Presentation-Virtual Community Scenario Planning Workshop Meeting: June 3, 2021

This comment is on behalf of Hope Lutheran Church and Student Center. "Hope Lutheran Church and Student Center has been located at 4201 Guildford Drive for over 60 years. We are excited that the Purple Line will be so convenient and accessible for our members. We are also excited to learn of the potential housing and commercial developments that will bring new people and economic growth to the area. We are in support of the proposed plans put forth in the Adelphi Road-UMCG/UMD Purple Line Station Area Sectional Plan and Sectional Map Amendment for a transit-oriented, walkable neighborhood with multiple housing options. While we do not have an opinion on the particular sector plan options at this time, we welcome the opportunity to be a part of this vibrant and diverse community. Most of our members live in the nearby communities of College Park, University Park, Greenbelt and Berwyn Heights. Like many churches, we have members of many ages and demographics. We also have a close relationship with the University of Maryland Lutheran Campus Ministry. (LCM). Students in LCM utilize the space in our church building regularly for meetings, services, music rehearsals, group dinners. The church space is also used for a weekly after-school program that pairs elementary school-age children from Langley Park with an LCM student for mentoring and tutoring. Alcoholics Anonymous groups meet regularly in our building and we host two programs that draw participants from the local community (outside of our congregation), namely a monthly series, Movies@Hope and a Moms in Community group. However, our building is over 60 years old and like many congregations, we know it may become very difficult to repair and maintain this aging structure in future years. Therefore, we are requesting that our property be rezoned to a mixed-use higher density zone in order to have the potential to sell or lease the property to a developer. We envision selling or leasing our property for mixed-use development that would include a new larger church building as well as an apartment building for multi-family housing, student housing and/or affordable housing. We have been approached by many developers over the years and currently are in conversation with a student housing developer and two Affordable Housing non-profits. We feel the time is right for us to capitalize on the value of our property in order to: - Build a new church structure that could better serve the community. We envision more meeting rooms for students and non-profits and a commercial kitchen to prepare meals for homeless or community groups. - Establish an endowment fund with proceeds from the sale or lease that would expand our ministry and expand our ability to serve the community Being able to rezone and thus redesign the building would mean conceiving and designing spaces that enhance all of these programs. We welcome the opportunity to work with Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission to achieve these goals.

I can see no significant differences between the three - all have about half impervious and half grass/trees.

This is the classic ruse in which options are offered but all include the same unacceptable feature. The inevitable outcome is that all votes support the unacceptable component. An example from the present exercise is the clear felling of 15 acres of forest south of Campus Drive.

None of the proposals/suggestions/comments so far addresses directly the overriding issue - that is the road, and now rail, intersection at the center of the Sector. Five large roads meet, all carrying heavy traffic, to which the Purple Line will be added. This intersection is already congested and difficult for vehicles - and dangerous for pedestrians and bicyclists. It will be a blight on any future development irrespective of its design. It is very strange to be talking about shoe-horning in patches of grass when the overriding challenge is avoided - the elephant in the room. If there was only one outcome of this planning exercise, it would be to address the road/rail intersection itself.

I would extend Daniel O's comment about the need for the documents referred to in item 4, to include items 1 and 2. It makes no sense to ask for comments about items we have not seen.

Graduate Hills is likely to be redeveloped, mainly for enhanced graduate student residences, but it is entirely conceivable that this would incorporate retail and public space.

Transitions are good, but I think some additional thinking is needed on stepping down - as several of the scenarios have less dense housing immediately adjacent to UMD campus - where I would expect there to be much greater demand for housing. It might make sense to step down away from the purple line stop if that were the sole focus of this area, but it's clear that the University is also a focal point of the sector plan area. Building with the right kind of density in the right places can achieve goals both in terms of # of units as well as in preservation of the natural environment.

It is difficult to assess this without having seen the underlying data and assumptions in the housing demand study. I think that the mix of housing types matters less than questions of where high vs. low density will be situated and questions about affordability.

While being transit-oriented is a laudable goal, I think it fails to recognize the reality that the adjacency to the UMD campus means that this area will likely be as much if not more oriented towards UMD than towards the purple line stop itself.

All of the proposed scenarios fail to meet the goal of maximizing preservation of existing trees. There don't seem to have been any tradeoffs considered between density and the natural environment, except in the graduate hills complex. Why has it been presented as a fait accompli that so much of the natural environment in the sector area must be turned into housing? That is not consistent with the County's green infrastructure network plan, the university master plan, nor with the wishes of the citizenry. The project team should develop scenarios that preserve much more of the Guilford Woods ecosystem.

All of the photos above seem to envision a square that is within a set of buildings, rather than at the corner of a busy intersection as appears to be proposed in the scenarios. The project team may wish to look at something more like Strawberry Park in the Mosaic development in Alexandria. In that example, it's notable they didn't put the square at the busy intersection, but rather on the interior of the development. I think something more similar to that, with easy access and sightlines from the purple line stop may be more useable and useful commnunity space - rather than a plaza on a corner that I'd expect would go largely unused. There needs to be connectivity between the buildings and the square, and from the design drawings it seems like what's envisioned is a square at the corner that is mostly separated from the buildings in the sector area.

None of these scenarios give me the impression that walkability has really been considered - particularly how to ensure that people can walk to and from the sector area. Some additional attention to the intersection of adelphi / campus drive / 193 would be welcome. I would also note that providing narrow (but highly trafficked) sidewalks alongside busy roads is not really a best practice to encourage a pleasant walking experience. It would be useful to consider how to develop wider walking paths, protected bike lanes, etc.

This should be targeted to the broader community, not just the UMD community.

This slide references a not-yet-approved project, Western Gateway, while slide 52 refers to this area as University Housing. I believe the project team should better consult with the community and explore how to actually maximize preservation of existing trees while also meeting other housing needs. Any scenario that so substantially guts the existing guilford woods ecosystem - an amenity that cannot ever be replaced when it is gone - is not acceptable. 2021 is not 2008, and it should be clear that with continued threats from climate change, sustainability, renewed commitments to green infrastructure, the deficit of green space in this part of PG county, etc. - it should be a priority for the project team to examine other ways to meet project objectives while preserving the Guilford woods ecosystem. The area north of Campus Drive (including UMD's Lot 1) could easily be redeveloped to provide for any additional demand for university housing within the immediate area. So I think the project team may need to reconsider whether the initial assumption seeking to match the market analysis should even be considered a valid approach for this sector area.

As described in an earlier comment - it is difficult to see how this "neighborhood square" would be a useful amenity at such a busy intersection. It might be more reasonable to put the square more at the heart of the new "neighborhood" that this is creating - rather than viewing the purple line stop as the one and only focal point of the community.

It would be useful to provide greater clarification of what the new traffic pattern for this intersection is proposed for these three scenarios. As it is now, the green space within the intersections of these roads is not accessible to people by any mode of transit.

I would strongly prefer to see a scenario that would retain much more of the passive open spaces in Guilford Woods. I don't think it's really reasonable to consider the ecosystem and amenity provided by these woods on the same footing as the passive green space provide by the traffic island at University and Adelphi.

Slide 76 says that this scenario has tree canopy retention of 46%. Which is it?

Inconsistent with slide 44.

I strongly suggest that the project team consider a scenario where they retain more of Guilford Woods than is shown in any of the current scenarios as passive open space. I would rather see greater density in other areas of the sector area, and retain more of the woods as an amenity for enjoyment of all.

I take it this green space is the traffic island? Has the project team considered working with transportation engineers to examine how to improve the driving/biking/walking experiences in this area directly next to the purple line stop?

I would suggest reconsidering if this is the best location for a plaza, or whether it should be better shielded from traffic by the new buildings themselves - such that this plaza/open space can have more generative uses by the community. In many of the photo examples of what this plaza is seeking to achieve, there are not several large roads abutting them. In my view if the plaza is seeking to create a new community space - e.g. where people could throw a frisbee, kick a soccer ball, listen to a performance, come with their child and not fear they will run into a busy road - it will be much enhanced if it is not directly at the intersection of these large roads which already have substantial traffic all day, but rather be visible from the purple line stop but perhaps not directly abutting it.

It is difficult for stakeholders to understand the scenarios and tradeoffs being made between different objectives when this market analysis is not accessible to them.

The project team should also reconsider what it views as the "core" vs. "edge" of the projects and how phasing should occur. It seems like the project team has taken the assumption that the purple line stop will be the central locus of activity - but I would posit that in actuality there will be greater demand for denser housing nearer to the University of Maryland than any of the current scenarios envision. So while I support a phased approach generally (and especially as it abuts the surrounding neighborhoods), I think that a little less focus needs to be on viewing the purple line stop as the one-and-only center/core of this plan area - and instead considering how people within the area may want to live, work, play, etc. I think that many people who will live in this area, particularly those affiliated with the University - would likely prioritize being closer to campus (which they would visit every day), rather than being close to the purple line stop (which they would use to travel to other communities on a less frequent basis). Others without university affiliations might prioritize closeness to the University, but the former don't seem to be considered as part of any of the scenarios.

This should include improved bicycle/pedestrian access between the sector area and the surrounding communities -- not just within the sector area itself.

The project team should reconsider whether the square must be directly at the station, or whether it may be more useful if it were visible from the station but some distance away from the busy intersection, e.g. as part of an open courtyard of buildings south of Campus Drive. With existing traffic, I can't imagine anyone wanting finding value in a square as envisioned at such a busy intersection.

This is a good statement - but unfortunately it does not appear to have been followed through on, as each scenario will contribute to over 50% tree canopy loss in the sector plan area. The scenarios reflect very poorly toward achieving this objective.

Since this is a sector plan for this broader area, and not just for the purple line stop itself, it may be useful to consider the distances in time between the borders of the sector plan area to the surrounding communities - rather than just drawing circles around the purple line stop. This could help the project examine more holistically about how it can connect with the surrounding communities, rather than viewing the purple line stop as the center of the project (which geographically it is not).

Since the scenarios presented were developed based on the results of this market study, it would be useful for stakeholders to have full access to this study and the underlying assumptions.

This should more clearly communicate a goal to preserve the natural environment. The goal title might be amended to reflect upon promoting sustainability and smart/green growth - rather than just referencing the "natural environment".