After Seven Hours of Testimony, Cafritz Hearing Recessed to Feb. 2
Thursday's marathon session wrapped up in the wee hours of Friday.
Editor's note: Below are updates from Thursday's Cafritz rezoning hearing before the Prince George's County Planning Board. Posts are organized in reverse chronological order.
--------
• 12:20 a.m.: That's a wrap!
Seven hours and 18 minutes after it began, the planning board's hearing on the Cafritz rezoning plan is officially in recess.
The hearing will resume at 10 a.m. on Feb. 2, giving the planning department time to conduct a detailed review of the conditions agreed to by the developer.
"We have heard a lot that we need to give the staff a chance to consider," Vice Chairman Dorothy Bailey said.
Additional testimony will be heard on Feb. 2 if it is confined specifically to those conditions, Bailey said. The board will also accept further written comments from the public through Jan. 20.
• 12:10 a.m.: Proffered conditions
Chip Reed says he believes that all of the consensus conditions are enforceable by the planning board, as the developer officially proffered them to the towns.
County planner Susan Lareuse says the planning department staff has not had an opportunity to fully vet those conditions yet.
• 12:07 a.m.: Chip Reed returns
Cafritz attorney Chip Reed returns to the mic after no further members of the public rise to comment.
• 12:02 a.m.: 'Positions of accountability'
Riverdale Park councilman Jonathan Ebbeler (Ward 1) argues in favor of the rezoning plan, citing the unusual level of cooperation between the surrounding municipalities in drafting conditions for the development.
"There are positions of accountability at every stage," Ebbeler says.
• 11:44 p.m.: 'Traffic is not just an annoyance'
Clark Weaver, a University Park resident and scientist at the Goddard Earth Sciences and Technology Center, presents a study showing an increase in Asthma cases among those who live close to roadways.
Weaver warns that the increase in traffic from the Cafritz development could heighten that effect for surrounding residents.
"Traffic is not just an annoyance … there are concrete effects that epidemiologists are all too aware of," Weaver says.
• 11:31 p.m.: 'The right project'
Former Riverdale Park Town Administrator Patrick Prangley emphatically urges the board to approve the rezoning plan, calling the Cafritz project "the right project for the right location."
"Route 1 will be the envy. It will really be something to be proud of," Prangley says.
"It will lead to other high-quality retailors and restaurants wanting to come to the county," he adds.
• 11:11 p.m.: It's getting late
Six hours in, the size of the audience has declined a bit to about 50 people.
• 11:02 p.m.: 'We must strike a careful balance'
Citing "a lack of quality retail options and lack of quality development" in Prince George's County, Brad Frome—deputy chief of staff for County Executive Rushern Baker—encourages the planning board to approve the rezoning.
Frome calls the approvals of the Riverdale Park and University Park councils "a testament that their concerns, as with ours, were taken into account."
"While we will not settle, and we have not and will not with this project, we must strike a careful balance of working with the private sector to embrace their investment," he adds.
• 10:42 p.m.: 'Dropping a new town in the middle'
"The county should not risk serious damage to one of the best and most established residential areas in Prince George's County by dropping a new town in the middle of it," says University Park resident Arlene Christiansen.
• 10:24 p.m.: Attendance holding steady
Five hours and 20 minutes into the hearing, about 70 people are still seated in the audience. There's been some turnover throughout the evening, but many have stayed put for the entire marathon session.
• 10:15 p.m.: 'A parking lot'
"Route 1 could become a parking lot during the a.m. and p.m. rush hours and on Saturdays," says University Park Councliman David Brosch.
Brosch voted against the rezoning due in part to the traffic it would generate.
• 10:10 p.m.: 'Blatantly unjustified'
College Park resident Leo Shapiro calls it "remarkable" that some officials are willing to support the rezoning despite it being "blatantly unjustified and so clearly unwelcome by residents."
• 10:02 p.m.: 'High quality' development
Riverdale Park Councilman Alan K. Thompson (Ward 2) urges the board to approve the rezoning, arguing that it would produce "a high-quality, pedestrian oriented development" consistent with the goals of MUTC zoning.
• 9:48 p.m.: 'Too much to pay'
Proponents of the project "never talk" about the the serious environmental, traffic, school, and public safety issues associated with the development, University Park resident Jayson Amster tells the board.
"It's too much to pay for a fancy grocery store," Amster says.
Amster argues that members of the University Park council—which conditionally backed the plan, 4-3—wrongly assumed that the planning board would automatically approve the rezoning.
"They thought, 'The deal is done, and we'd better get the best we can from the worst that is,'" Amster says.
• 9:39 p.m.: 'Unique and special' site
"There are vacant and already situated closer to the Metro areas that really could use the development that we're talking about doing in these 35 wooded acres, which are so unique and special within in the Beltway," says College Park resident Rita Zito.
• 9:27 p.m.: 'Please keep democracy alive'
"Please keep democracy alive and deny this rezoning," College Park resident Stephanie McLaughlin asks the board, arguing that the bulk of public responses to the project have been negative.
• 9:25 p.m.: Fuzzy MUTC
College Park resident Doug Hamilton says that the project is "neither a good development nor in a good location" and that it fails to meet the stated purpose of the MUTC designation.
• 9:21 p.m.: Not in the plan
University Park resident Susan Dorn argues that the planning board cannot legally consider the application for MUTC rezoning because it fails to meet the requirement that such areas be specifically identified by the county's master plan.
• 9:16 p.m.: Why not elsewhere?
Calvert Hills resident Joseph Grikis calls for the board to reject the application, arguing that "closely adjacent sites could provide the same amenities with fewer risks, less investment, and less community opposition."
• 9:03 p.m.: Soil concerns
Riverdale Park resident Del Fanning details his concerns about the stability of the ground on the site. He said he supports the project but wants the developer to examine soil-related issues more closely.
• 8:57 p.m.: Hyattsville weighs in
Hyattsville community development manager Jim Chandler conveys his town's approval of the development, subject to the consensus conditions agreed upon by Riverdale Park and University Park.
• 8:41 p.m.: Stullich objects
College Park councilwoman Stephanie Stullich lodges a formal objection to the developer's decision to strip the College Park portion of its property from the rezoning application.
Stullich also informs the board that her council voted 6-2 against the measure. She says that while there were positive aspects of the plan, her constituents are largely opposed the project.
"Overall they are concerned that if it goes forward it will have an adverse effect on the community," Stullich says.
Stullich argues that the Route 1 corridor could not comfortably handle the extra traffic and that there are numerous vacant and blighted properties in the area more deserving of redevelopment.
• 8:25 p.m.: Tabori speaks
Mayor John Tabori follows Archer, informing the board that the University Park council has conditionally approved the Cafritz plan.
Tabori emphasizes the rigorousness of the conditions imposed on the developer, noting that agreements at the rezoning stage of a project are rarely so detailed.
"Our citizens feel … that these issues must be adressed at this time," Tabori says.
Tabori also requests that the council keep the record open for 30 days so that more residents can submit feedback on the proposal.
• 8:11 p.m.: Archer speaks
Mayor Vernon Archer presents the Riverdale Park Town Council's 5-0 conditional approval of the rezoning proposal, highlighting the unanimity of the vote.
Archer argues that the conditions and convenants linked to the council's approval address nearly all of the objections raised against the project, particularly in the area of traffic.
• 8:00 p.m.: Public comment begins
Vice Chair Dorothy Bailey opens up the public comment period, giving first priority to elected officials who wish to speak. Riverdale Park Mayor Vernon Archer is first to the podium.
• 7:58 p.m.: Closing argument
Chip Reed wraps up by plugging the developer's commitment to community, calling the Cafritz name "synonymous with philanthropy, culture, and the arts" in the DC area.
• 7:36 p.m.: Economic benefit
Chip Reed tells the board that the project is expected to create some 1,880 jobs over six years and sustain 435 fulltime positions once completed.
He also estimates that the development will generate $11 million in additional tax revenue for Prince George's County.
• 7:20 p.m.: Retail landscape
Cafritz representative David Ward discusses the role of Whole Foods in the development and some of the supposed retail needs that the project could fill, including bed and bath, arts and crafts, fitness, and "white tablecloth" dining.
• 6:54 p.m.: What goes where
Cafritz representatives Jim Voelzke and Trina Rodriguez are reviewing the proposed configuration of roads, sidewalks, buildings, and open spaces on the site.
• 6:30 p.m.: Consensus?
Several audience members jeer as Chip Reed twice refers to the "consensus" between the municipalities surrounding the property.
College Park's council ultimately voted against the terms worked out between the developer and officials from the three communities.
• 6:26 p.m.: Cafritz goes to bat
After reviewing the environmental parameters of the rezoning proposal, Lareuse has turned the hearing over to the Cafritz team for its presentation. Attorney Chip Reed is at the lectern.
• 6:03 p.m.: 17,000 trips
Several audience members gasp as Faramarz Mokhtari—a traffic expert for the county—estimates that the Cafritz property will receive 17,000 daily vehicle trips once fully developed.
The abutting section U.S. Route 1 currently receives 35,000 daily trips, according to Mokhtari. He cautions that some of the "new" traffic into Cafritz site may already be accounted for in that tally.
The anticipated increase in traffic fueled local officials' push for a crossing over the CSX tracks, which is expected to draw away some of that volume.
• 5:49 p.m.: Potential site layouts
Susan Lareuse is now presenting two different potential site layouts put forward by the Cafritz team in recent weeks, but she notes that many of the design specifics will be meted out at later stages of the development.
• 5:40 p.m.: Remnants of the past
Another member of the planning staff discusses the current state of the Cafritz property. She says the developer discovered foundational remnants of the now-demolished Calvert Homes and MacAlpine Mansion during a survey of the site.
• 5:24 p.m.: College Park section excluded?
Lareuse says that the Cafritz team plans to introduce a new rezoning map that would exclude the small portion of the property contained within College Park's borders. This could potentially blunt the impact of the College Park City Council's 6-2 vote against the plan, as the area directly affected by the rezoning would fall exclusively in Riverdale Park.
• 5:17 p.m.: Staff report
County planner Susan Lareuse is delivering the staff report from the planning department.
• 5:08 p.m.: No second continuance
University Park resident Victor Stone just requested a continuance on the grounds that changes filed to the developer's application require 30 days for public review. Board member Dorothy F. Bailey says the board will take the motion under advisement but still move forward with the hearing.
• 5:04 p.m.: Charmain recuses self
Chairman Elizabeth Hewlett announces that she will recuse herself on the grounds that she was previously consulted on the development.
• 5:02 p.m.: Under way at last
Four hours and 32 minutes after its scheduled start time, the hearing is finally under way.
• 4:51 p.m.: Almost there
The hearing still hasn't kicked off, but the board room is filling up. There are about 80 people seated in the audience—roughly half capacity—in addition to staff and board members trickling in.
• 4:31 p.m.: A glimmer of hope
The planning board has wrapped up its hearing on the preceding case (Salubria Center in Fort Washington) and has taken a recess. Chairman Elizabeth Hewlett reports that the Cafritz hearing will begin at 4:45 p.m.
• 2:53 p.m.: Still waiting...
There's a crowd of people milling around the lobby of the County Administration Buliding as the planning board continues to hear testimony on a different case. Two and half hours after the scheduled start time, there's still no word on when the Cafritz hearing will be up.
• 12:52 p.m.: Hearing delayed
Officials here in Upper Marlboro are saying that the Cafritz hearing will likely begin around 2 p.m. due to another planning board case that's running overtime.
• Original article
Months of study, debate, and negotiation are set to come to a head Thursday as the Prince George's County Planning Board weighs testimony on the proposed rezoning of the Cafritz property.
The hearing—scheduled for 12:30 p.m. at the County Administration Building in Upper Marlboro—caps a hectic week of meetings in which each of the three municipalities surrounding the project finalized its recommendations to the board.
Under the Cafritz proposal, the developer's 37-acre parcel on the north end of Riverdale Park would be redesignated from residential (R-55) to Mixed-Use Town Center (MUTC), easing the way for the construction of more than 900 units of housing, a 35,000-sqft. Whole Foods, a 120-room hotel, and additional office and retail space. (See a full rundown of the project here.)
Local political support for the rezoning had been in doubt until the towns reached an agreement with the developers on how to fund an planned entrance across the CSX tracks—something seen as an essential alleviator of traffic by most involved in the talks.
With that—and many other stipulations—in hand, University Park's council gave conditional approval to the plan by a 4-3 margin Monday, followed a day later by a 5-0 vote of the Riverdale Park council. The College Park City Council, however, ultimately opposed the terms worked out by negotiatiors in a 6-2 decision.
The planning board's staff has also recommended approval of the rezoning with conditions.
Over 200 individuals and institutions are registered as parties of record for the case, meaning they have the right to speak at Thursday's hearing (though not all necessarily will).
A live video feed of the hearing will become available at this link later on Thursday.
Adelphi Sky
9:07 am on Friday, January 13, 2012
"College Park councilwoman Stephanie Stullich lodges a formal objection to the developer's decision to strip the College Park portion of its property from the rezoning application"
Wow! Really? It's 1/4 acres. That's the only reason College Park had a hand in this fight. The developer says take the 1/4 acres and College Park objects? lol Amazing.
"Stullich argues that the Route 1 corridor could not comfortably handle the extra traffic and that there are numerous vacant and blighted properties in the area more deserving of redevelopment."
What about East Campus? From this argument it looks as if the College Park council will/should oppose East Campus as well. It will draw just as much traffic from RT 1. What people fail to realize is that you can't have more jobs and more services without more traffic. And to keep those services out of your neighborhood forces you and your neighbors to hop in theirs cars and create just as much traffic trying to reach those jobs and services in other cities. Think about all the students who would be able to walk or bike to work at the new developments instead of driving or taking the metro downtown or to Montgomery County to find work. Oh, wait. More students is a bad thing right? Pfft.
Joe Kelly
10:50 pm on Monday, January 16, 2012
Councilwoman Stullich's objection was not about the developer's request to remove any College Park acreage from the rezoning, but about the timing of the request. Modifying the terms of an application on the day a case is to be heard is not only against the spirit of the commission's regulations, but against the letter as well. Changing the application after Riverdale Park and University Park voted their support for the rezoning can effectively nullify those decisions because they no longer are votes on the application that is being presented.
As for East Campus, I think the College Park council would be in favor of a smart development that is situated at the crossroads of two 4-lane roads, is directly across the street from campus, and is virtually on top of a subway station.
John Smith
12:40 pm on Thursday, January 19, 2012
College Park strongly supports the East Campus development--it's true Smart Growth. The thing is, not all development is the same. East Campus and the Cafritz proposal are both high density, mixed use--but East Campus makes sense (and is genuine transit-oriented development) and Cafritz does not. Fortunately, the College Park City Council is sophisticated enough to understand that not all developments are the same.
Adelphi Sky
9:14 am on Friday, January 13, 2012
The actions of the College Park council are why College Park is a third-rate college town and probably always will be if they continue to have their way. College Park is not some fringe suburban hamlet like Fredricksburg, MD. College Park is less than 5 miles from the D.C. line moslty inside the beltway. High density devlopment is inevitable. And here's one more thing to consider. As the D.C. area continues to grow around College Park, its residents will sit in traffic on RT. 1 as more people drive through your ghost town on their way to more developed parts of the area. Traffic is coming whether people like it or not. The question is will College Park take advantage of the opportunities to benefit from this growth? That remains to be seen.
John Smith
12:35 pm on Thursday, January 19, 2012
The point is to have high density development in the right places, such as East Campus (which College Park has enthusiastically supported). The opposition by the City and residents is not opposition to development, but opposition to THIS development at THIS site (as well as a process that has been truly dismaying).
Shannon Hoffman
10:12 am on Friday, January 13, 2012
Thank you to John, for toughing it out and staying in Upper Marlboro all day long for this into the wee hours of the night. Great updates.
Matthew Byrd
10:32 am on Friday, January 13, 2012
If anyone wants to watch the final 3 1/2 hours of this marathon meeting, it is up on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSNUsiV3eo8. It begins with the conclusion of Coucilmember Stullich's comments, and follows to the very end of the meeting.
Jenni Pompi
12:09 pm on Friday, January 13, 2012
To echo Shannon, thanks to John for sticking out a very long day to cover this hearing, and thanks the Mayor Archer and council members Thompson and Ebbeler and all of my RP neighbors that schepped down to UM to testify.
susan
9:05 am on Saturday, January 14, 2012
Kudos to patch (and john) for touching it out with the hearing and reporting this complicated issue into the wee hours of the night. Keep up the great work!
Jonathan Kent
4:13 am on Monday, January 16, 2012
Shouldn't the College Park City Council be worrying about their portion of Rt. 1 that looks more like a crumbling, abandoned ghost town (and not a college town), rather than stifling development in the Riverdale and University Parks' areas?
Once again, the nearsighted College Park City Council continues to make bad decisions that continue to hurt the residents. Maybe that's a byproduct of some of them (Afzali) not actually owning a home here. Hmmm...
John Smith
12:43 pm on Thursday, January 19, 2012
Yes, we should be focused on redeveloping blighted sections of Route 1--as Hyattsville has done so successfully with its Arts District--not cutting down every tree on a 37 acre site to put up a giant strip mall. This is 1960s-style development. We need to do a lot better than that.
Kirk Marchand
11:47 am on Thursday, January 19, 2012
Right now, I go to Whole Foods in Silver Spring at least three times a week for their selection. I also shop at MOM's, but they don't have the selection they do at Whole Foods. It will save me a great deal of time and gas if I can just stop by Whole Foods when I'm coming home from work. I can't possibly be the only person in CP in this situation, and over all, considering the entire inside the beltway area I think this development will actually reduce traffic and pollution.
Adelphi Sky
12:11 pm on Thursday, January 19, 2012
We have the same grocery stores for the same reasons. I too would rather drive a shorter distance and spend my money within my own county.
Joseph Grikis
12:23 pm on Thursday, January 19, 2012
The Cafritz development is not simply about a Whole Foods but also involves 200,000 sq feet of commercial and retail space as well as nearly 1,000 residential units. I'd welcome a Whole Foods or similar quality grocer in an immediately adjacent area along Route 1 or in University Town Center. The Cafritz concept, however, is a high traffic solution that ignores the current state of the Route 1 Corridor and requires massive public expenditure on infrastructure.
John Smith
12:32 pm on Thursday, January 19, 2012
I urge anyone interested to READ the City of College Park's exceptionally intelligent and thoughtful letter to the Planning Board explaining why they opposed this re-zoning application and this ill-conceived and ill-planned development. College Park is, in fact, very supportive of development--SMART development--and to suggest otherwise is simply inaccurate. In the real world it is reckless and irresponsible to be for or against ALL development.
The Cafritzes have worked hard--and with considerable success--to convince people that this is a referendum on Whole Foods or development in general, but as is apparent to most people who actually study the issues in detail, nothing could be further from the truth. The proposed rezoning is inconsistent with both the law and common sense (e.g., M-U-TC zones are for re-developing old town centers, not 35 acre wooded lots) and the proposed plan involves a level of density that is way too high for this site and will generate truly extraordinary levels of traffic (according to the County's own traffic expert) that cannot realistically be handled. There are so many enormous problems with this proposal it is hard to believe it has gotten this far--and, in fact, it would not have in the absence of a) the clever "Whole Foods" bait, b) high-level politically motivated intervention by the Baker administration, which is working hard to make sure it wins approval by political means, since it would clearly fail without such intervention.
Adelphi Sky
1:25 pm on Thursday, January 19, 2012
You say College Park is for SMART development and not totally against development. How can you convince someone as they drive North on RT. 1? How can you explain to them that College Park is for development when all they see are empty lots? The most recent major projects have all been student housing. East Campus is mainly UMD's initiative as well as M-Square. Why hasn't College Park asked for more mixed use at M-Square? There are plans for offices but no major residential or retail plans? Yet, you can walk to the College Park metro from all points within M-Square in 15 minutes. The main argument against development is traffic. Why do people choose to live in Silver Spring, Bethesda, and Rockville? People choose to live in those areas because of the jobs and services those cities provide. Why aren't people clamoring to live in College Park? What does College Park provide? One could argue that College Park is not meant to be a Bethesda, Silver Spring, or Rockville. Okay then, what does College Park provide for the students and residents in terms of jobs and services compared to other top tier university towns? There is not even a full-service grocery store downtown. Aside from UMD, where are the shiny office buildings that contain jobs for people within area? What about retail? Any clothing stores within walking distance? What about a nice white-tablecloth restaurant that doesn't involve a sports or club theme? If College Park is serious about SMART development, SHOW ME!
susan
2:31 pm on Thursday, January 19, 2012
the entirety of the hearing is now up on the planning board's website. There's a lot of thoughtful comment by well informed residents opposing the rezoning to MUTC. The Cafritz application is a nuanced attempt at "spot zoning"; while many of the concepts advanced in the Cafritz plan could well enhance our neighborhoods, the process by which this is being requested completely circumvents the typical rezoning request. Normally, transportation studies, economic feasability studies, schools impact, storm water impact and more would be required before a rezoning request could be considered. These would contain incredibly important information. Citizens should insist that the developer adhere to the normal requirements for rezoning. Allowing this undeveloped, vacant property to be characterized as "substantially developed" makes a mockery of our planning process.