedroom, and 2-

bedroom units. Independent and assisted living units will have

kitchenettes, but not units in the memory care wing;

b. On-site amenities for residents will include a restaurant-style facility (for

residents, their guests and employees of the facility) and meeting rooms

(for residents and community organizations at designated times when not

in use by residents);

c. Surface and subsurface parking containing a total of 68 parking spaces;

6

87

d. A public park and gathering space on the south side of Gulley Run with

seating areas, hardscaping and landscaping which will be easily accessible

and near the Cynwyd Heritage Trail.

25. The Application also includes a Traffic Impact Assessment of Proposed

Development dated June 28, 2017 prepared by McMahon Associates, Ex. A-28.

26. A concept rendering of the Proposed Development (“Concept Rendering”) was submitted by the Applicant in advance of a meeting with the Planning Commission on October 2, 2017. The Concept Rendering is also part of the Application, Ex. A-19, 20,

21 & 22.

27. Edward (Ted) Doyle is the Vice President of Marketing and

Communication for LCB. He has been employed by LCB for approximately six years since the inception of the company in 2011. He has been involved in developing fourteen built communities and six acquisitions. Doyle testified at the Conditional Use Hearing.

28. Doyle’s testimony established ownership of the Property and LCB’s senior assisted living communities and business plan (Exhibits A-2-3). He cited the significant need for senior citizen housing identified in the Lower Merion Township

Comprehensive Plan, see Exhibit A-4. In terms of demographics, Lower Merion

Township is a good match with LCB senior assisted living communities according to

Doyle. Residents of assisted living apartment units will receive assistance with non- medical needs, three meals per day, activities and community engagement opportunities, and transportation. Memory care residents typically have dementia of low to medium acuity. On the first floor, the building includes a restaurant for the building’s residents, employees, and guests, and community meeting rooms which, will be made available to

7

88

certain community groups within the Township when not in use by the residents. See

Affidavit of Edward Doyle, Ex. A-1.

29. Christos N. Dinoulis is a project manager for Bohler Engineering

(“Bohler”). He has a Bachelor of Science in Civil and Construction Engineering, has worked for Bohler for approximately fourteen years and has previously testified as an expert witness on zoning and land development matters in Lower Merion Township.

Dinoulis works under the oversight of registered land architects Travis North and Adam

Benosky. He was accepted as an expert in civil design and site development at the

Conditional Use hearing. See Exhibit A-5.

30. Dinoulis is the primary design professional for the development of 211

Belmont Avenue. He testified to the Proposed Development’s overall design and its compliance with the conditional use criteria in ROHO and the underlying C-2 zoning district. Additionally, Dinoulis testified to the Proposed Development meeting required goals and objectives of ROHO and the Township Code. His testimony covered numerous engineering topics which were also summarized in his affidavit. See Affidavit of Christos

Dinoulis, Ex. A-6, attached hereto as Tab “A”

31. Dinoulis testified the Property contains 4.84 acres and has a lot area of

211,046 square feet. It is located on the northwest side of the intersection of Rock Hill

Road and Belmont Avenue in Lower Merion Township. This site is located within

ROHO and the underlying C-2 zoning district.

32. There are undisturbed steep natural slopes on the north side of the

Property. There are manmade steep slopes adjacent to Rock Hill Road. Gulley Run

8

89

bisects the Property from east to west with portions covered by existing bridges. A flume partially encloses Gulley Run.

33. Existing conditions on the Property are deteriorating buildings and structures and overgrown vegetation as shown in photos, Ex. A-14. Dinoulis testified existing buildings will be removed and the vast majority of new buildings and infrastructure associated with the Proposed Development will be located on the north side of Gulley Run. A Pocket Park is planned for the south side of Gulley Run, Ex. A-20 &

25.

34. Dinoulis testified that the engineering aspects of the Proposed

Development comply with all applicable codes and ordinances, see Ex. A-6.

35. C. Michael Breau, Jr. has been a registered architect for 25 years. He graduated from Syracuse University with a Bachelor of Architecture and from Harvard

University with a Master of Architecture degree. Breau was recognized as an expert in architecture at the Conditional Use Hearing. He has been employed by The Architectural

Team, Inc. for four years and in that capacity, Breau is the primary architect for the development submitted by the Applicant for 211 Belmont Avenue.

36. Breau testified to the proposed development’s overall design, compliance with the ROHO architectural standards and satisfaction of goals and objectives of ROHO and the Township. See Affidavit of C. Michael Breau, Jr., Ex. A-18.

37. The Property is the gateway to the ROHO district and the proposed building should have the right scale, according to Breau. Mixed materials were selected for the facade, including stone and brick, to deemphasize massing, enhance visual quality and contribute to human scale development. Likewise, sloped roofs with standing seam

9

90

metal are specified. The architecture reflects the history of the site and surrounding neighborhood through form and selected materials.

38. D. Travis North is a registered landscape architect employed as a project manager by Bohler Engineering. He has worked for that firm for sixteen years and was accepted as an expert witness in landscape design at the Conditional Use Hearing. See

Ex. A-23.

39. North testified about the proposed pocket park and landscape design for the development submitted by LCB Senior Living, LLC for 211 Belmont Avenue. He also testified to the proposed development’s compliance with ROHO goals, objectives and architectural design standards. See Affidavit of D. Travis North, Ex. A-24.

40. The Applicant proposes to create a landscaped public park area at the corner of Rock Hill Road and Belmont Avenue on the southern side of Gulley Run

(“Pocket Park”). See Ex. A-20 & A-25. North described a landscaped area with seating and a view of Gulley Run which will be incorporated into the design of the development.

The Pocket Park will consist of pedestrian pathways, public plaza areas, native trees, landscaped vegetation, benches and bicycle racks. North testified the intent of the Pocket

Park is to create a nexus for pedestrians and contribute to a linked network of pedestrian pathways within ROHO and the Township, to promote and celebrate the natural features of the Property (Gulley Run) and enhance the mixed-use nature of the Proposed

Development. The Pocket Park will be located across Belmont Avenue from the Cynwyd

Heritage Trail, across Rock Hill Road from trailhead parking for the Cynwyd Heritage

Trail and a CVS store, and 500 feet from the Wawa convenience store on Belmont

Avenue.

10

91

41. North also designed a ten-foot wide planted buffer between roadways and pedestrian walkways with street trees (“Verge”). The street trees will comply with

Chapters 101 and 128 of Code, as set forth in §155-205.F et seq, such as a diameter of at least 2.5 inches and a height of 16 to 20 feet at time of planting, and spacing no more than 40-feet apart along the right of way. In response to questioning by the Hearing

Officer, North testified that there are overhead utility lines in the right of way along the frontage along Belmont Avenue and Rock Hill Road. Street trees will be sited to not grow into the utility lines and require unsightly pruning of limbs.

42. Nicole Kline is a traffic engineer employed by McMahon Associates for the past fifteen years. She has worked on more than thirty land development matters and has testified in different townships in connection with her employment by McMahon

Associates. She was accepted as an expert in traffic engineering at the Conditional Use

Hearing.

43. Kline conducted a Traffic Impact Assessment for LCB Senior Living, Ex.

A-28. She studied the intersections of Belmont Avenue and Rock Hill Road; Existing

CVS Right in/Right Out Only and Rock Hill Road; Existing CVS Access/Proposed Site

Access and Rock Hill Road. Kline testified about the proposed development’s off-site traffic impacts and its compliance with the conditional use criteria of ROHO. She further testified about the proposed development’s satisfaction of the goals and objectives of

ROHO and the Township zoning code. See Affidavit of Nicole Kline, Ex. A-27.

44. Kline testified that the proposed development of 211 Belmont Avenue by

LCB Senior Living, LLC will have virtually no impact on traffic operations in the area.

There will be 13 new trips in the AM peak hour and 21 new trips in the PM peak hour.

11

92

The average daily traffic for the proposed driveway is 128 vehicles per day, therefore the driveway is classified as low traffic according to PennDOT criteria. The entire proposed use is low volume from a traffic perspective, in Kline’s opinion, and peak traffic will be accommodated in a safe and efficient manner.

45. Sidewalks will be constructed along both frontages on Belmont Avenue and Rock Hill Road, where none currently exist, as part of the Proposed Development.

Pedestrian crosswalks, push buttons and signals are provided to cross Rock Hill Road and the southern leg of Belmont Avenue. Curb ramps exist on each corner of the intersection where crosswalks are present.

E. Legal Authority for Use

46. The Board of Commissioners of Lower Merion Township enacted

Ordinance No. 3782 on May 24, 2006 for the purpose of encouraging the redevelopment of the existing underutilized industrial corridor into an economically dynamic, attractive gateway to Lower Merion Township in the Rock Hill Overlay District (“ROHO”). The general goals and objectives of ROHO include pedestrian oriented design; promoting mixed use development that is attractive and appropriate to the area; protecting existing natural features; and improving traffic flow and pedestrian and vehicular safety. Code

§155-200.A.

47. A senior living facility is not one of the uses specifically enumerated in

ROHO, therefore the Applicant proposes development pursuant to the underlying C-2 zoning, by conditional use pursuant to §155-141.2A, as described in §155-200.B.2 and upon Applicant’s proof of compliance with all applicable requirements of Code §155-200 and §155-205.

12

93

48. The Zoning Officer has determined a senior living facility is a “home for the aged.” Ex. A-15.

49. A sanitorium, nursing home, convalescent home or home for the aged are permitted in the C-2 District, when authorized by special exception, pursuant to the regulations contained in §155-80.A of the Zoning Ordinance.

50. C-2 Districts permit any use permitted in C-1 Districts (see §155-80.A);

C-1 Districts permit any uses permitted in R-7 Districts (see §155-71.A); R-7 Districts permit any uses permitted in R-6A Districts (see §155-54.A).

51. R-6A Districts permit the use of “sanitorium, nursing home, convalescent home or home for the aged, when authorized by special exception (see §155-47.D). See

Ex A-15.

52. Conditional use standards are set forth in Code §155-141.2 (general requirements) and §155-160 (specific documentary requirements).

53. The proposed development must also comply with the provisions of §155-

51 of R-6A because it is a “building other than townhouses, single or two family detached or semi-detached dwellings and apartment houses” which in turn incorporate by reference the building and setback provisions of §155-37.

54. In addition, §155-37 imposes additional height regulations for buildings in excess of 35 feet, such as proposed by the Applicant, specifically, buildings greater than

35 feet in height must also comply with §155-137.

55. The height restrictions of §155-137.B and §155-137.C apply to LCB’s proposed development in the C-2 District.

G. Compliance with Section 155-200: Purpose and Applicability of ROHO

13

94

57. Lower Merion Township’s ROHO District was established as an overlay district to encourage the redevelopment of the existing underutilized industrial corridor into an economically dynamic, attractive gateway to Lower Merion Township. The

ROHO is designed to promote the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Lower

Merion Township by using pedestrian-oriented design; promoting mixed use development that is attractive and appropriate to the area; protecting existing natural features; and improving the traffic flow and pedestrian and vehicular safety. Code §155-

200.A.

58. General goals and objectives of the ROHO District, enumerated in Code

§155-200.A.1-12, include the following special purposes:

(1) Welcome residents, visitors and workers to the Township, providing an attractive destination and link between the residential areas near the corridor and the Schuylkill Expressway, Schuylkill River and Manayunk Neighborhood of Philadelphia; (2) Encourage location-efficient, pedestrian oriented design and development consistent with high standards of architecture and design; (3) Support new development that includes diverse mix of pedestrian- compatible, higher density residential and non-residential uses, expand economic development opportunities and minimize distances between destinations by requiring linked pedestrianways and pedestrian-oriented access; (4) Provide incentives for the creation of mixed use structures in keeping with the character and scale of the corridor, while using development design guidelines to promote compatibility of uses and stimulate pedestrian activity. Maintain a scale, balance and variety of residential, nonresidential and recreational uses; (5) Promote the livability and identity of the corridor as a neighborhood by providing for dwellings, offices and other workplaces; recreational amenities and neighborhood scale retail in close proximity to each other; (6) Enhance the visual character and physical comfort of the district by minimizing pedestrian and vehicle conflicts and encouraging the ability of pedestrians to walk or cyclists to bike to uses within the corridor and beyond;

14

95

(7) Promote the smooth and safe flow of vehicular traffic through the corridor while reducing cut-through traffic in the neighboring residential districts; (8) Protect existing natural features, including Gulley Run Creek, a direct tributary to the Schuylkill River which runs through the corridor; (9) Encourage subsurface parking in non-floodplain areas, and shared parking; (10) Promote the increase and attractiveness of landscaped areas; and (11) Connect the ROHO to the Township’s park system and developing waterfront open spaces, including pedestrian trails along the Schuylkill River.

59. The Applicant has adequately demonstrated that the Proposed

Development satisfies the general goals and objectives of the ROHO overlay district, as well as twelve specific goals, through the testimony of five witnesses (Doyle, Dinoulis,

Breau, North and Kline,) plans and studies.

60. The Proposed Development satisfies the requirements of § 155-200.A(1) because it is designed as an attractive entranceway to the Township according to all five of the Applicant’s witnesses. Ex. 6, 41-42. The senior-living apartment building, consisting of stone and other materials consistent with the standards of the community, will be an attractive entranceway to the community. Exs. 20 – 22. Additionally, North testified that the landscaped park near the corner of Rock Hill Road and Belmont Avenue will further accentuate the proposed development as a gateway to the Township. Ex. 24.

10. In addition, as described by Dinoulis, North and Ms. Kline, the proposed development will link residential areas near the corridor and Schuylkill Expressway,

Schuylkill River and Manayunk Neighborhood of Philadelphia by establishing pedestrian pathways connecting the proposed development with adjacent properties, the nearest

SEPTA bus stops along Conshohocken State Road, and across the Schuylkill River in

Manayunk, as well as to the Manayunk Train Station located 0.5 miles from the Site. The

15

96

park area and sidewalks will serve as a nexus for pedestrians and cyclists, in very close proximity to the Belmont Avenue trailhead of the Cynwyd Heritage Trail.

61. The Proposed Development satisfies the requirements of § 155- 200.A(2) as described in testimony by Dinoulis. The pedestrian-oriented design of the proposed development includes a pedestrian pathway leading to the main entrance of the building and through the building overhang to the proposed terrace. Ex. 6, 43-44. This pathway runs adjacent to the primary front façade of the building and offers beautiful views of

Gulley Run and the landscaped park area. The pedestrian pathways adjacent to the surrounding roadways link the proposed development with adjoining properties. The proposed development, including the landscaped park area, will be designed to be consistent with the high standards of architecture and design.

62. Dinoulis and North testified to facts supporting a finding that the Proposed

Development satisfies the requirements of § 155-200.A(3). The proposed development, consisting of an 84-unit, 96-bed senior-living apartment building and landscaped park, will promote a variety of uses within ROHO. See Ex. 6, 45-46. On the first floor, the building includes a restaurant for the building’s residents, employees, and guests, and community meeting rooms which, as Doyle explained, will be made available to certain community groups within the Township when not in use by the residents. Together with the park area open to the public, the proposed development promotes the mixed-use objectives of ROHO while balancing the types of uses within the ROHO district. Ex. 23,

12. Additionally, as the renderings show (Exs. 19-22), and as mentioned above, the proposed development includes pedestrian pathways connecting to adjoining properties, and pedestrian pathways leading to the main entrance of the proposed development and

16

97

to the building terrace. Further, Doyle testified that the residents, employees and visitors of the facility will add to the demand for retail and service businesses within the ROHO district, and the significant aesthetic improvements to the corner of Belmont Avenue and

Rock Hill Road from the project will also directly contribute to expanding economic development opportunities within the corridor. Ex. 1, 14. Doyle estimated that the project would create $1.5 million in salaries annually for new employees at the Site.

63. The Proposed Development provides incentives for the creation of mixed- used structures in keeping with the character and scale of the corridor, as Dinoulis testified, by giving nearby properties opportunities to provide products and services to its residents, employees, and pedestrians. See Ex. 6, 47-48. In addition, both Dinoulis and

North testified that the landscaped park area that will be open to the public is compatible with the pedestrian-oriented objectives of ROHO, and will stimulate pedestrian activity by attracting pedestrians and cyclists, as well as residents, visitors and employees in the community, to enjoy the park, including views of Gulley Run, which will also serve as a natural link to the Cynwyd Heritage Trail. Id; Ex. 24, 12.

64. Dinoulis testified that the Proposed Development complies with all applicable building height and setback requirements, maintaining a scale consistent with

ROHO in satisfaction of requirements of § 155-200.A(5) and that the proposed development features a balanced variety of uses, including senior-living apartments, meeting spaces for the community, and a landscaped park area. Ex. 6, 49-50. Breau explained how the design of the building was intended to minimize the mass of the building and be consistent with, and inviting to, pedestrians and cyclists. In addition, the

Proposed Development will contribute to a variety of uses to be located on other

17

98

properties within the ROHO corridor.

65. The specific goals of § 155-200.A(6) have been satisfied with residential and recreational amenities on site, and in close proximity to retail and office uses. The proposed development provides 84 residential units, consisting of 96 beds, for senior assisted living. Ex. 6, 51-52. Additionally, Doyle testified that the Proposed Development will provide significant employment opportunities, including significant demand for current and future retail business in ROHO. Ex. 1, 13-14. Further, the landscaped park area will provide a recreational area for residents, visitors, employees, pedestrians, and cyclists.

66. The Proposed Development satisfies the requirements of § 155-200.A(7) because it is designed to minimize pedestrian and vehicular conflicts while encouraging bicycling and walking within ROHO and beyond. Ms. Kline explained that her Traffic

Impact Assessment shows minimal traffic impacts due to the nature of the proposed use.

Ex. 27, 18, 20. Many residents at other LCB communities no longer drive, and residents who still have vehicles rarely use them over time. Further, the development is not proposing any curb cuts on Belmont Avenue, therefore avoiding impacts to the flow of traffic on Belmont Avenue. The pedestrian pathways on the proposed development are wholly contained within the development, and present no areas of potential conflict with vehicles. The nearest SEPTA bus route at the intersection of Conshohocken State Road and Rock Hill Road is approximately a 10-minute walk, and the Manayunk Train Station is approximately 0.5 miles from the Proposed Development, providing employees an opportunity to commute to work. Id. at 19. Additionally, as Dinoulis testified, the landscaped park area will be a nexus for pedestrians and cyclists, and will encourage

18

99

pedestrian and cycling activity within the corridor and beyond. Ex. 6, 53-54. Further, bike commuting to the project will be encouraged through the installation of bike racks at the project.

67. Both Dinoulis and Kline testified that the Proposed Development satisfies the requirements of § 155-200.A(8). It will have minimal impact on vehicular traffic throughout ROHO. Ex. 27,18, 20. The pedestrian-oriented design and the minimal burden the use of the proposed development places on traffic will help to reduce cut-through traffic in neighboring residential districts. No curb cuts will exist on Belmont Avenue, promoting the smooth and safe flow of vehicular traffic in the corridor, and the further reduction of cut-through traffic. Ex. 6, 55-56. The full-service driveway serving the project along Rock Hill Road has been designed to integrate with the CVS driveway across the road, to further promote the smooth and safe flow of vehicular traffic in the corridor.

68. The Proposed Development both protects and celebrates existing natural features, including Gulley Run, as testified to by each of the design professionals, meeting the requirements of § 155-200.A.9. Except for an aerial crossing of a portion of the building over Gulley Run and a bridge required for the driveway entrance to the Site on Rock Hill Road, the Proposed Development will not result in the culverting or relocation of any portion of Gulley Run located at the Site, according to Dinoulis. Ex. 6,

57-58. Instead, North and Breau explained that Gulley Run will be celebrated by the development, and directly incorporated into the project design. In fact, the development will remove an unneeded bridge crossing that presently exists, and the structural integrity of Gulley Run will be evaluated, and repairs implemented if deemed necessary. As noted

19

100

elsewhere, the landscaped public park area will be designed to provide meaningful viewing opportunities of Gulley Run. Additionally, the project will not result in the disturbance of the significant amount of natural steep slopes located on the northern portion of the Site.

69. The Proposed Development will satisfy the requirements of § 155-

200.A(10) by incorporating 39 subsurface parking spaces in its design. Ex. 6, 59-60.

While this subsurface parking is technically located within a floodplain area, the

Township’s Zoning Hearing Board (“ZHB”) has previously conditionally approved the redelineation of the floodplain at the Site to be located entirely within Gulley Run; this approval is conditioned on FEMA approval of the delineation, which will occur prior to the commencement of any construction activities by LCB’s seeking preliminary land development approval. Ex. 16. The second goal of this subsection, shared parking is not feasible given the topography of the Site, including significant grade changes and the presence of Gulley Run transecting the Site, as Dinoulis testified.

70. Dinoulis and North testified that the proposed development satisfies the requirements of § 155-200.A(11). The proposed development promotes the increase and attractiveness of landscaped areas by including a landscaped park that will be open to the public, near the corner of Rock Hill Road and Belmont Avenue. The park area will attract pedestrians, cyclists, residents, visitors, and employees in the ROHO corridor and community, and will also provide meaningful views of the park and Gulley Run. Ex. 6,

61-62; Ex. 24, 10.

71. Dinoulis and North testified that the proposed development meets the requirements of § 155-200.A(12). The proposed development connects ROHO to the

20

101

Township’s park system and developing waterfront open spaces, including pedestrian trails along the Schuylkill River, with its landscaped park area near the corner of Rock

Hill Road and Belmont Avenue. Ex. 6, 63-64. The park will serve as a connecting point to the nearby trailhead of the Cynwyd Heritage Trail. The pedestrian pathways adjacent to Belmont Avenue will also connect the proposed development to the adjacent property in the direction of the Schuylkill River and other developing waterfront open spaces.

72. Section 155-200.B of the Zoning Ordinance described the applicability of the overlay district and the conditional use procedure for reverting to underlying zoning regulations.

73. The Zoning Officer’s interpretation of Code, Ex. A-15, has been adopted by the Applicant in pursuing conditional use approval of underlying zoning pursuant to

Section 155-200.B.2

H. Compliance with Section 155-205: Development Design Standards

74. Section 155-205.A of the Zoning Ordinance states the purpose of this section is to require pedestrian oriented buildings and require building entrances to be oriented toward the streets and pedestrianways. Windows must facilitate views into and out of buildings.

75. The Proposed Development provides pedestrian oriented buildings, building entrances oriented toward the street and windows with views into and out of buildings, in compliance with Section 155-205.A of the Zoning Ordinance, as depicted on the Site Plan and Renderings and described in the testimony of Dinoulis and Breau.

76. Section 155-205.A.1 of the Zoning Ordinance requires convenient, direct and accessible pedestrian access to and from pedestrianways and residential and

21

102

commercial uses.

77. The Proposed Development will construct pedestrian sidewalks along

Rock Hill Road and Belmont Avenue, as Dinoulis testified, which will provide pedestrian linkage between properties in ROHO. The sidewalk along Rock Hill Road also connects to a pedestrian pathway leading to the entrance of the proposed building and terrace, as described in testimony by Dinoulis and Breau and shown on plans and renderings.

78. Section 155-205.A.2 of the Zoning Ordinance states development must provide a safe, pleasant and enjoyable pedestrian experience by providing designated corridors designed for pedestrian use while limiting pedestrian/vehicle conflicts.

79. The Proposed Development will establish a pedestrian sidewalk running the entire length of the site along both Rock Hill Road and Belmont Avenue. The sidewalk will be 10-foot wide and separated from the road by a 10-foot landscaped Verge adjacent to the road, as testified by North. Moreover, there will be a landscaped Pocket

Park at the corner of Rock Hill Road and Belmont Avenue for pedestrians, cyclists and the general public, as shown on Ex A-20 & 25. Kline testified that the project will reduce pedestrian/vehicle conflicts because there will be only one driveway in and out of the site.

80. Section 155-205.A.3 of the Zoning Ordinance requires development that promotes walking and biking as viable modes of transportation to access residential and nonresidential facilities.

81. The Proposed Development meets the requirements of Section 155-

205.A.3 with a newly constructed 10-foot wide pedestrian sidewalk running the entire length of the site along Rock Hill Road and Belmont Avenue and separated from traffic

22

103

with a 10-foot landscaped verge, Ex. A-6, 69-70. Bike racks located on site will encourage biking as a viable mode of transportation for facility employees, as testified by

Dinoulis. Walking to and from mass transit will also be supported as there is a SEPTA bus stop on Conshohocken State Road and Rock Hill Road, approximately ten minutes away on foot, and the Manayunk Train Station is approximately .5 miles away, according to testimony of Kline, see Ex. A-29, 15.

82. Section 155-205.B. of the Zoning Ordinance contains general standards for building orientation and primary entrance in the ROHO district. Subsection 155-

205.B.1 states buildings shall be designed with window space, public access points and signage facing the street and sidewalk.

83. The Proposed Development satisfies these requirements with windows, public access points and signage facing Rock Hill Road (and parts of Belmont Avenue) and the sidewalk as well as interior pedestrianways, as testified by Dinoulis and Breau.

Ex. A- 6, 71-72; Ex A-18, 12-13; Ex A-19-22.

84. Section 155-205.B.2 of the Zoning Ordinance specifies the façade treatment of walls visible to residential uses or residential zoning districts shall be similar to the primary façade along the pedestrian oriented street.

85. Dinoulis and Breau testified that the Proposed Development contains similar façade treatment of walls visible to residential uses and zoning districts as the primary front façade, which is the portion of the building angled to face both Rock Hill

Road and Belmont Avenue. Ex. A-6, 73-74; Ex A-18, 14-15. The rear of the building faces the R-5 zoning district, but is largely shielded from view from that vantage point by natural steep slopes at the rear of the property. Vehicular traffic and pedestrians traveling

23

104

along Belmont Avenue may see the façade treatment on the rear of the building which will maintain a similar façade treatment as the primary front façade, as testified by Breau and depicted on Conceptual Renderings, Ex. A-21& 22.

86. Section 155-205.B.3 of the Zoning Ordinance requires all buildings shall provide clear windows along the ground floor of the primary front facades.

87. The Proposed Development satisfies this requirement with clear windows utilized along the ground floor of the primary front façade, as testified by Dinoulis and

Breau. Ex. A-6, 75-76; Ex A-18, 16-17; Ex. A-20 & 22.

88. Section 155-205.B.4 of the Zoning Ordinance states primary entrances shall be articulated and visible from the street.

89. The proposed Development articulates its primary entrances in several ways, using roof and porch design elements above primary entrances that are clearly visible from the street. Ex. A-6, 77-78; Ex A-18, 18-19; Ex. A-19. The proposed primary entrance visible from Rock Hill Road will also articulate the proposed plaza area of the building with appealing design features to emphasize the building entranceway, according to testimony from Breau. Ex. A-6, 77-78; Ex A-18, 18-19; Ex. A-19.

90. Section 155-205.B.4.a of the Zoning Ordinance states building entrances shall incorporate arcades, roofs, porches alcoves and/or awnings that protect pedestrians from sun and rain.

91. The Proposed Development will articulate the building entrances with appealing design features and coverages to protect pedestrians from sun and rain, per the testimony of Dinoulis and Breau, satisfying Section 155-205.B.4.a. Ex. A-6, 79-80; Ex

A-18, 20-21; Ex. A-19 & 21.

24

105

92. Section 155-205.B.4.b of the Zoning Ordinance states if the building has frontage on more than one street, the building shall provide primary entrances oriented toward both streets or a single entrance to the corner where the two street intersect.

93. The Proposed Development will provide primary entrances oriented toward both Rock Hill Road and Belmont Avenue, as depicted in Ex. A-19 & 21; and described in by Dinoulis, see Ex. A-6, 81-82.

94. Section 155-205.B.5 of the Zoning Ordinance states driveways, parking areas and traffic circulation patterns shell be designed as shared facilities whenever feasible. The design of these elements shall create a unified site plan between the lots.

The goal is to gain parking efficiencies, reduce the number of access points and improve internal and external vehicular circulation patterns.

95. The Proposed Development does not satisfy this subsection of Code because it is not feasible according to Dinoulis, see Ex. A-6, 83-84.

96. Section 155-205.B.6 of the Zoning Ordinance states driveways shall directly connect the street to parking areas to the side or rear of the building, and no driveways shall be permitted in front of the building.

97. The Proposed Development connects the street to underground and subsurface parking through a driveway, as well as surface parking located at the northeastern corner of the site adjacent to Belmont Avenue. Ex. A-6, 85-86; Ex. A-8. The driveway runs along the rear of the building where it will be shielded from view from

Rock Hill Road. These design features meet the intent of this ordinance.

98. Section 155-205.B.7 of the Zoning Ordinance states when one or more lot(s) is redeveloped such that 150 feet or more of new building facade is constructed

25

106

along the primary front facade, an additional accessway connecting to an accessible building entrance for each 75 feet of new building facade shall be provided perpendicular to the street.

99. The Proposed Development satisfies this requirement according to testimony by Dinoulis. The primary front façade of the building, the portion of the building angled to face both Rock Hill Road and Belmont Avenue, features less than 150 feet of new building façade. Ex. A- 6, 87-88. Nonetheless, according to the testimony, the proposed development includes an additional accessible building entrance along the primary front façade accessible from the pedestrian pathway along Gulley Run adjacent to the proposed terrace accessway. The portion of the proposed terrace leading to the building entrance will serve as an accessway connecting the building entrance to the pedestrian pathway.

100. Section 155-205.B.7 of the Zoning Ordinance states the primary pedestrian access point to buildings shall be clearly visible and directly accessible from the street, rather than onto rear or side parking lots. Secondary access points may be located along other facades.

101. Dinoulis testified that the proposed development satisfies the requirements of this provision. The proposed development makes the primary pedestrian access point of the building clearly visible and directly accessible from Rock Hill Road; a sidewalk runs adjacent to the vehicular driveway for the Site, providing a direct pedestrian connection from Rock Hill Road to the main entryway of the building. Ex. A-

6, 89-90; Exs. A-8 & 8A. The sidewalk does not pass through or connect with any rear or side parking lots. The path of the primary pedestrian access point runs adjacent to the

26

107

vehicular driveway for the Site to minimize the disturbance of the natural features of the

Site, specifically Gulley Run (other entrances would require culverting and/or additional bridges over Gulley Run). Exs A- 8 & 22. Additionally, as stated above and as Dinoulis and Breau testified, the side of the building adjacent to the plaza area will include design elements to emphasize the entranceway of the building. Ex. A-6, 19.

102. Section 155-205.B(9) provides there may be no more than one vehicular entrance and one vehicular exit through the planted area to any street.

103. The proposed development satisfies these requirements because there is only one vehicular entrance on the Site, according to the testimony of Dinoulis and Kline.

Ex. A-6, 91-92; Ex. A-27; and Conditional Use Site Plan, Ex. A-8.

I. Compliance with Section 155-205.C: Architectural design standards

104. Section 155-205.C concerns architectural design standards and states the architectural design standards have been incorporated to ensure that buildings are thoughtfully designed to promote visibility along the narrow, winding corridor, to provide ample light and air and to further the growth of an inviting gateway to Lower

Merion Township. The expectation is that buildings will be consistent with best architectural practices as of the date of their construction.

105. The Proposed Development satisfies the purpose of the ROHO architectural design standards by complying with each provision of this section. Where possible, LCB’s conditional use plans demonstrate the satisfaction of the Township’s architectural design standards. In instances where the level of architectural design detail required to demonstrate compliance has not yet been developed LCB confirms in plan

27

108

notes that the architectural design standards will be satisfied, and will be demonstrated during the preliminary land development process.

106. Breau testified the Proposed Development will visually and acoustically screen any rooftop equipment, including antennas, which may be included on the building. Ex. A-18, 22-23; see also, Conceptual Rendering, Ex. A-22.

107. Section 155-205.C(1)(b) states the massing of all buildings shall be deemphasized in a variety of ways, including the use of architectural and landscape elements including form, structure and materials, to reduce their apparent overall bulk and volume, to enhance visual quality and to contribute to human-scaled development.

108. The Proposed Development will satisfy the requirements of § 155-

205.C(1)(b) in a variety of ways according to Breau, including the use of stone and other natural materials on the building façade to deemphasize massing of the building and enhance the visual quality of the building. Ex. A-18, 24-25. The landscaping of the park area and green areas adjacent to the streets will further deemphasize the overall bulk and volume of the development, and contribute to a human-scaled development that will also significantly visually enhance the corner gateway to the ROHO district.

109. Section 155-205.C(1)(c) requires a minimum of 70% of the primary front facade of the ground floor of any space used for nonresidential purposes shall be clear windows and clear doors.

110. The Proposed Development will satisfy these requirements by using a minimum of 70% of clear windows and clear doors on the primary front façade of the ground floor for any portion of the ground floor used for nonresidential purposes, according to Breau’s testimony. Ex. A-18, 26- 27; Ex. A-20.

28

109

111. Section 155-205.C(1)(d) states if less than 25% of any wall of a nonresidential building is composed of windows, the wall shall be articulated by two or more of the following (…)

112. The proposed development does not include any nonresidential buildings, therefore, Code § 155- 205.C(1)(d) does not apply. See Ex. A-18, 28.

113. Section 155-205.C(1)(e) requires a minimum of 50% of the area of the second floor of primary front facades shall be windows.

114. Breau testified that the proposed development will satisfy this requirement by maintaining a minimum of 50% of the area of the second floor of the primary front façade as windows, as also depicted in Conceptual Rendering Frontage View. Ex. A-18,

29-30; Ex. A- 20.

115. Section 155-205.C(1)(f) states no reflective glass shall be permitted.

Tinted windows shall allow a minimum of 85% light penetration into the building.

116. The Proposed Development will satisfy the requirements of § 155-

205.C(1)(f) by using materials other than reflective glass for windows or other areas of the building, and allowing at least 85% of light penetration into the building, according to testimony by Breau. Ex. A-18, 31-32.

117. Section 155-205.C(1)(g) states flat roofs must have articulated parapets and cornices.

118. The Proposed Development meets the requirements of §155- 205(1)(g) by articulating any flat roofs with parapets and cornices, as shown in Conceptual Rendering

Frontage View and described in testimony by Breau. Ex. A-18, 33-34; Ex. A-20.

119. Section 155-205.C(1)(h) states pitched roof material may include slate

29

110

(either natural or man-made), shingle (either wood or asphalt composition) and metal formed to resemble standing seams or other similar materials. Specifically prohibited are white, tan or blue shingles, and corrugated plastic or corrugated metal.

120. The Proposed Development will satisfy the requirements of § 155-

205.C(1)(h) by ensuring that any pitched roofs only contain material such as slate, shingle, or metal formed to resemble standing seams or other similar materials, according to Breau. Ex. A-18, 35-36. Further, the proposed building will not use white, tan or blue shingles, or corrugated plastic or corrugated metal according to his testimony.

121. Section 155-205.C(1)(i) states exterior wall materials may include stucco, wood, wood clapboard, stone, architectural concrete block or polished block, or brick of a shape, color and texture as that commonly found within the area and surroundings of the

ROHO District. Specifically prohibited shall be white, tan or any type of painted brick,

T-111 or other similar plywood siding.

122. Breau testified that the Proposed Development will satisfy the requirements of § 155- 205.C(1)(i) by using exterior wall materials such as stucco, wood, wood clapboard, stone, architectural concrete block or polished block, or brick of a shape, color and texture as that commonly found within the area and surroundings of the

ROHO District. Ex. A-18, 37-38. Consistent with the natural features comprising

ROHO, the proposed building will include stone on exterior walls as a significant design feature. The proposed building will not use white, tan, or any type of painted brick, T-

111 or other similar plywood siding.

123. Other materials shall be limited as follows, pursuant to Code: 155-

205.C(1)(i)[1]: All forms of conventional concrete block shall be prohibited, unless

30

111

authorized by the Board of Commissioners under Subsection C(2) below in locations that cannot be seen from adjacent properties.

124. Breau testified that the intended façade materials will be stone and brick; the Proposed Development will not use conventional concrete block. See, Ex. A-18, 39.

125. Section 155-205.C(1)(i)[2] states exterior insulation and finishing system

(e.g., drivit) shall be limited to a maximum of 50% of any single facade, subject to approval by the Board of Commissioners under § 155-205C(2) below.

126. The Proposed Development will not use exterior insulation or a finishing system on any single façade in an amount greater than 50% according to Breau’s testimony. Ex. A-18, 39.

127. Section 155-205.C(2) states The Board of Commissioners may, by conditional use, approve the use of architectural concepts and designs which differ from those set forth above, if the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Board that such concepts and designs are in furtherance of the legislative intent of this article and of this subsection.

128. The Applicant has not requested the use of differing concepts.

129. Section 155-205.C(3)(a) states pedestrianways that are intended to connect one property to another shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 10 feet.

130. Dinoulis testified that the Proposed Development will satisfy the requirements of § 155-205.C(3)(a) by having pedestrianways with an unobstructed width of 10 feet, which include the pedestrianways along Rock Hill Road and Belmont Avenue and the pedestrianway adjacent to the driveway. Ex. A- 6, 93(a); Ex. A-8.

31

112

131. Section 155-205.C(3)(b) requires pedestrianways be separated from the curb line by a minimum ten- foot-wide planted strip. This distance may be modified as the sidewalk approaches a common property line as necessary to allow the free flow of pedestrian and bicycle traffic to an existing pedestrianway on an adjacent property. In accordance with § 135-24 of the Lower Merion Code, the Board of Commissioners shall have the right to require the landowner to provide such easement as is reasonably necessary so that if a pedestrianway on an adjacent parcel does not, as of the date of a development of a parcel, comply with these development design standards but is later brought into compliance, the landowner's pedestrianway can be connected to the complying pedestrianway on the adjacent parcel.

132. The Proposed Development will satisfy the requirements of § 155-

205.C(3)(b) by separating the pedestrianways along Rock Hill Road and Belmont Avenue from the curb line by a ten-foot-wide planted strip, or “verge,” except for the northern portion along Belmont Avenue, where a narrower strip is required to connected to existing sidewalk and accommodate a roadway bridge that crosses Gulley Run. Ex. A-6,

93(b); Ex. A-8.

133. Section 155-205.C(3)(c) requires pedestrianways contribute to a completely linked network of pedestrianways connecting residential and nonresidential uses.

134. Dinoulis testified that the proposed development will meet the requirements of § 155-205.C(3)(c) by linking the pedestrianways along Rock Hill Road and Belmont Avenue to adjoining properties, and linking the pedestrianway adjacent to the driveway and the pedstrianway through the public park area to the pedestrianways

32

113

along Rock Hill Road and Belmont Avenue, which will contribute to a future network of pedestrianways within the corridor connecting residential and nonresidential uses. Ex. A-

6, 93(c).

135. Section § 155-205.C(3)(d) prohibits pedestrianways used for exterior storage.

136. The proposed development will satisfy the requirements of § 155-

205.C(3)(d) by prohibiting exterior storage on the pedestrianways. Ex. A-6, 93(d).

137. Section 155-205.C(3)(e) states outdoor seating for food and drink establishments and pedestrian-oriented accessory uses, such as sales display for flowers, small shops, and food or drink stands are permitted.

138. While there will be no food or drink establishments or shops open to the public such that this provision does not apply, seating will nevertheless be provided along the sidewalk. Ex. A-22.

139. Section 155-205.D(1) states the sign regulations applicable to the underlying zoning district shall be applied in the ROHO. If these provisions are in conflict, the sign provisions in the ROHO shall apply.

140. Breau testified that signage at the proposed development will comply the signage requirements of this Section. Ex. A-18, 40.

141. Section 155-205.E pertains to canopies and awnings on buildings.

142. The Proposed Development does not include canopies or awnings, and LCB does not anticipate using canopies or awnings, as Breau testified. To the extent LCB uses canopies or awnings in its proposed development, Breau testified that the proposed development will comply with the requirements of this Section. Ex. 18, 40.

33

114

143. Section 155-205.F(1) states street trees shall be planted by the developer along all public rights-of-way in compliance with Chapters 101 and 128 of the Lower

Merion Code. In locations where healthy and mature trees exist that comply with the street tree requirements, additional plantings are not required.

144. North testified that the proposed development will comply with all street tree requirements of this Section. Ex. A-24, 18.

I. Section 155-47.D: R 6A Residence Districts Use Regulations

145. Code § 155-47.D provides for sanatorium, nursing home, convalescent home or home for the aged, when authorized as a special exception, subject to the following additional restrictions: a lot area of not less than 1,200 square feet shall be provided for each bed.

146. The Proposed Development is classified as a “sanatorium, nursing home, convalescent home or home for the aged” for purposes of conditional use, according to the Zoning Officer (Ex. A-15,) and LCB also must seek a special exception from the

Zoning Hearing Board. LCB is committed to securing a special exception after conditional use approval. Additionally, Dinoulis testified that the proposed development satisfies the requirements of § 155-47.D(1) by having a lot area of 211,046 square feet, which provides at least 1,500 square feet of lot size per bed (at 96 beds, the minimum allowable lot size is 144,000 square feet), as shown on the site plan. Ex. A-6, 25-26; Ex.

A-8.

I. J. Sections 155-37 and 155-137.B-C: Building and Setback Requirements

147. The base building and setback requirements are set forth in Section 155-

34

115

37, however, the base building and setback requirements are modified by § 155-137.B-C, given the Proposed Development’s height greater than 65-feet, see infra.

148. Section 155-37.B: Height regulations state the height of any building permitted under this section shall not exceed 65 feet and shall conform to the provisions of § 155- 137 hereof for buildings in excess of 35 feet.

149. The Proposed Development satisfies the requirements of § 155-37.B with the building height of 65 feet as shown on the Site Plan and described in testimony of Dinoulis. Ex. A- 6, 29-30; Ex. A-8.

138. Section 155-37.A(1) regarding lot area and width states a lot area of not less than 5,000 square feet and a lot width of not less than 60 feet at the street line and extending from the street line to a point 25 feet beyond that point of the proposed building closest to the rear lot line shall be provided for every building hereafter erected or used for any use permitted in this district other than a single-family detached dwelling.

139. Dinoulis testified that the proposed development satisfies the requirements of § 155- 37.A(1) by having a lot area greater than 5,000 square feet and a lot width greater than 60 feet at the street line and extending from the street line to a point 25 feet beyond that point of the proposed building closest to the rear lot line. Ex. 6, 27-28; Ex. 8.

No other section modifies the requirements in § 155-37.A(1).

140. Building area is regulated by two ordinances:

Section 155-37.A(2) Building area. Not more than 30% of the area of each lot may be occupied by buildings. Section 155-137.C: Reduction of building area and impervious surface coverage for buildings, other than one- and two-family dwellings, in excess of 35 feet. The maximum building area and impervious surface coverage shall be decreased 1/4 of 1% of the lot area for each foot or portion thereof by which the building exceeds 35 feet in height.

35

116

141. The Proposed Development satisfies the requirements of §§ 155-37.A(2) and 155-137.C by occupying approximately 9.63% of the lot area, as Mr. Dinoulis testified. Starting with a base maximum of 30% building coverage, the maximum allowable building coverage of the proposed development is 24.75% because the apartment building is 65 feet in height. Ex. A-6, 31-32; Ex A-8.

142. The front yard is regulated by two code provisions:

Section 155-37.A(3): Front yard. There shall be a front yard on each street on which the lot abuts, the depth of which shall be at least 30 feet; Section 155-137.B(1): Front yard. The depth of the front yard shall be increased beyond the required front yard 1/2 foot for each foot or portion thereof by which the building exceeds 35 feet in height, beginning with the story in which the height of 35 feet is exceeded. 143. Dinoulis testified that the proposed development satisfies the requirements of

§§ 155-37.A(3) and 155-137.B(1) by having a front yard depth from Rock Hill Road of

66.5 feet and a front yard depth from Belmont Avenue of 112.3 feet. Starting with a minimum depth of at least 30 feet beginning from the street, the minimum allowable front-yard depth of the proposed development is 45 feet because the apartment building is

65 feet in height. Ex. A-6, 33-34; Ex. 8.

144. Side yard ordinances applicable to the Proposed Development are:

Section 155-37.A(4): Side yards. There shall be two side yards, one on each side of the principal building, neither of which shall be less than 20 feet wide; and

Section 155-137.B(3): Side yard. The width of the side yard, where required, shall be increased 1/2 foot for each foot or portion thereof by which the building exceeds 35 feet in height.

145. The proposed development satisfies the requirements of §§ 155-37.A(4) and

155-137.B(3) by having a side yard width from the proprietary boundary along Rock Hill

Road of 77.3 feet and a side yard width from the proprietary boundary along Belmont

36

117

Avenue of 224.8 feet. Starting with a minimum width of at least 20 feet, the minimum allowable side-yard width of the proposed development is 35 feet because the apartment building is 65 feet in height. Ex. A-6, 35-36; Ex. A- 8.

146. Rear yard ordinances applicable to the Proposed Development are:

Section 155-37.A(5): Rear yard. There shall be a rear yard, the depth of which shall be at least 25 feet; and.

Section 155-137.B(2): Rear yard. The depth of the rear yard shall be increased 1/2 foot for each foot or portion thereof by which the building exceeds 35 feet in height.

147. The Proposed Development satisfies the requirements of §§ 155-37.A(5) and

155-137.B(2) by having a rear yard with a depth of 180.1 feet. Starting with a minimum depth of least 25 feet deep, the minimum allowable rear yard depth of the proposed development is 40 feet because the apartment building is 65 feet in height. Ex. 6, 37-38;

Ex. 8.

148. Impervious surface codes applicable to the Proposed Development are:

Section 155-37.A(6): Impervious surfaces. No more than 40% of the area of each lot may be covered with impervious surfaces; provided, however, that the impervious surface on a lot on which a public school is operated may be expanded up to a maximum of 45% of the area of the lot if 100% of the volume of stormwater generated by any impervious surface in excess of 40% of the lot area is recharged for the one-hundred-year storm event; and

Section 155-137.C: Reduction of building area and impervious surface coverage for buildings, other than one- and two-family dwellings, in excess of 35 feet. The maximum building area and impervious surface coverage shall be decreased 1/4 of 1% of the lot area for each foot or portion thereof by which the building exceeds 35 feet in height.

149. Dinoulis testified that the proposed development satisfies the requirements of §§ 155-37.A(6) and 155-137.C by having 19.80% of the lot covered with impervious surfaces. Starting with a base maximum of 40% of impervious surface coverage, the

37

118

maximum allowable impervious surface coverage of the proposed development is

34.75% because the apartment building is 65 feet in height. Ex. A-6, 39-40; Ex. A-8.

150. The ordinance regulating the distance between buildings at the Proposed

Development:

Section 155-137.B(4): Distance requirements. The distance between two or more buildings on the same lot shall be a minimum of 35 feet or no less than the height of the taller building, whichever is greater.

151. The Proposed Development consists of only one building, so § 155-137.B(4) does not apply.

L. Conditional Use Application Procedure & Standards pursuant Code §155-141.2

152. The Applicant has complied with the requirements found in Code 155-

141.2(B), discussed in pertinent part, below.

153. The Applicant has established that the proposed senior living facility plan complies with the community development objectives as stated in Article I of Chapter

155, pursuant to §155-141.2(B)(1), through the testimony of Dinoulis, see Ex. A-6, 116-

125.

154. The Applicant has demonstrated compliance with conditions for the grant of conditional uses enumerated in that section which gives the Applicant the right to seek a conditional use, pursuant to §155-141.2(B)(2). Dinoulis testified that the Proposed

Development complies with the procedures and requirements for conditional use approval set forth in ROHO, Ex. A-6, 13-24.

155. The Applicant has adequately shown that the proposed senior living facility shall preserve the character of the neighborhood, pursuant to 155-141.2(B)(3).

Dinoulis testified that the Proposed Development preserves the character of the

38

119

neighborhood by meeting the architectural and design development standards of ROHO.

Ex. A-6, 98-99. Likewise, Breau testified the proposed apartment building will use natural materials historically found in ROHO such as natural stone to visually integrate with the neighborhood and harken back to historic mill usage. Additionally, the proposed development preserves Gulley Run and natural steep slopes and incorporates them into the design of the Proposed Development. Ex. A-11; A-12; see generally Ex. A-18, 10-11.

The proposed Pocket Park preserves and furthers the character of the neighborhood, as

Dinoulis and North testified. The Pocket Park will serve as the gateway to ROHO and

Lower Merion Township, and will add to the pedestrian network of the neighborhood.

Ex. A-6, 98-99; Ex. A-24, 10-11. Lastly, Doyle testified that the proposed senior living facility will preserve the character of the neighborhood by providing housing options to existing residents which will allow them to remain in the community. Ex. A-1, 11.

156. The Applicant has established through credible evidence that the proposed senior living facility shall be properly serviced by all existing public service systems.

The peak traffic generated by the use shall be accommodated in a safe and efficient manner or improvements made in order to effect the same, pursuant to 155-141.2(B)(4).

Three witnesses, Doyle, Dinoulis, and Kline testified that the proposed senior living facility satisfies these requirements. Ex. A-1,17; Ex. A-6, 100; Ex. A-27, 17-19.

According to Kline’s traffic impact assessment of the effects of the Proposed

Development, the peak traffic generated by the senior living facility will be accommodated in a safe and efficient manner. Ex. A-27, 11. Residents of a senior living facility tend to drive less than residents of other types of residential apartments, and those residents with vehicles will be provided with the required amount of parking. Existing

39

120

public transportation (bus and train) in close proximity can sufficiently service the

Proposed Development. Ex. A-29. The Proposed Development places no burden on the public school system since no school age children will reside there. Local public water, public sewer, police and fire services are all available for the Proposed Development.

157. The Applicant has shown through the testimony of Dinoulis and engineering site plans that the proposed senior living facility is properly designed with regard to internal circulation, parking, buffering and all other elements of proper land planning, pursuant to 155-141.2(B)(5). Moreover, the testimony and plans prepared by

North depict landscape buffering as well. Ex. A-24; Ex. A-26.

158. The Applicant has provided sufficient plans studies or other data to demonstrate compliance with the regulations for the permitted use or such regulations as may be the subject of consideration for a conditional use approval, pursuant to 155-

141.2(B)(6). The Applicant has provided engineering site plans; traffic impact assessment; and architectural renderings to support its application.

M. Satisfaction of Section 155-1: Purpose; Community Development Objectives.

159. Section 155-1.A states this chapter is enacted for the following purposes:

i. To protect and promote safety, health and morals. ii. To accomplish a coordinated development of this Township and adjacent municipalities. iii. To provide for the general welfare by guiding and protecting amenity, convenience and future governmental, economic, practical, social and cultural facilities, development and growth, as well as the improvement of governmental processes and functions. iv. To guide uses of land and structures and the type and location of streets, public grounds and other facilities v. To permit this Township and adjacent municipalities to minimize such problems as may presently exist or as may be foreseen.

40

121

160. The Proposed Development satisfies the requirements of § 155-1.A(1) by providing senior-living housing which is needed in the Township. Ex. 6, 116-17. The landscaped park area also contributes by providing green spaces in close proximity to the trailhead for the Cynwyd Heritage Trail, which encourages pedestrians to use the trail and participate in healthy activities. The landscaped park will also provide meaningful views of Gulley Run.

161. The Proposed Development satisfies the requirements of § 155- 1.A(2) by establishing pedestrian pathways which connect to adjacent municipalities, particularly the neighborhood of Manayunk in Philadelphia across the Schuylkill River. Ex. 6, 118-

19. The landscaped park area also provides a starting or finishing point for those on the

Cynwyd Heritage Trail, which connects pedestrians with other areas within the Township and to the Manayunk Bridge Trail. Additionally, senior-living housing is an unmet need throughout Southeast Pennsylvania, which ensures that the proposed development is not oversaturating the area with its proposed use.

162. The Proposed Development satisfies the requirements of § 155-1.A(3) by, in part, addressing the critical need of senior-living housing. Ex. 6, 120-21. Additionally, the proposed development will have a positive impact on the economic development within ROHO by providing jobs related to senior-living care and providing opportunities for business owners to cater to residents of the community and pedestrians attracted to the landscaped park. As Doyle testified, the meeting rooms on the first floor of the building, when not in use by the residents, will provide meeting spaces for social and cultural groups within the Township to meet.

163. New pedestrianways and a landscaped park area in the Proposed

41

122

Development will meet the requirements of § 155- 1.A(4) by contributing to the pedestrian-oriented goals of ROHO, as Dinoulis testified. Ex. 6, 122-23. The new pedestrianways link to adjacent properties and guides the development of ROHO into a pedestrian-friendly community. Additionally, the landscaped park area encourages other green spaces within ROHO as it extends the reach of the Cynwyd Heritage Trail through its proximity to the trailhead.

164. The Proposed Development satisfies the requirements of § 155-1.A(5) by providing more senior-living housing catered to the aging population. Ex. 6, 124-25.

Further, the proposed use minimizes the impact the Site could have on traffic within the

Township if a different use were proposed. Senior-living developments like the development proposed here have a low traffic footprint, and LCB’s traffic impact assessment concluded the development would have a minimal impact on traffic.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

165. LCB Senior Living, LLC’s proposed modern senior living facility, if approved, will meet two municipal needs: housing for senior citizens as documented in the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment of an important parcel in an existing underutilized industrial corridor into a gateway to Lower Merion Township as envisioned in the ROHO article of the zoning code. Well-designed senior living facilities with amenities for the public, such as green space, ten-foot wide sidewalks and landscaped verges along two roads, bike lanes and new connections to the Cynwyd Trail trailhead, will stimulate desired pedestrian activity in the ROHO district. Although the proposed use is strictly residential, rather than mixed use as preferred in the ROHO district, it fills an important existing gap in housing stock in the Township without impacting traffic or

42

123

local schools. Moreover, the public amenities will provide accessory recreational uses of the property which supplement the residential use. Lastly, it is slightly ironic that developing this property to the underlying zoning rather than ROHO will allow the majority of ROHO goals and objectives to be met, but we should take our zoning serendipity where we find it. In other words, it is further evidence that this project is well suited for the site.

166. It is recommended that the Board conclude LCB Senior Living, LLC may develop the property to the requirements of the underlying C2 zoning provisions, rather than the Rock Hill Overlay District (“ROHO”) provisions, pursuant to Lower Merion

Township Zoning Code § 155-200.B.2. provided that its land development application and associated plans comply with all specific requirements stated therein and comply with the attached conditions of approval,

167. For the reasons set forth above, the following Order is recommended to the Board of Commissioners.

ORDER

AND NOW on this ____ day of November 2017, this conditional use application is

granted, subject to the following conditions:

1. The applicant shall obtain a Special Exception from the Zoning Hearing Board for the proposed use prior to obtaining Preliminary Land Development Plan approval from the Board of Commissioners.

2. The applicant shall obtain approval from FEMA to redelineate the floodplain prior to obtaining Preliminary Land Development Plan approval from the Board of Commissioners.

3. The frontage of the property along Rock Hill Road and Belmont Avenue shall be landscaped to screen all parking and exterior loading areas, to protect and enhance Gulley Run and shall incorporate elements such as shade trees, native shrubs, seating walls, boulders and other decorative

43

124

elements consistent with the industrial heritage of the Rock Hill Road corridor.

4. The plan shall include pedestrian oriented gateway landscaping, interpretive signage and bicycle amenities in the design of the site, which links the proposed development to the streetscape.

5. The flume shall be incorporated into the design of the proposed project.

6. The applicant shall comply with the architectural design standards or shall seek conditional use with the Preliminary Plan application to deviate from the requirements.

7. The applicant shall demonstrate a plan to maximize access to the pocket park to encourage pedestrian access to Gulley Run given the existing features.

8. Trees in the verge and pocket park shall be sited away from overhead utility lines in the right of way to the greatest extent possible.

9. A cross-section across Rock Hill Road and through the site shall be provided with the land development application to help evaluate topographic changes.

This grant of Conditional Use approval is based on the documents and plans submitted in support of the application, all of which are specifically incorporated herein by reference thereto.

By: Pamela M. Loughman, Esq. Conditional Use Hearing Officer Township of Lower Merion

44

125 AGENDA ITEM INFORMATION

ITEM: PRELIMINARY LOT LINE CHANGE PLAN - 613 & 617 General Lafayette Road, Merion Station, SD# 3793, Ward 13

Consider for recommendation to the Board of Commissioners approval of a Preliminary Lot Line Change Plan dated September 11, 2017, last revised October 20, 2017 prepared by Yohn Engineering, LLC showing the transfer of two separate portions of land each totaling 1,317 square feet between the two properties and the relocation of a portion of existing fencing. The following conditions shall be complied with prior to recording the Final Plan by means of plan revision, completion or financial guarantee, unless specifically exempted.

Expiration Date – 12/11/2017…………………………………...... Zoning – R1/R2

Applicant: Pamela Loughman, Esquire Applicant's Representative: Pamela Loughman, Esquire & Alyson Zarro, Esquire Property Owners: Alyson and Michael Zarro,

The plan includes the following requested relief that has been recommended by the Planning Commission:

1. Subdivision & Land Development Code Section 135-35, to create an irregular lot line.

Township Engineer’s Review:

1. The Township Engineer’s review letter dated October 27, 2017 shall be incorporated by reference into these conditions of approval to the extent the same is not inconsistent with the conditions of approval set forth below.

Plan Requirements

2. The street name listed on the lot data/owner address shall indicate General Lafayette Road.

3. The addresses of the adjoining properties shall be listed on the plan.

4. Each property owner shall maintain the respective portion of the existing block wall that is on their property but shall not be prohibited from removing a portion of or all of the wall.

Standard Conditions of Approval:

5. New deeds shall be recorded subsequent to the recording of the Final Plan.

6. Two copies of the revised plan shall be submitted with all changes highlighted and a letter shall be provided indicating how each requested revision has been addressed.

7. The Final Plan, complying with all applicable conditions of approval shall be filed with the Department of Building and Planning within twelve (12) months from the date of approval by the Board of Commissioners.

126

8. Any changes to the approved plans shall require the submission of an as-built plan prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Building and Planning staff can waive this requirement if the changes are determined to be insignificant.

9. Existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting on the property. The address numbers shall be a minimum of four (4) inches (102mm) high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch (12.7mm).

10. The owner of 617 General Lafayette Road shall make payment of fees and expenses of the Township’s professional consultants who perform services on behalf of the Township with respect to these plans and the work contemplated thereunder and will establish and maintain with the Township those escrows for the payment of such fees required by Township Code. Owner agrees that any statement from the Township for such fees which remain unpaid for a period of 30 days may be recorded against the property as a municipal lien.

11. The owner of 617 General Lafayette Road shall make payment of the Township Engineer’s inspection fees within 30 days of presentation. A penalty of 1.5% per month will be due for late payments from the date of presentation. If any shares are not paid within 60 days of presentation, the Township may elect to suspend any outstanding permits until all pending charges are settled.

12. The property owner(s) shall comply with all applicable federal, state, county, local and Lower Merion Township ordinances and laws regardless of specific mention herein. PUBLIC COMMENT

127