Well, the Cafritz family will be updating our community next Saturday on the status of their project. Whether our much sought “input” has been considered as they revised the project is debatable. Apparently, the number of residential housing units has been roughly halved, while the commercial space remains the same (or slightly expanded).

Mmm, those traffic guys–were they listening? Has Traffic Wizard Wes Guckert magically rerouted traffic from the failed Route 1/410 intersection to accommodate additional commercial traffic?

It is the holiday season, so everyone’s getting together and doing the “hey, long time, no see” routine. But this update’s timing is a little odd. We can hope for nice cookies and all, but why now?

Turns out the clock is ticking. The Cafritz team suddenly realized that they needed to file for a rezoning ASAP, probably January 2009. Why? Oh, it takes a little while, sometimes 18 months. Out of respect for the electoral process (2010 is a local election year) the County Council, acting as District Council, stops reviewing development projects in April 2010. So, darn-they better hurry.

Please try to attend. But, we know (and they know), the timing is just horrendous. Here’s the Email Lady, just click to her to send a note to the Cafritz team–be sure to cc Council Member Eric Olson and Chief of Staff Dannielle Glaros of District 3. Ask the Cafritz team to post this presentation online immediately, let them know what you think of their plans and inquire about a second January presentation for the many folks who cannot attend. For your review: our past posts and the Cafritz team’s past presentations.

Well, what did you think? Let the Cafritz team and Eric Olson know. Send your questions and concerns to info@cafritzpop.com and send a cc to Eric Olson (this is a request from Olson’s office). Just click the Email Lady! Live outside District 3? Check here for addresses.

• Is the density right for this area?
• Are there too many units?
• What did you think of the scale of the project?
• What about the buildings’ height? What is an acceptable number of stories?
• Are the buildings’ locations tolerable for adjacent neighborhoods?
• Square footage–is it too much? Cafritz’s 225K + East Campus’ 500K + Univ. Town Center’s 225K + EYA’s 30-50K. That’s a lot of space and there is more mixed use coming up and down Route 1.
• How did you feel about the parking garages?
• Access to this project–is it livable for surrounding communities?
• Traffic–is it a deal breaker?
• How many trips will be generated by various uses?
• And schools?

Most importantly, is this a zoning change that should happen? Read about the zoning process here , but since this is a little out of date, take a look at current classes of zoning here. Let us know what you are thinking in the comments or email us at route1growthATgmail.com.

The next meeting is Tuesday, Sept. 18 from 7-9 pm and we urge you to attend. Questions you may wish to consider in forming an opinion are here. Here’s a summary of the Cafritz presentation, mostly by the numbers:

• 40-50,000 sq. feet, medium-sized grocery near Route 1 (no brand commitment)
• 150-225,000 sq. feet of retail
• 15-20 stores
• 3 parking garages (6 stories?)
• 1500-2000 housing units to include a mix of multi-family styles and town homes, housing for international scholars and seniors
• no single family detached homes per current zoning of R-55
• 8-12 story buildings (located closer to the tracks, of course)
• boutique hotel
• 3 access points–off of Route 1 (Van Buren and Underwood) and somewhere from the south
• LEED-ND guidelines development

Traffic: their solution is still top-secret due to negotiations with property owners (prior presentation here ). Grocery stores generate about 102 trip per 1000 sq. feet. (If it is an upscale store not found nearby, the number may be higher.) But that’s about 4,000-5,000 trips each day with 400-500 per hour during the afternoon rush.

Schools: use the same student yield formula as the school system, multiply .44 by the number of residential units. If you check the new CIP that is scheduled to be approved this week, you’ll notice that a Hyattsville area elementary school and high school have been delayed again. Both lack sites.

Retail: This amount is worth exploring in a larger Route 1 context. Where does the Cafritz project’s 200,000 sq. feet of retail + East Campus’ 500,000 sq. feet of retail leave our town centers that are struggling to revitalize or redevelop? Say I want to open a new independent business–where should I locate?

Do I choose space that is newly built out, up to code, ADA compliant with energy efficient HVAC and other systems, in a location offering critical retail mass and the valuable allure of the new…possibly with discounted rent (as mentioned Saturday)?

Or do I locate in the Riverdale Park struggling-to-revitalize town center with few healthy retail neighbors–but lots of historic character in older, perhaps dilapidated structures and space requiring expensive code updates and more before occupancy?

For a business person, this is a no-brainer. For Riverdale Park residents hoping to see the farmers market’s energy spread to those vacant buildings, this project should raise some serious concerns. What kind of retail do we want and need? Do we want these retail neighbors (from Cafritz retail consultant’s site)?

Jane Cafritz urged the audience to “stay with us” for the rest of the process, this was a “preliminary design plan,” not a final plan. Someone on the impressive development team did not get this memo, however. HO&C trumpets their work for a Major Private Developer:1400 units to break ground in summer 2008 and take 6 years to complete. Mmm…1400 units, perhaps that’s what they are willing to negotiate down to.

But breaking ground in summer 2008 is optimistic. The recent discovery of a primary document indicating the location of Indian burial grounds and slave dwellings on this property could slow things down substantially. A three part archaeological review will take time.

The presentation should be posted soon. Maybe they will fix the slides referring to Montgomery County’s Capital Crescent Trail. We have the College Park Trolley Trail and the Anacostia Tributary Trail System.

You can still see the old gate posts at the corner, hidden by a holly bush and a stand of bamboo. One post says Calvert, while the other reads Mac Alpine. They mark the entrance to Mac Alpine, the mansion once located at Route 1 and Albion Road.

I spent time in the University of Maryland archives this summer. I wanted to know more about this historic property that straddled the Cafritz and WMATA (Metro) parcels. Both are part of Riverdale Park. However, Albion is the southern boundary of the Calvert Hills neighborhood of College Park. Albion lies on a slope that crests at the Amherst-Pineway-Queen’s Chapel Road intersection and is known as Cat-Tail Hill. As recently as the 1970s, children sledded down Cat-Tail Hill. Here, the three “Parks” meet.

During my research, I was surprised to find a paper written in 1934 documenting much of the history and construction of Mac Alpine on Cat-Tail Hill.

Picturing Mac Alpine & Cat-Tail Hill
The paper includes a carefully rendered drawing (click for full image) noting an old “Indian burial ground” near the property of the Mac Alpine house at the corner of Route 1 and Albion Road. Three slave dwelling locations are also marked. A number of small outbuildings are indicated, including two well heads, several barns, an ice house and other farm structures.

What does this 1934 primary source mean for development of the Cafritz property? In 2005, Prince George’s County strengthened a key piece of historic preservation legislation. M-NCPPC now has this document in hand and will require a significant survey of the property by historic preservation professionals: specialists in archeology, anthropology, architectural history, historical agronomy, Prince George’s County culture and history.

Civil War & Reconstruction
The Mac Alpine mansion was built in 1867-1868 by Charles Baltimore Calvert, grandson of Rosalie Stier Calvert and Benedict Calvert of the lovingly restored Riversdale Mansion. The Riversdale plantation once extended nearly from Bladensburg to College Park. Riverdale Park, Calvert Hills in College Park, a chunk of University Park and much of the University of Maryland once were part of the Calvert estate. Division of the estate, first to children and then grandchildren, eventually yielded other sales and the development of neighborhoods and towns along Route 1, the old Baltimore-Washington Road.

Very little is known about Mac Alpine compared to the fascinating body of papers, artifacts and commentary on Riversdale. I had heard from long time residents and people active in historic preservation in Prince George’s County that some parts of Mac Alpine may have been designed or built by Benjamin Latrobe, architect of the Capital. Mac Alpine, demolished in the 1970s, was apparently a lovely and fascinating house, but was noticed too late by the emerging historic preservation effort.

I began my search to confirm the Latrobe question. Mac Alpine had a stupendous mantel of Tennessee marble, fitted with a “Latrobe Stove.” But this stove was not an architectural masterpiece of Benjamin Latrobe. Rather, Latrobe’s son, John Hazlehurst Boneval Latrobe, invented this stove, which was widely used in the East until the move away from wood heat to coal heat. Mac Alpine featured custom faux wood grain painted by the son of the Mr. Day who frescoed many of the walls in the Capital Building.

Occupied Long Before 1868
The document continues with fascinating details of a working farm. The Calverts were instrumental in founding the Maryland Agricultural College, later renamed the University of Maryland.

But the most intriguing and important details for proposed development concern both text and renderings that note:

• the presence of the foundations of three slave cabins on the property
• the “rumor” of an Indian burial ground to the north and right of the house’s front porch
• buildings on Cat-Tail Hill before Mac Alpine.

Here are the text references from Phillips, Jack W. — The history and construction of Mac Alpine, 1934:

• At the time that the Mac Alpine was built there were at least three slave cabins on the property. They were built of logs plastered with mud, but have since been burnt by sparks from the Baltimore and Ohio railroad trains setting fields on fire. It is interesting to note that although the slaves were set free at the time of the Civil War, Mrs. Calvert’s maid, Sarah Taylor, stayed and continued as her maid for many years.
• There is a rumor that there was once an Indian burying ground in the grove of trees just northeast of the house. This is unconfirmed, but Mr. George H. Calvert, Jr., remembers that often, when ditches were dug on the farm, arrowheads and tomahawks were found…
• Before the house had been built (Mac Alpine) there had been a house occupied by a foreman of the old Riversdale Estate, on almost the same spot.

See you at the Cafritz meeting Saturday or Tuesday.–MbS

This weekend the Cafritz Property development team will unveil their concept plan for the 35.8 acre site.
Sat., Sept. 15 10-12 am
Tues., Sept. 18 7-9 pm
Riverdale Elementary School, 5006 Riverdale Road, Riverdale Park, MD.

Expect it to be heavy on retail and very dense. This site is just a couple acres smaller than East Campus…where 2000 units of housing and lots of retail are planned. We will be spared another round of “stations.” Instead, the team will make a short presentation followed by a lengthy questions and answer period. We hope for greater detail and substance than past presentations.

Our previous Cafritz posts may provide a starting place as you consider our community’s future. But we need to look beyond the Cafritz Property and to the growth taking place up and down the Route 1 corridor. The number of units, approved and planned, is truly amazing. Rethink College Park did a quick rundown almost a year ago and this does not include the recently approved Landy Property’s 1200 units and EYA’s expansion–or Univ. Town Center.

While the Whole Foods repeatedly mentioned by the team may belong somewhere nearby, it–and other destination retail–does not belong on this site. The site’s location, just north of the failing intersection of Route 1 and 410, makes this type of development unworkable. Access is limited–all vehicular traffic would end up on Route 1 alone. There is no alternate route. Those of you caught in the recent traffic jam that turned Route 1 from 495 to this property into a parking lot, may understand most clearly what our future could look like. A small amount of retail that is attractive to the immediate area may be tolerable, but anything more will simply cannibalize Riverdale Park, Hyattsville and College Park’s efforts to revitalize or redevelop their town centers.

Who would live at Cafritz? Perhaps County Council Member Eric Olson’s first thought is worth revisiting–an active 55+ community might be interested in the town homes, condos and apartments proposed at the last set of meetings. Our county has relatively few 55+ developments. Take a look at our county’s age distribution.* You’ll note a bubble approaching 55, but where have all our boomers gone?
Age Estimate Percent
Age 0 – 4 65,691 7.67%
Age 5 – 9 60,988 7.12%
Age 10 – 14 63,164 7.38%
Age 15 – 17 37,838 4.42%
Age 18 – 20 40,776 4.76%
Age 21 – 24 48,374 5.65%
Age 25 – 34 116,029 13.56%
Age 35 – 44 131,920 15.41%
Age 45 – 49 66,485 7.77%
Age 50 – 54 58,694 6.86%
Age 55 – 59 50,890 5.95%
Age 60 – 64 38,836 4.54%
Age 65 – 74 46,255 5.40%
Age 75 – 84 22,035 2.57%
Age 85 and over 7,997 0.93% Source: Claritas, 2007.
Think about it—if we are to approve a zoning change, discarding the current single family homes and allowing mixed-use, higher density development, it has to be with the special circumstances, constraints and opportunities unique to this site in mind. Our schools are overcrowded with nothing solid in the CIP pipeline. The nature of high-density development’s typical residents—fewer families with children—may be a sound argument in some areas. But in the Cafritz Property’s immediate neighborhood, it is not clear that this argument holds true.

Economic realities also must be considered: the condo market has tanked, sales at other Route 1 developments have languished and credit is harder to come by–for us and developers. Infrastructure investments are necessary to accommodate current residents. Do we have the community will and the fiscal means necessary to make solid, sustainable infrastructure improvements to create truly transit-oriented development?

*Edited 9/10, table was incomplete previously.

Calvert Hills is a small section of College Park situated between the famed Cafritz property and the Old Town of College Park. In 2003, the neighborhood was placed on the National Register of Historic Places. The neighborhood’s defining feature is the old trolley trail, a raised berm that was recently upgraded with a $90,000 grant from the State of Maryland. Many people probably see our section of the trail as just another segment on the greater bike trail system. Plans are underway to extend the trail to the south to Riverdale and possibly beyond. With the development of the Cafritz property and points south, I fear Calvert Hills will be viewed as a potential transportation link connecting the new commercial areas. Route 1 is at capacity and it would be easy to look to other routes to connect these areas.

To Calvert Hills residents, the trolley trail path is not just a passage, but a valued destination, a “place” in and of itself. The “bike path” is one of the few spots you see kids playing. Neighbors congregate in the evening, walking dogs or steadying toddlers on bikes. Sometimes you have to dodge an ad hoc skate park created by neighborhood kids and there are often chalk designs drawn on the pavement. Pirate flags appear on occasion. Many of our neighborhood traditions focus on the bike path–for example, our annual summer block party and our New Year’s Eve progressive party with midnight fireworks and trumpet serenade on the path. It would be an adjustment to have strangers walking and biking through our neighborhood but I think most folks in Calvert Hills will accept the bike trail extension.

And what about the Cafritz property? That’s a mixed bag. It has languished with old broken pavement and pipes, a ratty fence, and trash strewn along Route 1. A scrappy path has been worn along the curb as a substitute for a sidewalk. On rainy days, people walk in the road to avoid the mud on their way to College Park. Homeless people camp in the woods on the property. But farther down the property there is a beautiful meadow that goes down to the tracks with remnants of old roses and herds of deer go bounding over the remains of the trolley trail. Something could be done to enhance the value of this property for the good of the community.

However, the development of housing on the Cafritz property threatens the stability of our community. The potential impact on our children and their school is serious. Calvert Hills children have attended University Park Elementary for over thirty years, ever since College Park Elementary was closed. Twice in the recent past, our community has fought off efforts to bus our kids to far flung elementary schools. Both plans would have required traveling north past the East Campus development and University of Maryland traffic. If even the currently zoned single family homes are built in the Cafritz property, our students would probably be bounced to another school–with the Cafritz homes.

One thing that puzzles me is how all the local development can be approved without an adequate school plan in place. When the impact on schools is raised, the only response heard is that the developers pay a schools impact fee to the County. But there seems to be a disconnect between where the impact fees are collected and where Board of Education construction is planned . In the most recent school boundary battle, it was obviously a painful process to decide how to allocate students to the already overcrowded local schools. People who live in all this “upscale” housing will want quality public schools. Yet both public and private local schools are filled to the brim. For example, Hyattsville Middle school has ten temporaries and there are plans to move sixth graders from the local elementary schools there to accommodate pre-school programs at the elementary level. The high school planned for our area went elsewhere.

Can we believe the Cafritz family’s promises to add to our community rather than destroy it? In a Jane Austen novel, the young protagonist is often faced with determining true goodness from the appearance thereof. Were that Jane were here today.–AR, Calvert Hills

Let’s examine the possibility of the Cafritz Property development including a Whole Foods. Many area residents might enjoy having a Whole Foods nearby—especially for rushed weeknight dinners. But are we ready for all the additional traffic?

If we give Whole Foods the benefit of the doubt and assume that their store will be at the small end of the scale, only 40,000 square feet, let’s think about how many trips might be generated each day as people drive to this new destination. (We’ve heard it will be 42,000 square feet, but we are generous folk.)

Supermarkets do about 102 car trips per 1,000 square feet. So, if this is a 40,000 SF Whole Foods, you are looking at 4,000 car trips a day, and about 500/hour during the peak afternoon rush. The source for these two figures is the traffic impact bible for planners and engineers: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation , 7th Ed., 2003.

However, Whole Foods real estate criteria and existing store data make us believe that they pull from a larger geographic area and have customers that are willing to drive a greater distance, thus would generate more trips, than say, Giant. In Austin, Texas, Whole Foods has a smallish store, only 30,000 square feet. There, over 3,800 trips are made daily.

Route 1 is already overloaded. The State Highway Administration has determined that Route 1 is pretty much at capacity and its intersections are operating at a level of service that would receive a classroom grade of an E or F. This is permissible only because the state and county hope to push Metro use.

However, Whole Foods real estate criteria make it clear that they prefer stand alone stores with parking dedicated to their customers. Route 1 and 410 are both heavily traveled roads that meet at a failing intersection–that is about to become worse with the addition of Wachovia’s drive through lanes. The Cafritz site’s proximity to the intersection should be a real source of concern.

To make this project work–if a zoning change is granted–will require something more than the transit adjacent development style that’s been deemed acceptable thus far in the Route 1 corridor. The Cafritz team will need to address the number of trips generated by future residents and a Whole Foods (or other retail). Transit oriented development should limit parking and push users (commercial or resident) towards Metro.

Well, temporarily at least. The Landy and Cafritz developments have been approached very differently. But both are adjacent to communities of single family homes and will have large impacts on their neighbors. The Cafritzes invited us to dream a bit, perhaps because they wish to change their zoning. At Thursday’s summation meeting, community input was recapped with a PowerPoint, brownies were served, schmoozing took place.

First, former students and colleagues of Cafritz architects Matt Bell, a specialist in high density developments, and custom and affordable housing specialist Ralph Bennett’s are taking bets that 3 plans already exist, with 3 iterations of each. Now Matt and Ralph take our comments, see what elements work with the client’s goals and produce a plan–that attempts to build the political coalition that will allow the zoning change and eventual approval.

Second, before a zoning change or approval, as residents of the Route 1 community, we need to ask ourselves some questions.

• Do we want a commercial area with Whole Foods (or any destination store) and the additional traffic it would bring to this area? Would East Campus be a better site for Whole Foods? It is accessible from Kenilworth and Route 1.
• How will the Cafritz residents move (from apartments, condos, town homes) to the Metro? Will they be providing a shuttle? Is this a Transit Oriented Development with limited parking?
• Would this development be more acceptable to its neighbors if the Cafritz family acquired an adjacent property to provide access from 410 or River Road (see slideshow)?
• Will this be a sustainable, green development (preferably LEED Platinum) that preserves a decent percentage of green space?
• Could this property, its developer and a new process incorporate the community’s will and desires, perhaps setting a standard for the county?
• What can we learn from other communities with infill development or redevelopment underway?
• What cumulative impact will this and other developments have (see our development page)?
• What do we want the Route 1 corridor to look like in 5 years? 15?

Planning is a highly political process, thus the Cafritz interest in a) community input, b) smart p.r., c) appeasement or d) all of the above. It’s still early, so you can make your choice later. But let’s do our homework and think about the bargaining chips we have as residents–what do we want?

The Landy property has preliminary approval but has undergone multiple revisions and will be discussed next week–tell your neighbors and bring a friend. The staff report is due 6/27. Maybe there will be brownies?

We’ll have to discuss schools later. Add your questions to the list in the comments.

A guest blogger joins us today to pose some excellent questions. We share former Hyattsville council member Chris Currie’s thoughts on the Cafritz property and other area developments below (previously posted to HOPE list).

My views on urban planning were largely formed as a child witnessing the growth of suburban Detroit. It was a clinic on what not to do to create healthy, vibrant communities. One particular memory I have from my late teens was a newspaper report on the rapid advance of commercial blight in Detroit’s inner suburbs. At that time, experts said that the commercial dead zone was expanding outward from Detroit at the rate of one mile per decade. The primary reasons? Unrestrictive zoning and the seemingly inexhaustible supply of flat, buildable greenfields in southeastern Michigan. There was no incentive to redevelop existing retail/office districts when it was so cheap, easy and profitable to build new ones.

That reminds me a little of the prevailing conditions in the inner-Beltway Route 1 area. Look first at what EYA is trying to do. They had to buy existing commercially-zoned land at the premium price such sites command. Then they had to raze existing structures and do environmental abatement. Then they had to create a development proposal within the constraints of a detailed zoning master plan, with all of its attendant expensive conditions. Now they are trying to lure wary retailers with incentives and somehow they also have to turn a profit. (The way they are doing that is by maximizing the number of housing units, but that’s another story.)

Then look at the Cafritz property. Zero cost basis for the land. A rare greenfield tract in a developed area–a clean site almost ready to build on. The zoning is R-55 for single family detached residential, but the owners will apply to have it rezoned to fit nicely with whatever it is they want to do there.

Now it is easy to see what Mayor Bill Gardiner means about Cafritz having “competitive advantages” over Arts District Hyattsville, Riverdale Park Town Center or University Town Center (UTC). And why he–and others–are concerned about the potential adverse impacts of creating new, cheap-to-develop commercial districts in an area where the existing centers are struggling and vulnerable–particularly on Rte. 1. The laws of economics indicate that our under-served area will attract new retailers to serve the existing and emerging market. But where we will allow them will have very much to do with whether the final result is a vibrant, sustainable community or another sad rerun of the failed development patterns on Route 1 from time immemorial.

The rumors are that Whole Foods wants a location close to the University of Maryland. That doesn’t surprise me. Several years ago, when I learned Wegman’s Food Market was planning to enter the Washington market, I called their site selection manager and talked up the (then) Lustine tract. Unsurprisingly, he told me that our income levels were too low and the site not quite large enough (they wanted 18 full acres). But he did ask me how far the site was from the university campus, telling me that they would relax the demographic requirements to get a site close to the school. He said that upscale grocers typically do better near college campuses.

Whole Foods has a choice between the Cafritz property and the East Campus site, which is contiguous to the campus and in an existing commercial district. The latter site is also better situated with respect to income and educational attainment levels within a three-mile radius. The chief advantage of Cafritz would seem to be the low cost of the development and therefore the more greatly discounted prospective rents. If I’m on the site selection team for Whole Foods, I’m thinking this: Play Cafritz’s low-ball offer against East Campus to strengthen my negotiating position and get a better deal on the site I really want.

If that’s the scenario, is Cafritz the loser? Not necessarily. Whole Foods is the lure that gains community acceptance for a radical up-zoning of the parcel, which in turn allows for much greater returns on other development. Building stores, offices and condos will make them more money than single-family homes. (But rest assured they would make good money either way.)

Therein lies my chief concern. Right now there is a very successful, economically productive single-family residential district nearly surrounding the Cafritz property. It’s not an urban residential district–it’s a more suburban model. One that values lower density, less congestion, low crime, quiet and serenity. If you develop a high-density mixed-use center in the middle of it–particularly one anchored by a big-box tenant–you are going to permanently alter the character of that community. There will be significant impacts in terms of traffic, noise, crime, litter and light pollution. Impacts that are tolerable in a more urban setting, such as Arts District Hyattsville, but much less so in that community. There is a danger that the surrounding neighborhoods might begin to decline (even as other communities’ commercial districts also decline as a result of competition from the new commercial center).

Although one might argue that from Hyattsville’s parochial point of view, we shouldn’t be too concerned about maintaining the character of that community if new amenities can be put there that will serve ours, I would respond that there is a symbiotic relationship between the two now that can be damaged if everyone is not careful. Hyattsville is primarily a community of “starter housing”–and is becoming ever more so with the influx of new townhomes, condos and apartment housing. I think we all know families who have moved to University Park or College Heights as their families have grown. There is an increasing shortage of “move-up housing” here in Hyattsville, which makes it all the more important for community stability (all of our Route 1 communities share a common thread) to have such options nearby. In terms of the overall housing mix, putting high-quality single-family-detached homes on the Cafritz site will help restore balance to our market, while putting more high-density attached or multifamily housing will make the imbalance worse than it already is.

And we should also not forget that the prospective customers for new retail at UTC and Arts District Hyattsville (and patrons of Renaissance Square’s forthcoming YMCA) may come from new homeowners in the Cafritz development, as customers for places like Franklin’s do now come from those neighborhoods north of East-West Highway.

I think there are a number of good things that are emerging from the community feedback process–like the Trolley Trail, historical markers, retention of a tree buffer on Route 1, etc. They are all consistent with having a development with lower-density housing as its primary component. We should be careful, in my opinion, not to focus on one retailer, nor should we view this development in isolation–away from the context of the character of surrounding neighborhoods and from nearby commercial centers.–Chris Currie

I attended the Cafritz development community input meeting last Saturday and wanted to post an overview for other community members.

Jane and Calvin Cafritz, two members of the Cafritz family, opened with a welcome. The team members running the workshop portion were friendly and appeared interested to hear public comments. As an added bonus, doughnuts, coffee and lunch were served.

The format is described by the Cafritz development group as a workshop and, therefore, the meeting portion ran no more than fifteen minutes. During this time, the development team presented a short history of the property and an overview of the team’s values. These values included: linking the adjacent communities, creating a high quality retail area, developing a pedestrian friendly community, incorporating arts facilities, enhancing open spaces and providing a choice of diverse housing.

The remaining time was dedicated to public input. The workshop was organized in small stations where members of the development team discussed public input on key aspects of the prospective project. The topics included: history, livability, environmental sustainability, business retail, transportation, WMATA Site (13 acres of Metro land directly north of the Cafritz property), culture and community, open spaces, and placemaking (creating a destination for recreation, shopping, etc). Additional discussion on these topics can be found at Rethink College Park and The RP Coffeehouse. Here’s a pdf of the Cafritz program.

My overall impressions were positive and I felt that the development team was interested in engaging the public in this discussion. County Council member Eric Olson termed the outreach unique and important. Although no development plans have yet been filed, one must keep in mind that the development group does have a vision for the property. Certainly the selected team members, the stated values and the workstation topics lead me to believe that this project will tend towards high-density development. The very point of having the community input meetings is to modify the original single family zoning.

I am encouraged by the inclusion of green space and livability concerns in the core values of the development team. To what extent these topics will impact the overall development may very well depend on public comment. Now is the time to have your opinion heard. I urge you to attend the next public workshop on Thursday, June 7, 7 pm-9 pm at Riverdale Park Elementary School.–Michelle H.

Addendum During her summation as the workshop wrapped up, Jane Cafritz identified the following themes that had emerged during the day: creating a sense of a village, familiarity, kid-safe environment, pedestrian friendly, diverse non-chain retail and restaurants, and connectivity-bringing together “the Parks” (College, Riverdale & University).