Rethink College Park

One of the most important policies relating to the future of downtown College Park continues to make its way through a convoluted approval process that involves more lawyers than College Park Residents.

When it is implemented, the Old Town Historic District will require property owners within the designated area (shown on a map here) to apply to the County’s Historic Preservation Commission for a special permit before major construction, alteration, or demolition of any buildings. It is difficult, but not impossible, for a property owner to demolish a historic structure under the county’s law. A section of the district is sandwiched between East Campus and the Terrapin Trader facility, envisioned as a potential phase three to the East Campus project.

If implemented, the policy could effectively prohibit many of the ideas discussed during the College Park charrette, such as adding new development along corridors to connect the Metro station and Downtown. Although the criteria for new construction are designed to be flexible, the Design Guidelines prepared for the area by a city contractor describes the generally low-density character of the contributing resources. At the very least it would create additional regulations for any property owner seeking to develop in the area.

After it was approved by the city and HPC in 2006 the law has been appealed twice by a group including the Prince George’s Property Owner’s Association. Under county law, appeals relating to land use are first heard by the Zoning Hearing Examiner (ZHE). After the first appeal the ZHE ordered the city to take measures to better inform property owners including signs in the Old Town neighborhood. The decision from the second appeal was released on September 26th, and both parties have appealed the decision to the County Council. The council will hear the case at 10 a.m. on Monday, November 19th in Upper Marlboro. Issues of contention in the second appeal include what standards should apply to new construction, and whether a local advisory committee should weigh in on issues not concerning existing historic buildings.

Already a controversy has arisen about the long vacant Sigma Chi fraternity house, which county officials have prohibited the fraternity from demolishing. We hope property owners, renters, and others get involved now to learn about the impact of the policy so when it is implemented there are no surprises.

> Read the ZHE’s 9-26 Decision
> Our Old Town Historic District Library Page

The East Campus Community Review Steering Committee has been meeting since August to hear from the developers and their consultants about a wide variety of issues surrounding the project. We have encouraged our readers to attend these meetings (and many have) and I am an official committee member of this committee. The meetings are preceded by a “student focus group” between graduate and undergraduate students and university officials.

While we have published several items related to the project, I thought it was time for a summary of some of the news that has been discussed at these meetings. Most of the supporting documents have been posted to the East Campus website, and offer a variety of additional information.

Two issues were discussed at the previous (October 8th) meeting about transportation. First, several members of the committee strongly opposed vehicular connections between Old Town and the East Campus project. As I described in a previous post, I believe these streets should be open and strategies used elsewhere to control traffic would alleviate resident’s fears. Second, Foulger-Pratt announced they wanted to design the project choosing the Paint Branch Alignment for the Purple Line. The Maryland Transit Administration’s preferred light rail route is straight through the project, the location that makes the most sense from a planning point of view. The route through the project has been assumed in all the discussions previous to this month. We strongly feel the reasons cited by Foulger-Pratt are not satisfactory and will present a full description of why after Monday’s meeting.

Here’s a summary of some of the most germane issues discussed. All of this is subject to change.

City Demands
The “city” (it is unknown who precisely this means) has submitted a letter with requirements for the project to the University and the developer. This document has not been made public, making it difficult for us to evaluate the nature of the requests. It seems clear the project will need some type of public financing (such as a TIF) and will need city approval and support.

Parking
The parking garages will be embedded within blocks where possible. While they had released graphics showing precise numbers of spaces, they declined to discuss them at last week’s meeting saying they wanted to wait until the traffic study had been completed. The developers are negotiating with county officials about the scope of the traffic study they will complete.

Housing
Specifically for graduate students, the project will include 75 units of 2 bedroom graduate housing priced at $900 per person, and 75 units containing five bedrooms that will rent at $650 per person. This is similar to was it required by the RFP. In total, the project will contain roughly 2,000 units of housing, all rental, although not designed specifically for undergraduates. This housing will be priced at “market rate.”

Retail Mix
The “anchor tenants” at the project include roughly 175,000 square feet of retail. They are a movie theater (now perhaps replaced by the Birchmere Theater), a gym, book store, and grocery store. The preferred grocer mentioned is Whole Foods. There will also be a childcare center for children under 3 years old. Other tenants will include a variety of restaurants, neighborhood retail, and destination retail. There will be no bars in the project.

Other Considerations
The project will be under the jurisdiction of the UMD police. The developer has committed to a LEED Silver standard, although hedged about whether they would commit to applying to the USGBC for the official certification.

With College Park’s Old Town Historic District nearing final approval with county officials, the first public controversy regarding a property in the district has emerged.

We had previously reported that the Old Town Historic District faced an additional hearing with the Prince George’s County Zoning Hearing Examiner’s (ZHE) Office. In response to complaints from some landlords and others who object to the district, the ZHE had already ordered the city to re-post signs announcing the creation of the district in the Old Town neighborhood. After months of delay, we recently received this notice announcing the hearing will be held on Thursday, April 19th in the County Administration Building in Upper Marlboro.

The Diamondback reported that the long vacated (and burned) Sigma Chi fraternity wants to demolish their building, located at 4600 Norwich Road. The fraternity argues the structure is damaged and doesn’t fit modern student’s needs. Meanwhile, preservationists like District 3 Councilperson Stephanie Stullich argue the 1930s colonial revival structure contributes to the character of the neighborhood and can be salvaged. The county’s Historic Preservation Commission generally only permits demolitions in rare cases, but does not regulate the interior design of structures. The HPC will hear the case on April 17th at 7:00 p.m., during their April meeting where two other applications for work permits in College Park will considered, both for fences.

Once the district is approved the city will be forming a local advisory committee, so property owners interested in having feedback in the process should stay tuned.

> Library: Old Town Historic District
> View a map of the properties included in the district

The University of Maryland’s Department of Public Safety has recently established the ‘preferred’ route from the University of Maryland Campus to the College Park Metro stop through a partnership between the University of Maryland and the City of College Park. This route has been given increased lighting, additional emergency phones and landscaping improvements in order to improve public safety and eventually clarify a walking route from the Metro station to the university.

The Department of Public Safety recommends (for your safety):

• Avoid walking alone
• Avoid using electronic devices that impair your senses
• Use police escorts
• Keep your eye on the blue-light phones
• Stay away from suspicious vehicles and persons

Hopefully this first preferred path is only the start to a network of ’safe’ roads in College Park. While we’re glad that there is interest in clarifying the pedestrian-heavy route between the campus and the metro, there are plenty of other well-traveled roads to the metro that are not included in this plan. Knox and Hartwick Roads in particular, both connect to major student housing (students are likely the most at risk group) areas on the west side of Route 1, angle towards the metro on the east side, and are some of the most recognizable street names in the city. Neither of them are part of this preferred path. Knox Road would be the most logical path for late nighttime bargoers. We also question the rational for identifying the west half of Calvert Road as a preferred route from campus. Calvert Road does not come within several blocks of campus and also fails to connect with most of the major student developments closest to campus.

Hopefully the future plans of the Department of Public Safety include programs that would increase the amount of foot traffic along these pedestrian routes. Lighting and new landscaping is great, but more ‘eyes on the street’ in sparsely populated Old Town would help reduce crime over the long term.

As anyone familiar with College Park’s neighborhoods knows, in some neighborhoods officials gone to great lengths to limit traffic on residential streets. Although most were developed with interconnected, gridiron street networks, over the years many streets have been cut off totally or made one way.

The result is what one local resident calls a “traffic labyrinth” where visitors are often bewildered and ask for directions to find a house or even to find the exit. Ironically, the parochial interest in reducing traffic on residential streets may be causing larger traffic headaches on Route 1. Hierarcheal street systems designed around collector roads are notorious for their congestion, since the collector road must carry high volumes of traffic and the entire system is highly sensitive to any problems with the connector roads. In plain English, grid systems like Washington, D.C., allow more drivers to get to more places with fewer back-ups. Urbanists have long argued that grid street designs encourage walking, since the many connections allow walkers to take the shortest routes.

How can College Park get more connected? The boldest plan might involve opening many streets at once for a test period to measure the impact. Because this approach would likely prove politically and financially unfeasible, a more selective approach could work. Although open only to pedestrian and bicycle traffic, the city’s Trolly Trail we discussed yesterday connects the various segments along the old route of Rhode Island Avenue, enhancing access to many neighborhoods. We hope the city better marks and promotes this recently developed trail.

We also strongly support introducing a grid street system in the East Campus development connecting both to Route 1, Paint Branch Parkway, and the Old Town neighborhood. (Indeed, many early proposals used in university documents show such a design) We think additional intersections on Paint Branch Parkway in particular could slow traffic in the area, enhance walkability, and ease traffic congestion on Route 1.

Although it has taken a bit longer than we expected, we finally completed locating and uploading digital copies of many of the plans and drawings produced during the 2006 SGA College Park Charrette. We have created a library page for the event spearheaded by former SGA president Andrew Rose and containing a presentation he created summarizing the outcome of the forum and charrette events. That page contains one image from each team, all of the images are viewable through our Flickr account.

Many of the drawings contain ideas about how to better connect the College Park Metro Station to campus for pedestrians, ideas that could be threatened or complicated by the College Park Historic District now under consideration. Some of the teams also tackled East Campus - a project we expect the University to announce a development partner for this semester.

A proposed Old Town College Park Historic District could prevent or slow new, pedestrian-scale development connecting the campus and downtown to the Metro station. The proposed district includes structures on both sides of Calvert Road, a street several groups from last spring’s design charrette targeted for dense development to create a pedestrian corridor running from the Metro station to downtown, the Knox Road area, and the campus.

If approved, the historic district would require all property owners within the district boundary — whether or not their property was identified as “historic” — to obtain a special “Historic Area Work Permit” from the County before engaging in any type of construction. Owners of “historic” properties would be eligible for tax credits/incentives on approved restoration and construction projects. When the City Council approved the nomination at their May 9, 2006 meeting several citizens spoke against the proposal, calling the additional permits that would be required a “hardship,” “headache” and “hassle,” and complaining it could be difficult to find contractors familiar with historic district restrictions. Several speakers cited a poll that found a majority of homes in the proposed district area did not want the district, although the minutes record the Old Town Civic Association submitted a letter in support of the district.

According to information provided to us by city planner Elisa Vitale, the historic district was conceived in 2000 by city officials and approved in 2004 by the county. However, she describes what happened after an appeal:

The HPC decision was appealed and the case was forwarded to the Zoning Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner heard the case, and issued her decision in November of 2005. This decision upheld the designation of the area as a historic district as appropriate, but recommended that the case be remanded to the HPC due to failure of HPC staff to follow notice requirements. On March 13, 2006, the District Council heard oral arguments on the ZHE’s recommendation. On March 27, 2006, the District Council issued an order of remand and returned the case to the HPC. The HPC held a second a public hearing on the proposed district on June 1, 2006, and again voted in favor of designating the district. The HPC also adopted the revised
Design Guidelines.

However, the June 1 decision has been appealed and will return to the Zoning Hearing Examiner. They have not yet set a hearing date, although we will post here when we hear when the date is set. We imagine this issue has proven so controversial because it involves not only historic preservation but also the property values of property owners, and whether or not the number of renters will increase in the neighborhood.

To read more about the restrictions of a Historic District, see the proposed design guidelines for Old Town, or view a map of the proposed district visit the new Old Town Historic District page in our library.