[RP TownTalk] Route 1

Fri Jul 25 14:50:40 UTC 2008

Ms. Kelly,

   Thank you for copying me on this summary. We are attempting to get a
copy of the council meeting notes from Monday, and plan on responding to
the key questions and issues from our discussion in writing to help
provide clarity. Once this response is complete, we would like to share
it with this list.

   In the meantime, if you could please let me know the terms that were
used that you were unfamiliar with, that will help us know what we need
to better define or those certain jargonistic terms that are best to
avoid during future presentations, and I can be sure to define them in
our response.

   Finally, the website http://www.mncppc.org/cpd/CPapproved.htm
<http://www.mncppc.org/cpd/CPapproved.htm>  is for the current 2002
College Park/US 1 Corridor Sector Plan. We completed a draft of the
website for the new Central US 1 Corridor plan this week, and it has
been sent to our department webmaster to be linked to our site.
Hopefully it will be available within the next week or so. 

Thank you again,

Chad

  _____  

From: Kate Kelly [mailto:kelly.kate at verizon.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 7:21 PM
To: Vernon Archer; Alice Walker; katherinesharpe at yahoo.com;
djlingua at gmail.com; chenry3240 at comcast.net; timkim7 at verizon.net;
keelahd at yahoo.com; riverdaleparkmd at comcast.net; EOlson at co.pg.md.us;
dmglaros at co.pg.md.us; TownTalk at riverdale-park.org; Bridget Warren;
Marybeth Shea; Rob Oppenheim; Williams, Chad
Subject: Route 1

July 22, 2008

To: Vernon Archer, Mayor

       Alice Ewen Walker, Councilwoman 

From: Joe and Kate Kelly

Re: Sector plan and sectional map amendment, central U.S. 1 corridor

Joe Kelly and I went to the University Park town meeting last night.
Chad Williams of MNCPPC presented a short overview of his project to
create a new sector plan and sectional map amendment for Route 1 from
USDA's southern boundary to East-West Highway in Riverdale Park.

I found some of his presentation unclear because he did not define many
of the terms he used, but the upshot seems to be that Park and Planning
has assembled a group of planners and engineers who are going to study
the traffic on the road and develop one or several proposals to fix
current and anticipated traffic problems. All of it is on a quick
timeline (three weeks until they begin).

The plan extends the area to be examined from College Avenue in College
Park, which was the southern boundary the last time one of these studies
was done, further south to Route 410. Instead of including just the
street, the new area includes the entire Cafritz property. All of the
parcel is included, not just the portion that fronts Route 1. That is
the only large property included in its entirety. Otherwise, the new
area included was about the equivalent of a standard lot's depth on
either side of Route 1 from College Avenue to East-West Highway.

Joe and I strongly recommend that you get in touch with Mr. Williams and
invite him to address the town right away. He indicated last night that
he would need to hear from local elected bodies by the third week in
August to have any input about the projects' boundaries. And if the
town's do not know about the plan, obviously, there's no way they can
voice an opinion. Absent that, I gather, Park and Planning may draw
whatever boundaries it believes are necessary. 

We have several concerns:

First is the lack of a comprehensive approach. If the pressures of
current and anticipated development are the issue, the scope ought to be
expanded to include all of the development that will bring new traffic
to Route 1.

Second, there was no indication that the services of local
professionals, who presumably would have a solid working knowledge of
the area and its problems, had been sought in the process that was used
to assemble the consultant team. 

Third, the inclusion of the whole Cafritz property is troubling because
it could be used to advance the developer's argument that a rezoning is
justified. If the new map facilitates that property's rezoning, then
rezoning all of the current residential properties that border Route 1
will become a simple matter. University Park seems to be foursquare
against the boundary change for that reason if no other. As I understand
it, Mayor Tabori's suggestion is that if need be the boundary could be
extended, but that no property of any kind should be included on either
side of the existing physical street. We agree.

Finally, there is an apparent lack of commitment to what is now called
"transparency." I'm not completely sure why he was presenting the
material at the University Park town meeting, but he seemed to have no
similar appointments in College Park or Riverdale Park. We think it is
important for the town to be closely involved in this project or risk
living with whatever decisions are made without our input.

Here's his contact information:

Chad Williams

Project Manager

chad.williams at ppd.mncppc.org <mailto:chad.williams at ppd.mncppc.org> 

www.mncppc.org/pgco <http://www.mncppc.org/pgco> 

As I understand it, more detailed information about the plan is
available here: http://www.mncppc.org/cpd/CPapproved.htm
<http://www.mncppc.org/cpd/CPapproved.htm> . 

I haven't read it yet, but I will. Also, there are two local blogs that
are following development up and down Route 1. Each of them offers good
information and might help all of us to share more from town to town:

Route One Growth: http://route1growth.wordpress.com/
<http://route1growth.wordpress.com/> 

Rethink College Park:
http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/library/route-1-corridor-sector-plan/
<http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/library/route-1-corridor-sector-plan
/>  

Thanks for your attention,

Kate and Joe Kelly

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://riverdale-park.org/pipermail/towntalk/attachments/20080725/1482a707/attachment-0002.html>