Purple Line TOD Study by Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission

connecting

Purple Line TOD Study

Part 1: Existing Conditions Existing Report Part 2: MarketConditions Analysis Part 3: Recommendations February 2012 Part 4: Appendices May 2013

The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive, Upper Marlboro, MD 20772 www.pgplanning.org

Abstract TITLE: AUTHOR: SUBJECT: DATE: SOURCE OF COPIES:

SERIES NUMBER: ABSTRACT:

Purple Line TOD Study, Parts 1-4 The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission Final draft of Transit-Oriented Development Planning Study for Five Purple Line Stations May 2013 The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive, Upper Marlboro, Maryland 20772 320122306 This document contains text, maps, and illustrations that together present general recommendations for future transit-oriented development and pedestrian/bicycle improvements for five Purple Line stations to be located at sites outside of areas covered by recently approved sector and transit district plans. The five stations are Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights), Riverdale Park, MÂ Square (River Road), College Park-University of Maryland, and West Campus (University Hills).

Contents 1. Part 1: Existing Conditions 1. Introduction 2. Community Outreach 3. Station Areaâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Existing Conditions

1 7 15 25

2. Part 2: Market Analysis

111

1. Introduction 2. Demographic Profile 3. Residential Market 4. Commercial Market

115 119 125 133

3. Part 3: Recommendations

149

1. Development Strategy 2. Zoning Template 3. Implementation Strategies 4. Next Step

155 251 267 277

4. Part 4: Appendices Appendix A Appendix B Appendix c

281 287 317 331

Executive Summary

Executive Summary DRAFT Overview Prepared by the Prince George’s County Planning Department of The MarylandNational Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC), in collaboration with the consultant team led by Design Collective, the Purple Line TOD Study sets forth development concepts and strategies to maximize the transitoriented development (TOD) potential and accessibility of five planned Purple Line stations in Prince George’s County: • • • • •

Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Riverdale Park M Square (River Road) College Park-UMD West Campus (University Hills)

Background The Purple Line is a proposed 16mile, 21 station, light-rail transit line extending from New Carrollton in Prince George’s County to Bethesda in Montgomery County. The Purple Line will provide the Washington metropolitan region’s first circumferential rail transit service by providing connections at four Metrorail transfer stations: Bethesda and Silver Spring (Red Line), College Park-UMD (Green Line), and New Carrollton (Orange Line). The transit line comprises 21 planned stations: 11 in Prince George’s County and 10 in Montgomery County. MTA is charged with the design, construction, and operation of the Purple Line.

While Prince George’s County anticipates eleven stations as part of the Purple Line, the study’s scope focused on the five station areas for which no new or updated sector or transit district development plans have been prepared since the 2002 General Plan was approved.

The intent of the study is to advance the long-term goals defined by the 2009 Approved Countywide Master Plan of Transportation and to inform the efforts of the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) as it prepares and refines the Purple Line alignment, station location and design, and environmental impact statement. Building on the completed Purple Line 2010 Bicycle Access and Bicycle Hub Location Study, the 2011 Corridor Access Study (CAST), and the 2009 Central Kenilworth Avenue Revitalization Study, the Purple Line TOD Study evaluates current conditions and market prospects within a half-mile radius of the five stations to craft: • • • • • •

challenges of promoting TOD and neighborhood revitalization around each of the five stations. The third phase focused on envisioning how the station areas might evolve over the upcoming two decades to effectively capitalize on the Purple Line. During this phase, stakeholders reviewed proposed land use and urban design changes; pedestrian, bicyclist, and road improvements; station characteristics; and new amenities and open spaces. The final phase refined each of the station’s development concepts and identified implementation strategies.

Development concepts Short- and long-term redevelopment strategies Open space and infrastructure recommendations Zoning templates to guide future rezoning recommendations Implementation recommendations Urban design guidelines

On October 7, 2011, Governor Martin O’Malley announced that the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) gave its approval for the Purple Line to move forward and enter the Preliminary Engineering (PE) phase. During this phase, MDOT is refining conceptual station area plans, schedules, and cost estimates; working with affected communities to develop measures to mitigate outstanding concerns and issues; and preparing the light rail’s final environmental impact statement (FEIS). The PE phase will conclude during summer 2013 with a record of decision by the FTA. If the FTA gives MDOT the go-ahead to begin final design, construction of the Purple Line could begin as early as 2015 with the start of service coming as early as 2020.

Community Outreach and Participation

Station Recommendations

A comprehensive and strategic public outreach program informed the Purple Line TOD study. The study employed a range of communication tools to facilitate and broaden community participation, including a project web site, newsletters, media advisories, bilingual e-mail notices and flyers, and a business survey. These efforts supplemented the input and feedback received during 12 stakeholder workshops, targeting local residents and business and property owners; municipal briefings with the Town of Riverdale Park; and coordination meetings with key agency partners: the Department of Parks and Recreation, the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT), the Prince George’s County Department of Public Works and Transportation (DPW&T), and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA).

Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights)

Phases The study consisted of four phases. The purpose of the first two phases was to prepare for and solicit community feedback on the opportunities and

The Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) station area represents a stable residential community with more than 6,000 residents (approximately 1,750 households). Commercial development, including the East Pines and Wildercroft Shopping Centers, convenience retail, and three gas stations, is oriented toward MD 410 (Riverdale Road), an existing arterial road and key connector to two vehicular thoroughfares: the Baltimore-Washington Parkway and MD 410 (Veterans Highway). While there is limited demand for new office and retail in the short term, established businesses would benefit from façade enhancements once the Purple Line begins operation. Longer-term redevelopment potential within a half-mile radius of the proposed station is concentrated at the county’s Police Department’s Special Operations Division and Park Police Headquarters facility and at the existing East Pines Shopping Center.

iii

Purple Line TOD Study

Recommendation highlights for the Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) station area include: • Constructing an at-grade station that is accessible, well-lit, and connected to local bus and shuttle services. • Over the medium- to long-term, redeveloping the Police Department’s Special Operations Division and Park Police Headquarters facility and the existing East Pines Shopping Center with pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use development, featuring two- to five-story multifamily residential over targeted ground-floor retail. • Concentrating new neighborhood-serving commercial uses along Riverdale Road between 67th Court and Fernwood Terrace and between 66th Avenue and 67th Avenue. • Integrating new public spaces as redevelopment occurs, including a station plaza at the intersection of Riverdale Road and 67th Avenue and a community square at the police facility site. Riverdale Park The Riverdale Park station area is home to approximately 9,000 residents (2,400 households) and is defined by a patchwork of uses, including singlefamily and multifamily neighborhoods, a commercial core, an extensive open space network, and three historic sites: the Browning-Baines House, Riverdale House Museum, and Riverdale Baptist Church (Refreshing Spring Church of God). The Central Kenilworth Avenue business corridor dominates the core area with three aging shopping centers, neighborhood-serving retail, and storefront office uses. Two vehicular thoroughfares—MD 410 (East West Highway/Riverdale Road) and MD 201 (Kenilworth Avenue)—traverse the study area, providing commuters with access to regional corridors while also creating barriers to pedestrian and bicycle connectivity. While market analyses reveal limited demand for new office and retail offerings, the Purple Line TOD Study recommends enhancing established businesses through façade improvement programs and proactively retaining retail and entertainment anchors, such as Rinaldi’s Riverdale Bowl, which serve as a regional draw. Longer-term redevelopment opportunities within a half-mile radius of the proposed station include Riverdale Plaza Shopping Center, Kenilfair Plaza, several large, commercial properties along Riverdale Road and Kenilworth Avenue, and a number of multifamily properties. Recommendation highlights for the Riverdale Park station area include: • Ensuring the design of the station reflects the cultural diversity and vibrancy of the surrounding communities. • Encouraging redevelopment opportunities to capitalize on the elevated nature of the Riverdale Park Station. • Concentrating new two- to five-story, mixed-use development within a core four-block area. • Lining Kenilworth Avenue, Riverdale Road Extended, and the proposed extension of 56th Avenue with ground-floor retail and populating

• • • • •

•

upper floors of new development along Kenilworth Avenue with neighborhood-serving office. Ensuring a balanced mix of housing types designed to meet the needs of residents at all stages of life. Transforming Riverdale Road Extended to Greenvale Parkway into an east-west greenway and public amenity, connecting the area to the Anacostia Tributary Trail System. Integrating new public spaces, such as a plaza and pocket park near the proposed station and a community green opposite St Bernards Roman Catholic Church. Retaining and strengthening existing businesses through coordinated planning, technical and financial assistance, and marketing programs. In the short-term, converting Kenilworth Avenue into a shared-use street with wide outside travel lanes for shared vehicular and bicycle use and widened sidewalks; improving lighting, landscaping, and bus stops; and redesigning the intersection at Rittenhouse Street. In the longer-term, incorporating designated bike lanes onto Kenilworth Avenue, East West Highway, and Riverdale Road.

M Square (River Road) The M Square station area falls within the municipal boundaries of the City of College Park and the Town of Riverdale Park. Public land predominates with the State of Maryland, M-NCPPC, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), and the federal government claiming ownership of more than 90 percent of the land area. While the area serves as a major county employment and research park, it also includes the Riverdale Park Historic District as well as significant parkland. Parts of the study area are subject to the height and notification requirements of Aviation Policy Area (APA-6) and the development standards and guidelines of the 1997 Approved Transit District Development Plan for the College ParkRiverdale Transit District Overlay Zone. In addition, approximately 131 acres are encumbered by covenants between the Town of Riverdale Park and ACP Industries. These restrictions, in conjunction with current federal tenant security needs, create hurdles to shifting the development pattern of the Town of Riverdale Park and the City of College Park from suburban and autocentric to more urban and transit oriented. Kenilworth Avenue and River Road connect area commuters to larger transportation corridors, such as the Baltimore-Washington Parkway to the east, I-495 to the north, and East West Highway to the south. The MARC Camden Line and the Metro Green Line provide critical transit access, while the Anacostia Valley Trail System runs to the east, connecting to larger greenway networks north and south. The commercial office market presents an opportunity for additional development in the M Square station area. New office development in this area prior to and following the construction of the Purple Line could result in up to 230,000 and 160,000 square feet of new development, respectively. Such growth is projected to support up to 9,000 square feet of retail and be complemented by approximately 90,000 square feet of flex/industrial

Executive Summary

space. Available development sites will capture the bulk of newly generated residential demand for multifamily units. In the midterm, the M Square Research Park could enhance its competitiveness in the regional office market by creating a more appealing and active environment featuring new restaurants, public open spaces, trails, and residential uses. Recommendation highlights for the M Square (River Road) station area include: • Ensuring the design of the station highlights the area’s importance as a key employment, research, and technology center in the county. • Supporting infill office and research facilities within the M Square Research Park in addition to new office development north of the extended Rivertech Court. • Fostering a concentrated but vibrant mix of uses, including pedestrianfriendly retail, restaurants, and residential development, around the proposed station and framing University Research Court, Haig Drive, and Rivertech Court. • Incorporating pocket parks and greens to address office workers’ desires for outdoor seating and eating areas as well as to accommodate community activities for future residents. • Integrating new and enhanced trail connections into the station area and the Anacostia Tributary Trail System. • Reviewing development regulations for their compatibility with TOD principles. College Park-UMD The College Park-UMD station area also falls within the municipal boundaries of the City of College Park and the Town of Riverdale Park. Bisected by the Metrorail/MARC line, the area is defined by two distinctly different development patterns. To the west lie the historic districts of Old Town College Park and Calvert Hills, home to approximately 620 households and concentrated commercial and institutional properties along US 1 (Baltimore Avenue) and Paint Branch Parkway. To the east, the established small block and street pattern gives way to an office/industrial park environment, the historic College Park Airport and recreation facilities. Similar to the neighboring M Square (River Road) station area, the majority of the land within the College Park-UMD station area is publicly owned. Parts of the College Park-UMD study area are subject to the height and notification requirements of Aviation Policy Area (APA-6), the development standards and guidelines of the 1997 Approved Transit District Development Plan for the College Park-Riverdale Transit District Overlay Zone, and the development covenants between the Town of Riverdale Park and ACP Industries. These restrictions (in conjunction with current federal tenant security needs), despite the proximity of the College Park-UMD Metro and MARC Stations, create impediments to a more pedestrian- and transit-oriented environment. Paint Branch Parkway, which serves as a gateway to the University of Maryland-College Park (UMD), travels through the station area as do a series of bus routes. The Metro and MARC stations provide residents, employees, and students critical links to points north and south.

Market forces will drive development in the College Park-UMD area contingent upon the availability of developable land and the opportunity to expand existing office complexes. In addition to approved applications, market analyses suggest a demand for up to 46,000 square feet of office, a limited number of new retail offerings, and 1,200 units (housing dynamics are heavily influenced by the area’s proximity to UMD) prior to the opening of the Purple Line. The proposed Purple Line and WMATA’s joint development is expected to further stimulate demand, resulting in steady office and residential growth through 2025. Recommendation highlights for the College Park-UMD station area include: • In the short term, advancing the redevelopment plans for the WMATAowned site between the Metrorail and MARC rail lines and River Road proposes two 6-story buildings with ground-floor retail and a 5-story multifamily building wrapping structured parking. • In the longer term, encouraging major holdings along River Road, Paint Branch Parkway, and College Avenue to redevelop as a mix of office and residential development with ground-floor retail. • Encouraging new multifamily development north of Paint Branch Parkway along 51st Avenue and at WMATA’s proposed mixed-use development. • Concentrating targeted ground-floor retail along Paint Branch Parkway, River Road, and River Road Extended north of Paint Branch Parkway. • Restoring the greenway extending from River Road to the Anacostia Tributary Trail System. West Campus (University Hills) The West Campus station area comprises a mix of existing residential development—the 331-unit Graduate Hills apartment complex and the established neighborhoods of University Hills and Adelphi—and commercial and institutional properties, including several M-NCPPC- and universityowned facilities and religious institutions. The orientation of the area toward UMD is noteworthy and suggests new development be closely coordinated with the university’s master plan of development. Major vehicular thoroughfares—Adelphi Road and MD 193 (University Boulevard)—bisect the station area with commuters and students relying on Campus Drive to connect to these corridors and US 1 (Baltimore Avenue) to the east. While the market does not currently support new retail or office development, infrastructure and streetscape improvements and targeted (re)development, accompanying the construction of an accessible and integrated Purple Line station, have the potential to reposition the West Campus station area as a credible alternate gateway to the UMD-College Park campus. Recommendation highlights for the West Campus station area include: • Ensuring that design and development are consistent with the area’s role as a western gateway to UMD.

Purple Line TOD Study

• In the longer term, concentrating a mix of uses—multifamily development with ground-floor retail and restaurants—at the proposed station and at other key locations along Campus Drive. • As demand warrants, supporting the redevelopment of residential parcels west of Adelphi Road as new apartments and/or townhouses. • Minimizing the impact of new development on the natural environment through sustainable design. • Incorporating new pocket parks adjacent to residential buildings to provide areas for community activities. • Constructing a new pedestrian/bicycle greenway along Turtle Creek connecting to UMD’s expanded botanical gardens. Zoning Template The Purple Line TOD Study created a zoning template, consisting of stationspecific zoning plans and TOD zoning standards, to help inform future planning efforts and encourage transit-oriented, mixed-use development consistent with the development concepts envisioned by stakeholders. The template and accompanying station-specific zoning plan diagrams are intended to provide a basis for future zoning revisions to achieve the goal of TOD redevelopment; to provide attractive and safe places to live, work, shop, dine, and play; and to provide convenient and safe pedestrian and bicycle access to transit. The zoning template has been applied to the five Purple Line stations discussed in this report to illustrate specific applications. However, the broader intent is for this template to be applicable to all areas served by fixed-guideway (Metro, commuter rail/Amtrak, light rail, and future rapid bus) transit within Prince George’s County. Implementation Strategies The study identifies implementation strategies and alternative funding sources to support existing and new commercial businesses and services along the proposed Purple Line and provide mixed-income housing opportunities at a variety of price points. These include providing technical and financial assistance, mitigating construction-related impacts, promoting affordable federal housing tools, expanding and marketing state/local affordable housing programs (including foreclosure prevention and code enforcement), and identifying funding sources.

Purple Line TOD Study Part 1: Existing Conditions Report Existing Conditions May 2013 2012 February

Contents 1. Introduction 7 1.1 Background 1.2 Previous Plans and Studies 1.3 Purple Line TOD Study

2. Community Outreach

9 10 13

2.1 Outreach Campaign 2.2 Community Workshops Summary 2.3 Introduction Community Workshops 2.4 Visioning Community Workshops 2.5 Preliminary Concept Plans Community Workshops

17 18 20 21

3. Station Area—Existing Conditions

3.1 Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) 3.2 Riverdale Park 3.3 M Square (River Road) 3.4 College Park-UMD 3.5 West Campus

27 43 61 77 95

Purple Line TOD Study: Existing Conditions

List of Maps Map 1.1: Map 1.2: Map 3.1 Map 3.2 Map 3.3 Map 3.4 Map 3.5 Map 3.6 Map 3.7 Map 3.8 Map 3.9 Map 3.10 Map 3.11 Map 3.12 Map 3.13 Map 3.14 Map 3.15 Map 3.16 Map 3.17 Map 3.18 Map 3.19 Map 3.20 Map 3.21 Map 3.22 Map 3.23 Map 3.24

Purple Line Corridor 9 Station Locations and Study Area Diagram 14 Study Area Location 29 Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Station Study Area—Existing Conditions 29 Existing Zoning 30 Existing Land Use 31 Area Properties 32 Open Space 33 Environmental Conditions 34 Walksheds, Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) 36 Existing Transportation Conditions, Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) 37 Purple Line Phase 2 CAST— Recommendations—Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) 38 Station Location and PA Route Plan— Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) 41 Study Area Location 45 Riverdale Park Station Study Area—Existing Conditions 45 Existing Zoning 46 Existing Land Use 47 Area Properties 48 Open Space 49 Environmental Conditions 50 Walksheds, Riverdale Park 52 Existing Transportation Conditions, Riverdale Park 53 Central Kenilworth Avenue Revitalization Plan 55 Purple Line Phase 2 CAST— Recommendations, Riverdale Park 56 Station Location and PA Route Plan— Riverdale Park 59 Study Area Location 63

Map 3.25 M Square Station Study Area—Existing Conditions 63 64 Map 3.26 Existing Zoning Map 3.27 Existing Land Use 65 Map 3.28 Area Properties 66 Map 3.29 Open Space 67 Map 3.30 Environmental Conditions 68 70 Map 3.31 Walksheds, M Square (River Road) Map 3.32 Existing Transportation Conditions, M Square (River Road) 71 Map 3.33 Purple Line Phase 2 CAST—Proposed Recommended, M Square (River Road) 73 Map 3.34 Station Location and PA Route Plan— M Square (River Road) 75 Map 3.35 Study Area Location 79 Map 3.36 College Park-UMD Station Study Area— Existing Conditions 79 Map 3.37 Existing Zoning 80 81 Map 3.38 Existing Land Use Map 3.39 Area Properties 82 Map 3.40 Open Space 83 84 Map 3.41 Environmental Conditions Map 3.42 Walksheds, College Park-UMD 86 Map 3.43 Existing Transportation Conditions, College Park-UMD 87 Map 3.44 Purple Line Phase 2 CAST— Recommendations, College Park (UMD) 89 Map 3.45 Station Location and PA Route Plan—College Park-UMD 93 Map 3.46 Study Area Location 97 Map 3.47 Existing Conditions 97 Map 3.48 Existing Zoning 98 Map 3.49 Land Use 99 Map 3.50 Area Properties 100 Map 3.51 Open Space 101 Map 3.52 Environmental Conditions 102 Map 3.53 Walkshed, West Campus 104 Map 3.54 Purple Line Phase 2 CAST—Proposed Conditions, West Campus 106 Map 3.55 Station Location and PA Route 109

List of Tables Table 2-1 Community Workshopsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Schedule

1. Introduction 1.1 Background

1.2 Previous Plans and Studies

1.3 Purple Line TOD Study

Legend Rail Transit Lines

MONTGOMERY COUNTY

Blue Metro Line

2 I

[

HOWARD COUNTY

Green Metro Line 95 2 I § ¦ ¨ 1 IC

Orange Metro Line Existing Station

U V

£ ¤

Purple Line (proposed light rail)

2 I

U V 201

§ ¦ ¨ 495

2 I

197

2 I

U V U V 95 § 2I ¦ ¨ U V U V2I 50 £ ¤ 564

193

2 I 2 I 2 I

450

202

3 U V

301 £ ¤

2 I

§ ¦ ¨

2 I DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

410

U V

2 I

495

2 I2 I

I 2 I 2

U V 214

§ ¦ ¨ 95

2 I

§ ¦ ¨

4 U V

5 U V

295

U V 210

301 £ ¤

U V 223

CALVERT COUNTY

FAIRFAX COUNTY

U V 373

U V 210

U V

5 U V

382

CHARLES COUNTY

Overview As part of Governor O’Malley’s “Smart, Green & Growing” initiative, the proposed Purple Line will provide additional transportation options in the congested corridor between New Carrollton and Bethesda. The Purple Line, a planned 16-mile, light rail transit (LRT) line, has 11 of its 21 stations in Prince George’s County. “The Purple Line will be an environmentally friendly option that will reduce gridlock and connect citizens to economic opportunities throughout the region.” – Governor O’Malley The Prince George’s County Planning Department of The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission

U V 381

10 Miles

(M-NCPPC), along with a consultant team, is working with local residents, business owners, and other key stakeholders to develop transit-oriented community plans for five Purple Line station areas. This effort is referred to as the Purple Line TOD Study. The Purple Line TOD Study will conclude in January 2013 with the presentation of the final draft study report to the Planning Board. This document comprises the study report and is divided into three parts: Part 1: Existing Conditions, Part 2: Market Assessment, and Part 3: Recommendations. The key transitoriented development recommendations from this study will serve as the basis for future sector plans, transit district development plans, and sectional map amendments in the areas surrounding the five targeted Purple Line stations.

Introduction

1.1 Background

The Purple Line is a proposed 16-mile, east-west, LRT line extending inside the Capital Beltway from New Carrollton in Prince George’s County to Bethesda in Montgomery County. The Purple Line will provide the Washington metropolitan region’s first circumferential rail transit service by providing connections at four Metrorail transfer stations: Bethesda and Silver Spring (Red Line), College Park-UMD (Green Line), and New Carrollton (Orange Line). The Purple Line is designed to promote economic development and transit mobility options in southern Montgomery County and northern Prince George’s County. The Purple Line will connect existing mixed-use employment centers in Bethesda and Silver Spring with emerging development centers in Prince George’s County. Purple Line LRT service will also facilitate faster and more convenient east-west travel between these communities for people who depend on public transit for work and nonwork trips. Finally, the Purple Line will provide more direct access to MARC commuter rail service at the New Carrollton and College Park-UMD Metro Stations, to Amtrak intercity rail service, and to intercity bus service at the New Carrollton Metro Station. On October 7, 2011, Governor Martin O’Malley announced that the Federal Transit Administration gave its approval for the Purple Line to move forward

Long Branch

Piny Branch

2009 TakomaLangley Crossroads UM TakomaCampus Langley Center Transit

Center

Riggs Road

West Campus (University Hills)

UM Campus Center East Campus

Riggs Road

East Campus

1997 College ParkWest Campus Riverdale (University Hills) College Park-UMD

College Park-UMD LRT Alignment

LRT Alignment on Aerial

ation

Proposed Station Location MARC Commuter Rail WMATA Metrorail Sector/Revitalization Plan

y Zone

Transit District Development Plan

Overlay Zone

Transit District Overlay Zone

y Area

Development District Overlay Zone

d Facilities

Piny Branch

TakomaLangley Transit Center

ial

Functional

Map 1.1 shows the Purple Line Corridor in relation to several approved sector plans, transit district development plans, and a community revitalization plan. These plan areas are identified on the map. Six of Prince George’s County’s eleven Purple Line stations will be located in small-area plans that have been approved since the completion and approval of the 2002 Prince George’s County Approved General Plan. The five Purple Line stations that are the focus of this study are in locations governed by a pre-2000 small-area plan (1997 College Park-Riverdale Park) or in locations where no small-area plan has ever been prepared.

2010 Central Long US 1 Corridor Branch

LRT Alignment in Tunnel

opment Plan

Through the PE phase, MTA is currently refining conceptual station area plans and working with affected communities to develop measures to mitigate outstanding concerns and issues. While MTA is focused on the location of specific stations and the Purple Line route, M-NCPPC’s efforts are focused on transit-oriented development (TOD) plans surrounding the currently proposed station locations.

Map 1.1: Purple Line Corridor

nel

Plan

and enter the Preliminary Engineering (PE) phase. The Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) has begun PE and preparation of a final environmental impact statement.

Central Kenilworth Avenue M Square (River Road) Riverdale Park

2010 New Carrollton M Square (River Road)

Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights)

Riverdale Park

Riverda Road (Bea Heights

Glenridge

Purple Line TOD Study Area University of Maryland Facilities Master Plan Area Purple Line Corridor Functional Master Plan

2010 Central Annapolis Road

New Carrollton Transit Center

Note: Text boxes represent the corresponding plan approval date

Purple Line TOD Study: Existing Conditions

1.2 Previous Plans and Studies

1997 Approved Transit District Development Plan (TDDP) for the College Park-Riverdale Transit District Overlay Zone (TDOZ)

Since 1990, Prince George’s County has approved three master plans and a transit district development plan that cover the communities through which the Purple Line will run. Each master plan is intended to provide a general vision of future development within its area, including public facilities, living (residential) areas, and commercial activity areas. In addition, the county approved its general plan in 2002 and a functional master plan for green infrastructure in the county in 2005. Each of these plans is discussed in more detail below:

The 1994 College Park-Riverdale TDDP includes maps, text, and supporting graphics documents to guide land use and zoning policy and development within the designated TDOZ, the area today known largely as M Square, bounded by the rail corridor to the west, the College Park Airport to the north, the Northeast Branch of the Anacostia River parkland to the east, and Tuckerman Lane to the south. This area is, essentially, the same area that encompasses the Purple Line study areas of College Park-UMD and River Road stations. Use and development of all land and the issuance of all permits in the TDOZ are controlled and guided by the TDDP. TDDP is anchored, in large part, by the College Park Metro Station. Key plan objectives include creating an attractive, pedestrian-friendly transit district; enhancing local economic development; regulating conceptual and detailed site plan submission requirements; and changing zoning to allow mixed-use.

1990 Langley Park-College Park-Greenbelt Approved Master Plan (October 1989) and Adopted Sectional Map Amendment The study area of the 1990 Langley-College Park-Greenbelt Master Plan encompasses areas mostly to the north of this Purple Line planning study area. However, the plan targeted five key properties (now, largely, M Square) for development of up to 2.5 million square feet of employment in a 60/40 split of research/development to general office. The plan includes a comprehensive inventory of existing conditions, demographic and socioeconomic indicators, land use and zoning, and streets and transportation systems. The plan outlines specific recommendations for land use and rezoning; new streets, roadways, intersection improvements, and capital infrastructure projects; historic preservation; and public facilities. The plan includes sectional map amendments. 1994 Planning Area 68 Approved Master Plan and Sectional Map Amendment The 1994 Planning Area 68 Master Plan contains maps and supporting text, zoning proposals, and a vision for the future of the Riverdale community (now Riverdale Park) and areas along River Road and north to Paint Branch Road (at that time, Calvert Road). The plan addresses very conceptual strategies for neighborhood preservation (including Riverdale Park), commercial and employment, transportation, trails and parks, natural resource protection, and public facility needs for the study area. The plan calls for the M Square area to be an employment center. 1994 Bladensburg-New Carrollton and Vicinity Master Plan and Sectional Map Amendment The 1994 Bladensburg-New Carrollton and Vicinity Master Plan contains maps and supporting text that update and supersede a number of previously prepared plans and includes a new sectional map amendment. The northern portion of the master plan study area includes land east of Kenilworth Avenue, north to Good Luck Road, along East West Highway, and along Riverdale Road and Veterans Parkway. The plan includes analyses of population, employment, land use, and zoning information. The plan addresses study areawide and neighborhood specific recommendations for rezoning, economic development incentives, façade and commercial property improvement programs, community organizations and partnerships, transportation system and transportation demand management programs, trails, and streetscape and urban design guidelines.

2002 Prince George’s County Approved General Plan The 2002 General Plan outlines comprehensive recommendations for guiding future development. The 2002 General Plan includes specific goals, objectives, strategies, and actions for development patterns within the three tiers (Developed Tier, Developing Tier, and Rural Tier) and for centers and corridors; environmental infrastructure, transportation systems, and public facilities; economic development; housing and community character elements; revitalization, urban design, and historic preservation; and implementation. The 2002 General Plan recognizes the importance of revitalizing and growing centers and corridors. Regional centers are served by bus and rail and may be appropriate locations for mixed-use, higher density housing, and employment. Community centers should also be served by transit; provide communityoriented services, land uses, and activities; and may include mixed-use and higher intensity development. Among many policies for the Developed Tier, which includes the five Purple Line station areas, the 2002 General Plan encourages medium- to high-density, mixed-use, transit- and pedestrian-oriented development; suggests incentives and regulations (zoning, flexible design standards, etc.) that encourage infill development; recommends improving the image and mix of uses along major roadways (design guidelines, infill, zoning for commercial uses, land assembly, etc.); and recommends an integrated transportation system that promotes development and revitalization, assigning high priority in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for pedestrian and transit infrastructure. The 2002 General Plan explicitly establishes TOD as an important goal, suggesting density, diversity, and design as important TOD principles. 2005 Countywide Green Infrastructure Plan The 2005 Green Infrastructure Plan defines green infrastructure as “a contiguous network of environmentally sensitive areas, including waterways, wetlands, woodlands, wildlife habitats, and other natural areas of countywide significance.”The plan sets forth goals, objectives, and policies for preserving, protecting, and enhancing these elements. The Northeast and Northwest

Introduction

Branches of the Anacostia River are recognized as important resources and are targeted as needing protection. The plan advocates that, in areas where important green infrastructure exists, flexible design standards should be considered that will, among other objectives, minimize impervious surfaces, maximize utilization of a property, establish new linkages, minimize ecological impacts, minimize road impacts, enable public access (visual and/or physical) to the preserved areas, and increase stream buffers. 2008 Envision Prince George’s Envision Prince George’s, launched in late 2008 by M-NCPPC, is a multiyear initiative designed to create and implement a long-term vision for the county based on the viewpoints of the entire community. Envision Prince George’s is an open and inclusive process that invites anyone who lives or works in the county to look ten or twenty years in the future and think about what they want the county to be. Envision Prince George’s engages all stakeholders, including individuals and groups from across the county, as active participants and provides them with opportunities for direct input through innovative education activities, interactive community forums, online discussions, and a countywide town meeting. At the end of the public engagement process, an action agenda was produced based on the informed priorities of thousands of people across the county. Of the 14 long-term goals established by the action agenda, the goal to focus development in transit-oriented, mixed-use, walkable, and bikeable communities is the most relevant to the Purple Line TOD Study. The main objectives of this goal include: • • • • • • •

Increase growth near Metro stations and transit centers Increase walking to transit hubs Increase bicycle use to/around transit hubs Make pedestrian and bicycle routes central to transportation plans Make riding the bus more satisfying Provide workforce housing at transit centers Build a strong mixed-use constituency.

2008 A Technical Assistance Panel Report—College Park Metrorail Station Area Urban Land Institute (ULI) Washington The City of College Park, along with Prince George’s County, invited ULI Washington to convene a technical assistance panel (TAP) to study the development potential of parcels within a five-minute walk of the College Park-UMD Metro Station. The approach included a highest and best-use analysis of the 11-acre area bordered by Paint Branch Parkway to the south and west, College Park Airport to the north, and the Anacostia Tributary Trail System to the east. The study area for the College Park Metro Station area ULI TAP report falls within the half-mile radius of the proposed Purple Line College Park-UMD station. The ULI TAP recommended mixed-use redevelopment of the site, including residential, office, hotel, and retail. Additionally, the panel recommended a change to the current TDOZ, which does not allow residential or reduced parking ratios within the study area.

2009 Central Kenilworth Avenue Revitalization Study (CKAR) Focused on the Riverdale Park area, the Central Kenilworth Avenue Revitalization Action Plan engaged a broad spectrum of community stakeholders and identified issues confronting the area, researched best practices and solutions to those issues, developed a prioritized action plan of solutions, and developed partnerships with local, municipal, county, and state stakeholders having an ability to implement solutions. Action steps, established in response to issues identified by the community, that have an influence on the Purple Line TOD Study include converting the stormwater management ditch into a more natural stream/community amenity; developing plans for the rehabilitation and/or redevelopment of Kenilfair Plaza; implementing comprehensive streetscape improvements to the Kenilworth Avenue Corridor from River Road to Edmonston Road; and developing plans for the rehabilitation and/ or redevelopment of Riverdale Plaza. 2009 Countywide Master Plan of Transportation Bikeways and Trails The 2009 Countywide Master Plan of Transportation Bikeways and Trails summarizes broad complete streets and trails, bikeways, and pedestrian mobility policies. The plan establishes policies for, among numerous items, pedestrian connections to TOD features and transit stations; linkages to schools, parks, recreation areas, commercial areas, and employment centers; construction of sidewalks in neighborhoods where none are provided; signage and wayfinding; theme-based marketing of major hiker/biker/equestrian trails; and on-road bicycle lanes for all new roads and roadway improvements where practical. 2009 Approved Countywide Master Plan of Transportation The 2009 Master Plan of Transportation outlines countywide goals, policies, and strategies to guide appropriate planning, funding, and implementation of an efficient multimodal transportation infrastructure system. The plan includes and recommends the Purple Line Preferred Alternative (PA) and a new interchange at East West Highway and Kenilworth Avenue. No other major transportation infrastructure investments are suggested within the Purple Line TOD Study area. 2010 Approved Central US 1 Corridor Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment The 2010 Central US 1 Corridor Plan includes a comprehensive analysis of existing conditions, market and demographic conditions, transportation and traffic, and previous plans including the 2002 General Plan and the 1990 Langley-College Park-Greenbelt Master Plan. Among many recommendations, the plan suggests concentrations of walkable nodes, pedestrian and TOD, integration of the natural environment and green infrastructure, and an improved and balanced transportation network with complete streets. The plan suggests a need for reformed development regulations; in which a formbased code replaces conventional use-based zoning. The plan recommends development of an attractive, safe pedestrian and bicycle network of trails, much wider sidewalks, clearly marked bicycle lanes, streetscape improvements, and similar enhancements. Additionally, the plan suggests a

Purple Line TOD Study: Existing Conditions

robust effort to help preserve and revitalize area neighborhoods that continue to be impacted by traffic, development pressure, safety, and neglect. Similar recommendations may be evaluated for appropriateness at the four Purple Line station areas as part of this Purple Line planning effort. The study area of the sector plan does not extend east of the rail corridor and, therefore, does not include any areas that coincide with the five station areas of this Purple Line study area. The plan anticipates significant amounts of development, particularly within east campus, creating some market competition for development that may be contemplated within the College Park-UMD and M Square (River Road) station areas. 2010 New Carrollton Approved Transit District Development Plan and Transit District Overlay Zoning Map Amendment The New Carrollton Approved TDDP contains text and maps of the approved TDDP for New Carrollton, including zoning, land use, and development regulations for New Carrollton and vicinity. Recommendations within the TDDP amend land use, urban design, and zoning elements within previous plans and amend the sectional maps. While the New Carrollton study area does not include areas that coincide with the five station areas of this Purple Line study area, it is an important terminus of the Purple Line and is planned to be a highly urbanized TOD. This document outlines an approach for development, including general provisions for development, submittal requirements, land use and zoning (overlay) recommendations, site plan requirements, required infrastructure improvements, and design guidelines. Specific sectional map amendments are described, including zoning changes. 2010 Phase 1: Purple Line Bicycle Access and Bicycle Hub Location Study Completed in 2010, Phase 1: Purple Line Bicycle Access and Bicycle Hub Location Study included a bicycle access study that identified potential locations for bikeways and sidewalks along the entire segment of the Purple Line in Prince George’s County. The study also formulated complete street principles for the areas surrounding future transit stations. The Phase 1 study recommendations established a baseline for the more extensive work performed under the Phase 2 study (see below). In developing the Purple Line TOD station area improvement recommendations, it is recognized that safe and convenient bicycle access including signage and secure bicycle parking is important for improving intermodal connectivity to high-quality transit service, such as the Purple Line, as bicycling is a primary access mode to transit and frequently used to make the ‘last mile’ of a trip using rapid transit. During this current Purple Line TOD planning effort, the recommendations from Phase 1 will be reviewed and updated based on conversations with key stakeholders and potential land use changes. 2011 Phase 2: Purple Line Corridor Access Study (CAST) Recommendations Report Phase 2 of the Purple Line CAST was completed in June 2011. This study evaluated multimodal access to the eleven planned Purple Line LRT stations

within Prince George’s County. The study’s focus was on existing conditions, opportunities, and challenges at each station site, including properties within a half-mile radius. The final report included recommendations that addressed pedestrian, bicycle, and bus transit access based on sector plans, master plans, other studies, and a review of existing conditions and needs. The Phase 2 effort considered a broad range of improvements from sidewalks to bike routes to American with Disabilities Act (ADA) upgrades, as well as intersection improvements, bus stop upgrades, enhanced lighting, and traffic calming. As part of the current Purple Line TOD Study planning efforts, specific recommendations from the Phase 2 study will be developed and expanded, including, but not limited to: • Emphasizing a core five-minute walking isochrone. • Parking supply and demand management strategies related to new development and neighborhood streets. • Access management needs related to existing roadway connections and commercial properties. • Bus circulation/stop relocations. • New roadway connections/traffic controls.

Introduction

1.3 Purple Line TOD Study Overview The Prince George’s County Planning Department of M-NCPPC, along with a consultant team led by Design Collective, Inc., conducted a comprehensive TOD study. This study focuses on the planned Purple Line LRT Corridor within Prince George’s County and on the five station locations in areas where no sector plan for transit district development has been approved. These stations include Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights), Riverdale Park, M Square (River Road), College Park-UMD, and West Campus. The intent of this study is to advance the long-term goals and objectives defined by Envision Prince George’s and the 2009 Master Plan of Transportation that support sustainability and transit-oriented mixed-use communities as well as support and inform the efforts of the MTA, which is currently working on the Purple Line PA. The Purple Line TOD Study builds on the completed Phase 1 and 2 Purple Line CAST studies and evaluate current conditions, issues, and TOD opportunities within the Purple Line Corridor. As part of this study, development strategy plans were created for each of the five stations. These plans address future land use, zoning, development opportunities, and constraints. TOD market and economic feasibility and general fiscal impact analyses were completed as a part of this study. The study also includes planning and policy options for attracting TOD; preliminary infrastructure, services, and needs assessment; initial TOD concept plans for station areas; opportunities for community revitalization and reinvestment; and an implementation framework plan. A major component of this three-part report includes the description of a broad-based and inclusive community engagement plan that enabled resident, business, and property owner collaboration and participation that helped to shape the five station development strategy plans. (See Chapter 2, Community Outreach Campaign, page 17.) Lastly, a zoning template was created as part of this study that will guide the formulation of zoning amendments and be part of future sector plans and sectional map amendments or TDDPs and TDOZ map amendments.

Purpose of Existing Conditions Report The “Existing Conditions Report” for the Purple Line TOD Study documents pertinent conditions, issues, TOD opportunities, and constraints along the corridor and at each of the study’s five proposed Purple Line stations. This report outlines the key considerations that will inform development plans for the stations. The report is based on previous plans and research, site visits, strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats analysis, and community input.

Market Summary The full market analysis for the Purple Line TOD Study is contained within a section entitled “Part 2: Market Analysis.” Below is a summary of the findings. Residential: Locations along the proposed Purple Line present opportunities for additional infill development and redevelopment within established communities.

The conclusions for the market analysis for the proposed Purple Line suggest that new residential development could include one to two new moderatedensity apartment complexes (75 to 150 units per building) at each proposed station area except College Park-UMD, which might support more extensive rental apartment development with up to 2,670 new apartment units by 2025. The existing residential community occupies much of the existing land area in both Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) and Riverdale Park; however, there are several opportunities to redevelop the existing shopping centers and create mixed-use alternatives that incorporate rental housing. Office: With the creation of a mixed-use environment with access to public transit and amenities, including restaurants, public open space, and some residential options that enliven the space after the business day, projected office growth could increase by 40 percent in the M Square (River Road) and College Park-UMD station areas. This increase would result in approximately 45,000 to 50,000 square feet of annual demand for office space or 725,000 to 735,000 square feet by 2025. Retail: Much of the existing retail environment along the proposed Purple Line is in older style commercial shopping centers for retailers that cater to the local resident base. The Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) station area does not have sufficient unmet retail demand at this time to support new retail development due to the extensive competition offered by area shopping centers and big box retailers. In Riverdale Park, the current configuration of older shopping centers should be adapted to incorporate mixed-use alternatives while reducing the retail offerings. In the M Square (River Road) and College Park-UMD station Purple Line areas, the retail potential for ancillary restaurants and service providers to serve the daytime population represents an opportunity. Hotel: Finally, the market analysis suggests that the College Park submarket is prime for the addition of a new hotel with a walkable environment within a mixed-use development. The College Park UMD station area will offer both direct access to the university campus via the proposed Purple Line and access to Washington, D.C., via the Metro.

Document Components The “Existing Conditions Report” comprises two sections; the Community Outreach Process and Station Area Existing Conditions. The Community Outreach chapter highlights the public outreach efforts and describes the community introductory workshops. This chapter concludes with a summary of the community input and provides a list of common themes voiced by the stakeholders. The station area existing conditions chapter documents existing conditions for each of the five stations, including zoning, land use, area properties, green infrastructure, and environmental issues. Also included in this chapter are the study area’s traffic and transportation existing conditions with a summary of needs and proposed improvements. This chapter summarizes previous planning efforts and catalogs the current MTA station locations and the Purple Line PA route. This chapter also records community input on issues, constraints, and opportunities specific to each station. The “Existing Conditions Report” concludes with an outline of next steps and future components of the study.

Purple Line TOD Study: Existing Conditions

Map 1.2: Station Locations and Study Area Diagram Ad elp h

UMD Campus Center

w y.

Adelphi Rd.

Baltimore Ave. (U S

Belcrest Rd.

shing ton Pkw y.

Ba lti m

o re

t Bra Pain

College Park UMD

Av e. (M

University of Maryland

Kenilwo rth

West Campus

D 20 1)

East Campus

Blvd. E

-Wa

Un ive

rsit y

Blv d. E

i Rd y Universit

1/2 Mile Radius Existing Roads MARC/Metro Rail Lines Purple Line Alignment Purple Line Stations

East W est

r Age

Rive r Rd.

(River Road)

Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights)

Hwy.

R iverdale Rd.

Pk w D (M

Riverdale Park

Ve ter an s

Rd.

0) 41

e Qu

M Square

(MD 4 10)

d MA R C/ Met ro R ail

e ap

Good Luck Rd.

2. Community Outreach 2.1 Outreach Campaign

2.2 Community Workshops Summary

2.3 Introduction Community Workshops

2.4 Visioning Community Workshops

2.5 Preliminary Concept Plans Community Workshops

Overview Laying a solid foundation for Purple Line Station TOD plans could not have been accomplished without including a wide range of people and perspectives. The study team employed various and strategic methods to launch an effective public outreach and involvement process. The public outreach strategy was designed to educate stakeholders about the study and to encourage those who will be most directly affected to participate in the process. Citizens who participated represent a diverse population around the Purple Line station areas, including residents, business and property owners, elected officials, and public agency representatives.

Community Outreach

2.1 Outreach Campaign

A community engagement process was designed to educate and engage residents, community groups, and local businesses as key participants in the Purple Line TOD study. A variety of tools were used to facilitate community outreach in the study area to provide citizens and the media with timely information and ensure opportunities for receiving feedback.

Web Site The project web site, located at www.pgplanning.org/purplelinetod.html was launched in October 2011. The web site was designed to engage stakeholders with general information about the study and how it fits within the overall context of previous planning that has occurred in the area. The web site provided an overview of the project, interactive maps, an up-to-date workshop schedule, opportunities to join the mailing list, and links to previous study reports. For each workshop, copies were posted of the presentation, table discussion, and comment sheet summary. The site also featured bilingual project materials.

Letter Mailings M-NCPPC used mailing lists to send letters to property owners identified in tax records. These workshop announcements were sent to property owners in each of the station areas.

Newsletter A newsletter was distributed by M-NCPPC to the public after each series of workshops. Each newsletter described the purpose of the workshops and presented a summary of community input. Additional resources were listed for readers to learn more about the Purple Line and similar light-rail projects in other parts of the nation. Each newsletter also encouraged continued public involvement by providing the project web site address, contact information, and an updated schedule of community workshops.

Purple Line TOD Survey The purpose of the Purple Line TOD Study survey was to understand workers’ daytime habits, their use of nearby Riverdale Park and College Park retail establishments, and their ideas for future uses to benefit the M Square area. The survey was for workers in the M Square area only. Invitation to participate letters, which provided a link to the online survey, were e-mailed to staff contacts of M Square area businesses and institutions. These contacts agreed to be liaisons that would disseminate the letters to fellow employees. The survey was open for participation from January 31, 2012–February 15, 2012.

E-Mail Notices Bilingual e-mail notices were sent using Constant Contact, an e-mail distribution channel, to an extensive and growing database of participants, organizations, businesses, elected officials, and other interested citizens. The e-mail notices included an “RSVP Now” link. Recipients were encouraged to forward the e-mail notice to others, which helped to spread the word about upcoming workshops.

Flier Distribution Fliers about the workshop meetings were distributed to apartment buildings, businesses, and door-to-door to houses throughout the project area.

Media Advisories News advisories about the workshops were regularly distributed by M-NCPPC to local television and radio stations; daily, weekly, and local newspapers; wire services; and to online publications inviting the public to attend the workshops.

FAQ The project FAQ, also translated to Spanish, answered basic questions about the project: What happened during Phases 1 and 2? How can the public become involved? Where do we send our questions or comments? What is the project schedule? The FAQ also provided project contact information and explained how to get involved by going to the web site and participating in upcoming workshops.

Purple Line TOD Study: Existing Conditions

2.2 Community Workshops Summary Table 2-1 Community Workshops—Schedule Workshop

Date

Study Initiation

August 15, 2011

Phase 1: Project Introduction and Background

August 2011–January 2012

Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Station

Introduction Community Workshop Riverdale Park Station

Introduction Community Workshop College Park-UMD and M Square (River Road) Stations

Introduction Community Workshop West Campus Station

Introduction Community Workshop Phase 2: Study Area Analysis

Beacon Heights Elementary School 6929 Furman Parkway, Riverdale, MD 20737 December 7, 2011, 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. St. Bernard’s Catholic Church, Candlelight Room 5700 Saint Bernards Drive, Riverdale, MD 20737 December 13, 2011, 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. Department of Parks and Recreation Administration Building 6600 Kenilworth Avenue, Riverdale, MD 20737 January 11, 2012, 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. Hyattsville Library 6530 Adelphi Road Hyattsville, MD 20782 September 2011–March 2012

Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Station

November 15, 2011, 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.

Introduction Community Workshop 35 participants

Beacon Heights Elementary School 6929 Furman Parkway, Riverdale, MD 20737

Riverdale Park Station

December 7, 2011, 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.

Introduction Community Workshop 50 participants

St Bernards Roman Catholic Church, Candlelight Room 5700 Saint Bernard Drive, Riverdale, MD 20737

College Park-UMD and M Square (River Road) Stations

December 13, 2011, 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.

Introduction Community Workshop 17 participants

Department of Parks and Recreation Administration Building 6600 Kenilworth Avenue, Riverdale, MD 20737

West Campus Station

January 11, 2012 6:30 to 8:30 p.m.

Introduction Community Workshop

Hyattsville Library 6530 Adelphi Road, Hyattsville, MD 2078

29 participants

November 15, 2011, 6:30 to 8:30 p.m.

Community Outreach

Table 2-1 Community Workshops—Schedule Workshop

Date

Phase 3: Visioning and Preliminary Development Plans

January–March 2012

Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Station

Visioning Community Workshop Riverdale Park Station

Visioning Community Workshop College Park-UMD and M Square Stations

Visioning Community Workshop West Campus Station

Visioning Community Workshop Phase 4: Final Development Plans, Implementation Strategies, and Report

February 15, 2012, 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. Beacon Heights Elementary School 6929 Furman Parkway, Riverdale, MD 20737 January 25, 2012, 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. St. Bernard’s Catholic Church, Candlelight Room 5700 Saint Bernards Drive, Riverdale, MD 20737 February 1, 2012, 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. Department of Parks and Recreation Administration Building 6600 Kenilworth Avenue, Riverdale, MD 20737 February 8, 2012, 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. Hyattsville Library 6530 Adelphi Road,Hyattsville, MD 20782 March–June 2012

Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Station

March 21, 2012, 6:30 to 8:30 p.m.

Preliminary Alternative Development Plans Community Workshops

Beacon Heights Elementary School 6929 Furman Parkway, Riverdale, MD 20737

Riverdale Park Station

April 18, 2012, 6:30 to 8:30 p.m.

Preliminary Alternative Development Plans Community Workshops

St. Bernard’s Catholic Church, Candlelight Room 5700 Saint Bernards Drive, Riverdale, MD 20737

College Park-UMD and M Square (River Road) Stations

April 4, 2012, 6:30 to 8:30 p.m.

Preliminary Alternative Development Plans Community Workshops

Department of Parks and Recreation Administration Building 6600 Kenilworth Avenue, Riverdale, MD 20737

West Campus Station

April 11, 2012, 6:30 to 8:30 p.m.

Preliminary Alternative Development Plan

Hyattsville Library 6530 Adelphi Road, Hyattsville, MD 20782

Community Workshop

Purple Line TOD Study: Existing Conditions

2.3 Introduction Community Workshops The first round of community workshops took place between November 15, 2011, and January 11, 2012. They served as an introduction to the Purple Line TOD study for the 86 residents, business owners and organizations, organization representatives, and elected representatives who attended. Each workshop began with a presentation that gave a study overview, introduced the project team, outlined outreach methods, presented a site and market potential overview of the station areas, and highlighted TOD opportunities. Participants discussed their views with the M-NCPPC project team and consultants about how this important planning effort could help improve the quality of life in their communities.

Community workshop opening presentation

From these workshops a number of opportunities and community priorities emerged from community comments and are summarized by the following themes:

Local Economic Development Participants view the Purple Line as an opportunity to attract needed businesses and services to the community and advocated for mixed-use and TOD development, affordable housing, and new retail and restaurants. The new stations would also improve residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; access to regional employment centers such as Washington, D.C. Business and property owners highlighted the importance of addressing possible negative impacts to homes and businesses along the alignment.

Community workshop opening presentation

Safety and Access Participants identified walkable streets, reduced crime, improved traffic flow, and enhanced multimodal access as priorities. Recommendations included installing traffic lights and traffic-calming devices in key locations, addressing congestion and parking demands, and adding sidewalks, biking paths, and lighting. Providing safe connections to the stations is also important.

Community Amenities Residents want more vibrant neighborhoods that include recreational opportunities such as a skate park, pools, more green spaces, and community centers. It is also important to recognize and preserve the cultural and historic resources in the area. Participants stated that public art should reflect the community, and youth need more options for activities.

Community workshop small group discussions

Open Spaces and Natural Environment Community priorities include protecting and connecting to the park trails, creating new open spaces and reducing impervious cover. Participants also advocated for enhanced buffering to address potential noise impacts.

Community workshop small group discussions

Community Outreach

2.4 Visioning Community Workshops The second round of community workshops took place between January 25 and February 15, 2012. At these workshops, 95 local residents, business owners, representatives of civic and homeowner associations, and elected officials had an opportunity to envision TOD near the planned light-rail station in their community. Each presentation summarized community input from the first round of workshops and gave an analysis of existing conditions within the station areas. At the table discussions, participants began defining an overall vision for their community and gave input on the station identity, streetscape, architectural character, uses and services, and community amenities. Uses and architectural character

Participants focused on five topics at the table discussions:

Uses and Architectural Character The mix of uses should include retail, restaurants, new single-family housing, and grocery stores. In addition to a variety of restaurant choices, workers in the M Square area request convenience stores and pharmacies. Participants emphasized the importance of retaining existing businesses and addressing the potential negative impacts. The police headquarters provides an opportunity for recreational uses such as for a center, pools, and tennis courts. To prevent overwhelming the communities with new development, set building height limitations with the greatest densities and heights anticipated at the College Park-UMD and in the existing office parks at M Square.

Mobility, connectivity, and access

Mobility, Connectivity, and Access Participants wanted safe, pedestrian-friendly connections through neighborhoods and to the Metro stations; coordinated bus and shuttle service with the Purple Line; improved pedestrian crosswalks and lighting; incorporated buffered bike lanes along the major roads—Veterans Parkway, Riverdale Road, River Road, Kenilworth Avenue—and improved connections to the trails; and traffic lights placed on River Road to slow down traffic.

Station Character and Identity Participants preferred that stations be gateways into the community, reflecting the diversity of residents, the existing community character, and area historical landmarks. Lighting and adequate shelter is important in providing safer stations. Directional signage should be incorporated into the station design. Streetscape Character

Streetscape Character Create a walkable environment with wider sidewalks, buffered from traffic with landscaping, and shade trees. Participants called for more benches and lighting for pedestrians and public transit users. Area workers preferred covered picnic tables for eating outside, especially in the M Square area.

Amenities and Open Spaces

Active open spaces and civic plazas were identified by participants as desirable additions near stations. Park space should comprise seating areas. Residents also highlighted the need to provide space for adolescents and for children, such as parks and playgrounds located a safe distance from roads. Community activities include movie nights, concerts, and farmers’ markets.

Purple Line TOD Study: Existing Conditions

2.5 Preliminary Concept Plans Community Workshops The third round of community workshops were held between March 21 and April 28, 2012. At these workshops, 95 participants reviewed and discussed redevelopment scenarios for the five station areas. Workshop attendees included representatives from community organizations and elected representatives. The scenarios presented potential land use changes, pedestrian and road improvements, urban design recommendations for the stations, and the immediate surroundings. Participants viewed the scenarios in the display area, discussed details, and asked questions. Participants discussed their concerns and provided recommendations and feedback on the scenarios:

Community workshop open house

Land Use Type and Architectural Character Neighborhood-serving businesses that offer local jobs, products, and services along with diverse, affordable housing options help to revitalize and improve the quality of life for the surrounding communities. New development is expected to provide viability and activity in Riverdale, College Park-UMD, and M Square areas. Residents around the Riverdale Road station site, in particular, expressed concern about potential negative impacts to the Terrace Apartments and homes along Riverdale Road from the Purple Line alignment. Community recommendations included:

Community Workshop Open House

• Residential multifamily and multigenerational housing with larger number of bedrooms or town house units. • Ground level retail and office space above retail along Riverdale Road, 58th Avenue, and Kenilworth Avenue. • Recreation center.

Transportation Improving access and safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles is key in forming healthy communities and a sustainable business climate. Participants showed overwhelming support for the recommendations. Implementing traffic calming measures on East West Highway is essential for safety and improving traffic flow.

Community Workshop Open House

Community recommendations include: • Neighborhood Parking Monitoring Program. • Intersection improvements to Riverdale Road at 66th and 67th Avenues. • New streets, including a connection from the Cafritz development site to River Road south of the College Park-UMD station. • On-street bike lanes and bicycle racks, lockers, and rentals at the station. • Bus stop shelters, benches, and real-time transit information.

Community Workshop Open House

Community Outreach

Station Access and Character Throughout the study, participants stressed the need for safe and walkable streets through the neighborhoods. Participants were pleased with the pedestrian lighting. It is also important to plan for an open and accessible area for community use under the raised Riverdale Park Station. Anticipating an increase in transit use, residents insisted that transit service should be upgraded accordingly. Community recommendations included: • Sidewalk connections to stations • Pedestrian lighting • Bicycle racks, lockers, and rentals at stations

Streetscape Character The proposed network of sidewalks and lighting provide pedestrians and cyclists with safe routes and improved connections to stations and businesses. Community recommendations included: • New sidewalks, pedestrian lighting, and trees. • New connections from Patterson Street to Veterans Parkway. • Bus stop upgrades, relocations, and amenities including shelters and benches.

Amenities and Open Spaces Participants envisioned the planned open space networks for community uses with features including civic plazas, interactive water fountains, and farmers’ markets. Preserving historic resources and environmentally sensitive areas continue to be of importance to residents. Community recommendations included: • • • •

Green space along Riverdale Road. Community plaza on 67th Avenue. Recreation center on Eastpine Drive. Pedestrian amenities, including more seating, picnic tables, lighting, and trash cans. • Trail connections to Northeast Branch, Rhode Island Avenue Trail, and River Road.

3. Station Area—Existing Conditions 3.1 Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights)

3.2 Riverdale Park

3.3 M Square (River Road)

3.4 College Park-UMD

3.5 West Campus

Overview The following chapter documents the existing conditions of the five areas surrounding the Purple Line stations of Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights), Riverdale Park, MÂ Square (River Road), College Park-UMD, and West Campus. Each station section begins with a description of the area character and a summary of existing zoning, land use, area properties, open space, and environmental conditions surrounding the station. A traffic and transportation assessment, on a station by station basis, includes roadway type; functionality and related amenities; pedestrian facilities (e.g., sidewalks); bicycle facilities; transit services (bus and Metrorail); and parking. A summary of previous plans and studies that potentially influence each station study areas is included. A summary of community input from the public workshops held for each station includes common themes related to issues, concerns, and redevelopment opportunities. Lastly, each station section concludes with the current MTA Purple Line PA route and station location plan, along with a description of impacts to the existing transportation system and surrounding development area.

Station Area-Existing Conditions | Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights)

3.1

Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Introduction 28 Zoning 30

Wes t Ca mpu s

Coll ege P UM ark D

(Riv quare er R oad )

Rive

Rive rdal e Pa rk

(Bea rdale R con Heig oad hts)

Land Use

Area Properties

Open Space

Environmental Conditions

Area Traffic and Transportation

Previous Plans and Studies

Station Location and PA Route

Purple Line TOD Study: Existing Conditions

Introduction

The TOD study area centered on the proposed Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Purple Line station extends outward a half-mile from the station stop, as is shown in Map 3.1 on the facing page. A half-mile represents an average 10-minute walk. The inner circle represents a quarter-mile radius or an average 5-minute walk. Major vehicular thoroughfares, including the Baltimore-Washington Parkway and Veterans Highway run through the study area. Area commuters use Riverdale Road to connect between and access these larger thoroughfare corridors. The Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) station area represents a stable residential community with more than 6,000 residents in approximately 1,750 households. This station area gained 982 new residents over the last decade. According to data from the 2000 U.S. Census, the residents within the Riverdale Road area have a median age of 29.8 with one-third of residents under the age of 20. In the Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) neighborhood, the tenure splits almost evenly with 51 percent owner households. The housing stock consists of mainly single-family detached houses and townhouses with only a few garden style multifamily buildings. The average household size within the Riverdale Road station area is 3.52, much larger than the Prince Georgeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s County average household size of 2.78 persons per household. A closer review of the demographics suggests the Riverdale Road residents are aging in place, with nearly one in five homeowners over the age of 65 and an additional 14.8 percent between the ages of 55 to 64. The median household income in the Riverdale Road station area is below the Prince Georgeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s County median household income of $68,575, reaching only $60,100; this may reflect the larger portion of households on fixed incomes within the immediate station area.

East Pines Apartments

County and Park Police Headquarters building

Assets within the half-mile radius of the proposed station, with the potential for redevelopment, include several large parcels with close proximity to the proposed station. Two of these parcels are the 5.49 acre, county-owned facility directly across Riverdale Road from the proposed platform and the existing East Pines Shopping Center, on 2.62 acres, at the southeast corner of the intersection of 66th Avenue and Riverdale Road. East Pines Shopping Center

Exxon Gas Station on 67th Ave. and Riverdale Rd.

Station Area-Existing Conditions | Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights)

Map 3.1 Study Area Location Ad elp h

1/2 Mile Radius Existing Roads MARC/Metro Rail Lines Purple Line Alignment Purple Line Stations

w y.

Adelphi Rd.

shing ton Pkw y.

Good Luck Rd.

Baltimore Ave. (U S

Belcrest Rd.

Ba lti m

o re

t Bra Pain

College Park UMD

Av e. (M

University of Maryland

Kenilwo rth

West Campus

D 20 1)

East Campus

y Blvd. E Universit

-Wa

Un ive rsit y

Blv d. E

i Rd

UMD Campus Center

M Square (River Road)

East W est

(Beacon Heights) (MD 4 10)

Ve ter an s

R iverdale Rd.

Pk w

rR Age

e Qu

Riverdale Road

Hwy.

MA R C/ Met ro R ail

p ha

Rive r Rd.

D (M

Riverdale Park

0) 41

Map 3.2 Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Station Study Area—Existing Conditions 1/2 Mile Radius

1/4 Mile Radius

th 67

Baltimore-Washington P kwy

Dr.

. Pl

64th Ave.

67th Ave.

Eastp ine

ce ra

r Te

63rd Pl.

Powhatan St.

66th Ave.

Patterson St.

oo nw

Riverdale Rd.

r Fe

Ct .

Riverdale Rd.

Ve te

ran

Patterson St.

LEGEND

Purple Line Route Proposed by MTA Proposed Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Station 0

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

Purple Line TOD Study: Existing Conditions

Zoning

The existing zoning classifications predominantly allow for low- and mediumdensity residential, with some low-density commercial. The zoning is typical single use (or Euclidean zoning) where each land use is separated from one another (i.e., residential is separated from commercial), with very limited mixing. For example, residential zones allow for few exceptions to the use zoned property (such as allowances for funeral parlors and bed and breakfast inns), per the Prince George’s County Zoning Ordinance and Use Table, Section 27.

• • • • •

R-20: One-Family Attached Residential R-55: One-Family Detached Residential R-80: One-Family Detached Residential R-R: Rural Residential R-T: Residential Townhouse

Commercial: • C-O: Commercial Office • C-S-C: Commercial Shopping Center

The existing zoning codes within the half-mile radius of the proposed station include: Residential: • R-10: Multifamily High Density Residential • R-18: Multifamily Medium Density Residential

Map 3.3 Existing Zoning 1/2 Mile Radius

LEGEND

Purple Line

Route Proposed by MTA

1/4 Mile Radius Aub u

rn A ve.

Proposed Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Station ZONING

th 67

. Pl

Baltimore -Washington P kwy

C-S-C I-1

67th Ave.

Dr.

64th Ave.

C-M

ce ra

Eastp ine

r Te

63rd Pl.

Powhatan St.

C-A

C-O

66th Ave.

Patterson St.

C-2

oo nw

Riverdale Rd.

C-1

r Fe

Ct .

Riverdale Rd.

I-2

Ve te

I-3

ran

M-U-I

M-X-T MU-TC O-S

Patterson St.

R-10 R-18 R-20 R-30 R-30C R-35 R-55 R-80 R-O-S R-R R-T U-L-I 0

100

200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

400

600

Station Area-Existing Conditions | Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights)

Land Use

The Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) study area within a half-mile of the proposed station area is dominated by residential; the area mainly comprises low-density and medium-density residential. Approximately two-thirds of the 1,750 housing units are single-family (detached and attached) homes. The remaining multifamily units are typically garden apartment buildings.

the Baltimore-Washington Parkway and Veterans Parkway; and Beacon Heights Elementary School, located southeast of the proposed station. The county and Park Police parcel, directly across the street from the proposed station, is 5.94 acres.

The commercial uses are located on, or bordering, Riverdale Road and include one-story and two-story retail and office buildings. The East Pines Shopping Center parcel, within a quarter-mile of the proposed station, is 2.62 acres. East Pines Shopping Center, constructed in 1959, is approximately 56,000 square feet. The shopping center is anchored by neighborhood retail, including an ethnic grocer, three ethnic restaurants, pawn shop, pharmacy, and the Word of God church. Institutional uses include the Maryland-National Capital Park Police Prince George’s County Division building, located on Riverdale Road midway between

Map 3.4 Existing Land Use 1/2 Mile Radius Parkdale High School William Wirt Middle School

n Ave .

1/4 Mile Radius Aub ur

Center for Educational Partnership

th 67

Baltimore-Washington P kwy

Dr.

. Pl

64th Ave.

Ve te

67th Ave.

Eastp ine

Maryland-National Capital Park Police

63rd Pl.

ce ra

Powhatan St.

66th Ave.

Patterson St.

r Te

Riverdale Rd.

SEED Learning Academy

oo nw

Refreshing Spring Church of God

r Fe

Ct .

Riverdale Rd.

ran

Patterson St.

LEGEND

Purple Line

Route Proposed by MTA Proposed Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Station

Historic District Historic Site/ Structure

Beacon Heights Elem. School

Institutional Residential Commercial Industrial Recreation 0

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

Purple Line TOD Study: Existing Conditions

Area Properties

River Park Condos Parkview Gardens Apartments Prince Georgetown Townhomes Vacant—Private Daniel Cushing County & Park Police Hdqtrs. New Carrollton Woods Apts. Private Residence Trimble Stacey Texaco Gas Station

17. East Dale Apts. 18. Parkview Gardens Apts. 19. Exxon Gas Station 20. East Pines Shopping Ctr. 21. Sunoco Gas Station 22. Super Convenience Store 23. Laundromat 24. Beacon Heights Elementary 25. Church of Christ Wildercroft 26. First Vietnamese Baptist Church 27. Riverdale Village Apartments 28. Parkdale High School 29. William Wirt Middle School

9. Wildercroft Shopping Center 10. “Drive-In” Liquors 11. Wildercroft Terrace Apts. 12. Auburn Manor Apts. 13. Riverdale Woods LLC 14. Potomac Electric Power Co. 15. Riverdale Woods, LLC 16. East Pines Terrace Apts.

Map 3.5 Area Properties 1/2 Mile Radius 28

1/4 Mile Radius

n Ave .

Baltimore -Washington P kwy

. Pl

Dr.

64th Ave.

4 16

19 21 20 18

67th Ave.

Eastp ine

ce ra

r Te

Powhatan St.

66th Ave.

Patterson St.

63rd Pl.

oo nw

Riverdale Rd.

r Fe

Ct .

Aub ur

Ve te

ran

Patterson St.

LEGEND

Purple Line

Route Proposed by MTA Proposed Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Station

Key Area Properties 0

100

200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

Exxon Gas Station

400

600

Station Area-Existing Conditions | Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights)

Open Space

Wildercroft Neighborhood Park, with surface tennis courts. Browning’s Grove Neighborhood Park, comprising passive recreation space, surface courts, playground equipment, and gathering pavilions. Glenridge Community Park, which contains a combined baseball and football field, playground equipment, gathering pavilions, and trails.

The Open Space Diagram, shown below, locates existing parks, playground, trails, and recreation centers within and surrounding the half-mile radius study area as potential amenities for future development. Several community and neighborhood parks are located within the half-mile radius of the proposed Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) station. Parks located within the half-mile radius include:

While the peripheral area contains a variety of recreation options and parks, these open spaces are not linked by a greenway system and connecting trails, and bike paths are infrequent and do not form an interconnected network.

Madison Hill Community Park, which borders two academic recreation fields to the north and south. East Pines Neighborhood Recreation Center, with surface tennis and basketball courts. Cherry Hill Cemetery Historic Site Parks located just outside of the half-mile radius include:

While not “open space” in a recreational sense, the Baltimore-Washington Parkway is a National Park Service property and considered a “backyard” green parkway and commuter route for the Washington, D.C./suburban Maryland area.

Riverdale Hills Neighborhood Playground, with a variety of playground equipment.

Map 3.6 Open Space 1/2 Mile Radius

Madison Hill Community Park

Wildercroft Neighborhood Park

rn A ve.

Riverdale Hills Neighborhood Playground

Aub u

1/4 Mile Radius

th 67

Baltimore-Washington P kwy

Dr.

. Pl

64th Ave.

Ve te

67th Ave.

Eastp ine

ce ra

r Te

63rd Pl.

Powhatan St.

66th Ave.

East Pines Neighborhood Rec. Center

oo nw

Riverdale Rd.

r Fe

Ct .

Riverdale Rd.

ran

Patterson St. LEGEND

Purple Line

Route Proposed by MTA

Browning’s Grove Neighborhood Park

Proposed Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Station

Park Land Wetland Cherry Hill Cemetery Historic Site

Stream/Pond Glenridge Community Park

Floodplain 100 year

Floodplain 500 year

Trails 0

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

Purple Line TOD Study: Existing Conditions

Environmental Conditions

The Environmental Conditions Diagram, shown below, locates existing hydrologic features such as wetlands, streams, ponds, and flood plain areas within and surrounding the half-mile radius study area as potential constraints on future development.

100 year and 500-year floodplains within the half-mile radius are mostly confined to the stream basins, but east of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway, a large portion envelops mainly forested area. In this area, the floodplains do encroach on existing buildings, including Wildercroft Shopping Center on Riverdale Road.

Within the quarter-mile radius of the proposed Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) station, only minor hydrologic features are located. A wetland, east of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway northbound on-ramp at Riverdale Road, is located in a forested area on a vacant parcel. Extending further out from the proposed station location, between the quarter-mile and the half-mile radii, a stream runs through the area behind Wildercroft Shopping Center. This area has a significant wetland north of the stream, which is within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-sited floodplains. The designated

Map 3.7 Environmental Conditions

rn A ve.

1/2 Mile Radius

Aub u

1/4 Mile Radius

th 67

Baltimore-Washington P kwy

Dr.

. Pl

64th Ave.

67th Ave.

Eastp ine

ce ra

r Te

63rd Pl.

66th Ave.

Powhatan St.

oo nw

Riverdale Rd.

r Fe

Ct .

Riverdale Rd.

Ve te

ran

Patterson St. LEGEND

Purple Line

Route Proposed by MTA Proposed Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Station

Parkland Wetland Stream/Pond Floodplain 100 year

Floodplain 500 year

Trails 0

100

200

SCALE: 1â&#x20AC;? = 200â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

400

600

Station Area-Existing Conditions | Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights)

Area Traffic and Transportation Overview

The traffic and transportation assessment for Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) includes roadway types, functionality and related amenities, pedestrian facilities (e.g., sidewalks), bicycle facilities, transit services (bus and Metrorail), and parking. Major deficiencies/needs such as gaps and barriers in the nonmotorized transportation network are documented and summarized.

Roadways The Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) study area street network largely comprises narrow two-lane, two-way undivided residential streets. Exceptions are 66th Avenue and a portion of 67th Avenue, which are one-way streets, and Riverdale Road and Veterans Parkway, which are larger roadways. MD 410 (East West Highway, Riverdale Road, and Veterans Parkway) is a four- to six-lane divided and undivided principal arterial that runs in an east-west direction from New Hampshire Avenue to Annapolis Road, carrying an average daily traffic (ADT) volume of 37,000 to 40,000 vehicles as far east as BaltimoreWashington Parkway. Only one residential street had measured traffic volumes available; 67th Avenue carries an average daily traffic volume of 3,350 vehicles. All available ADT volumes were obtained through Maryland State Highway Administration’s (MDSHA) internet Traffic Monitoring System (TMS). Regarding roadway maintenance responsibilities, all numbered roadways in the study area such as MD 410 (East West Highway) and MD 201 (Kenilworth Avenue) are maintained by MDSHA. Named roadways such as River Road and Paint Branch Parkway are maintained by the county.

Pedestrian Accommodations Within the study area, sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street for the full length of the roadway along Riverdale Road and throughout newly developed areas in the southeast section. Partial sidewalks are provided on all of the streets northwest of the Riverdale Road Bridge over the BaltimoreWashington Parkway. Nearly all of the roadways south of Riverdale Road and west of Beacon Place have no sidewalks. Noted Deficiencies. There are many gaps in the sidewalk network throughout the residential areas. Multiple curb cuts for driveways result in continually varying sidewalk alignments. Most existing sidewalks are located at or very close to the back of the curb, providing minimal buffer from vehicular traffic and an uninviting walking environment. Lighting is provided at most intersections but is sparse along stretches of Riverdale Road and in some residential areas. There is no lighting provided at a pedestrian scale such as lower pole-mounted fixtures (14’ +/- high). The intersections along Riverdale Road handle high volumes of vehicle traffic, resulting in long crossing distances and multiple points of conflict for each pedestrian crossing movement. Most crosswalks appear to be faded. Not all intersections provide consistent amenities, including push buttons and countdown signals. Curb ramps are generally provided at intersections

through the study area; however, many do not meet current ADA standards for accessible design.

Bicycle Accommodations There are currently no designated bicycle facilities such as bike lanes or paths within a half-mile radius of the proposed Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Purple Line Station. Noted Deficiencies. There is no bicycle network, bicycle signage, or bicycle parking provided in the study area. Though there are many local residents within short bicycle trips of commercial destinations, the connecting roadways are undesirable for bicyclists without dedicated space for bikes.

Transit Service Bus stops are located along Riverdale Road and Auburn Avenue throughout the study area; most stops have no amenities such as benches or shelters. The area is served by Metrobus routes 84 and F4/F6. Metrobus Route 84 stops in New Carrollton, Edmonston, Bladensburg, Peace Cross, Mt. Rainier, and Rhode Island Avenue-Brentwood Metro Stations. Metrobus Route 84 has a peak hour headway of 20 minutes. Metrobus Route F4/F6 serves Silver Spring, Takoma Park, Prince George’s Plaza, and New Carrollton Metro Stations. In addition, Metrobus Route F6 serves the UMD and has a peak hour headway of 30 minutes. The F4 route has a peak hour headway of 15 minutes. Noted Deficiencies. Existing bus stops lack amenities such as shelters and real-time transit information.

Parking Regulations Approximately 1,400 parking spaces exist within a half-mile radius of the proposed Purple Line station. The majority of parking occurs on-street and in two apartment complexes north of Riverdale Road; the Prince Georgetown Apartments and the New Carrollton Apartments provide off-street permit parking. There are ‘No Parking’ restrictions along Riverdale Road and Veterans Parkway. Otherwise, on-street parking is free and unrestricted on all residential streets.

Recommended Public Improvements A review of short-term and long-term state, county, and local plans such as the Consolidated Transportation Plan, CIP, Highway Needs Inventory, Constrained Long-Range Plan, and Master Plan of Transportation was performed to identify both funded and unfunded transportation projects for each mode of travel (other than the Purple Line). There are currently no pipeline projects within a half-mile radius of the proposed Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Station. (See plan diagrams and tables on following pages for additional traffic and transportation assessments for Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights).) The walksheds for Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) are shown both as radial perimeters (circles) and as isochrones (free form shapes) based on actual predicted walking travel times from the station platform. The importance of

Purple Line TOD Study: Existing Conditions

1/4-M

ile

RIV

ERD

ALE

ROAD (Beacon H eig h

ts)â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

ile

Map 3.8 Walksheds, Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights)

WALKSHED LEGEND

Purple Line PA Alignment Proposed Purple Line Station 1/2-Mile Walk 1/4-Mile Walk

Data Source: M-NCPPC/ Sabra-Wang & Associates

the isochrone boundary is to illustrate the actual walking time based on the current configuration of the roadway network and the provision of pedestrian facilities. The isochrone is much smaller than the generic walkshed circle as the former reflects gaps and barriers in the existing nonauto transportation network. Barriers affecting pedestrian travel times within the study area include Baltimore-Washington Parkway, which pedestrians cannot cross at grade. Veterans Parkway and some intersections along Riverdale Road reduce the isochrone due to high volumes of vehicle traffic, resulting in long crossing distance and multiple points of conflict between pedestrians and vehicles. While not affecting walking travel times, the pedestrian experience is eroded by gaps in the sidewalk network. These gaps occur throughout the residential areas including partial sidewalks on streets northwest of the intersection of Riverdale Road and Baltimore-Washington Parkway and no sidewalks along streets south of Riverdale Road and west of Beacon Place. Many of the sidewalks within the residential areas have multiple curb cuts for driveways, resulting in continually varying sidewalk alignments. As part of the planned station access improvements, the goal will be to recommend specific improvements that will expand the isochrone for each station area.

Station Area-Existing Conditions | Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights)

1/4-M

ile

ER RIV

DAL

E ROAD (Beacon Hei g

hts

)â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

ile

Map 3.9 Existing Transportation Conditions, Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights)

EXISTING CONDITIONS LEGEND

Purple Line PA Alignment Proposed Purple Line Station Existing Sidewalk WMATA 84 WMATA F4/F6 WMATA J4

Data Source: M-NCPPC/ Sabra-Wang & Associates

Purple Line TOD Study: Existing Conditions

Previous Plans and Studies

1994 Bladensburg, New Carrollton and Vicinity (PA 69) Approved Master Plan and Sectional Map Amendment The proposed Purple Line station area of Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) falls within the northern portion of the Bladensburg, New Carrollton, and Vicinity Master Plan. The master plan noted that neighborhoods along the East West Highway Corridor, among others, continued to show signs of neglect and disrepair, particularly in many of the apartment complexes. Many neighborhoods in this general area were not planned with, and do not have, sidewalks; lack diversity of housing types; and have insufficient transitions between commercial and residential uses. The master plan calls for new development to include a diversity of housing types, styles, and densities; more meaningful open space; stronger connections and interface with commercial development; and densities and building heights that create a more compatible and smoother transition from new to existing development.

and pedestrian safety, and access from neighborhood streets. Pedestrian network improvements included crosswalk striping, new amenities at signalized intersections (push buttons, priority phasing, and ADA ramps), widened sidewalks, and new lighting to enhance pedestrian comfort and safety. Bicycle facility improvements included new bicycle lanes and routes and new sidepaths along several neighborhood roadways to develop a new designated bicycle network, along with amenities such as bicycle parking and wayfinding signage. Lastly, bus stop upgrades to enhance the comfort and safety of transit users were proposed, which included shelters and benches.

Development Activity: Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) There is currently no development activity within the half-mile study area of Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Purple Line station.

2011 Purple Line Phase 2 CAST Access improvements to this station included roadway, pedestrian, bicycle and access to transit improvements. Roadway improvement recommendations included new traffic signals along MD 410, added turn lanes to enhance vehicle

Map 3.10 Purple Line Phase 2 CAST—Recommendations—Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) iu

Purple Line LPA Alignment

Proposed Purple Line Station

ile

LEGEND

LE ROAD (Beacon H eigh

ts)

—1

/2-

Bus Stop Improvements (Bench, Shelter, or Real-time Systems) Proposed Sidewalk Bike Facility (Lane, Route or Side Path)

RDA

1/4-Mile Radius

E RIV

Data Source: M-NCPPC/ Dewberry

PURPLE LINE PROPOSED CONDITIONS Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) N.T.S

Purple Line TOD Study: Existing Conditions

Station Location and PA Route

Map 3.11 Station Location and PA Route Plan—Riverdale Road (B

The PA route and station location for Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) is shown to the right as proposed by MTA. This current proposed alignment and platform location is the culmination of community input, engineering feasibility, economic feasibility, and efforts to minimize disturbance outside of the right-of-way. All impacted properties are based on MTA’s current alignment and are subject to change during MTA’s PE phase. The Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) alignment currently follows the southern side of Riverdale Road between the roadway and the buildings and impacts private residences that border the roadway. Within close proximity to the proposed station location, commercial properties are impacted; however, only a few buildings are proposed to be demolished. The Riverdale Road rightof-way will expand to include the Purple Line light-rail tracks, reducing the distance between the roadway edge and building fronts for several properties along the roadway.

63rd Pl.

64th Ave.

Baltimore-Washington P kwy

The current Purple Line PA would necessitate modifications to the intersection of Riverdale Road at 67th Avenue and to the access points at the East Pines Shopping Center, as well as the disconnection of 67th Place from Riverdale Road. The PA will also require the modification of 66th Avenue to allow rightin/right-out access from eastbound Riverdale Road.

Riverdale Rd.

Patterson St.

Powhatan St.

Eastp ine

Dr.

Disclaimer: MTA has revised its list of properties likely to be impacted by the Purple Line Project. Further update can be found from MTA’s web site, http://www.purplelinemd.com/

Station Area-Existing Conditions | Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights)

Beacon Heights) 1/4 Mile Radius

67 th

oo w rn Fe

Ct .

Riverdale Rd.

ce ra

r Te th

67 Pl.

S LO

IOU

Ve te

ran

67th Ave.

66th Ave .

Patterson St.

LEGEND

Purple Line

Route Proposed by MTA Proposed Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Station Impacted 1 /4 mi. 0

100

200

Radius 300

SCALE: 1” = 100’

Station Area-Existing Conditions | Riverdale Park

3.2

Riverdale Park Introduction 44

Wes t Ca mpu s

Zoning 46

Coll ege P UM ark D

(Riv quare er R oad )

Rive rdal e Pa rk

Rive (Bea rdale R con Heig oad hts)

Land Use

Area Properties

Open Space

Area Traffic and Transportation

Previous Plans and Studies

Station Location and PA Route

Purple Line TOD Study: Existing Conditions

Introduction The TOD study area centered on the proposed Riverdale Park Purple Line Station extends outward a half-mile from the station stop, as is shown in Map 3.12 on the facing page. A half-mile represents an average 10-minute walk. The inner circle represents a quarter-mile radius or an average 5-minute walk. Two major vehicular thoroughfares—MD 410 (East West Highway and Riverdale Road) and MD 201 (Kenilworth Avenue)—travel through the study area. Area commuters use these roads to access larger thoroughfare corridors such as Baltimore-Washington Parkway to the east. Connectivity throughout the area is heavily divided by East West Highway, causing pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. Pedestrian infrastructure along East West Highway is minimal and in need of improvement.

Riverdale Plaza Shopping Center

Existing area development includes a mix of single-family homes, commercial properties, and large portions of open space. Single-family detached residential properties are the primary land use. To the north and south of the proposed station lies the Central Kenilworth Avenue commercial area with three shopping centers. The existing commercial uses are one- and two-story neighborhood-serving retail and storefront office uses. Within the study area, Riverdale Park is a small community of 2,400 households and 9,000 residents with a median age of 28. There is a notable renter population that represents 57 percent of all households. The average household size for the area is the highest of all Prince George’s County proposed Purple Line station areas with 3.74 persons per household, reflecting that two-thirds of households consist of three or more persons. Approximately 40 percent of the housing units in the Riverdale Park station area are single-family homes with almost 60 percent of housing units in multifamily structures. In the Riverdale Park community, many of these renters are Hispanic and support Spanish-speaking businesses located within the community’s retail offerings. Data from the 2000 U.S. Census indicated that fewer households have access to cars, compared to the other proposed Purple Line station areas. The Riverdale Plaza Shopping Center and adjacent commercial buildings (located within the quarter-mile radius of the proposed station) are in prime locations at the intersection of three major thoroughfares but have vacancies and are older buildings.

Channelized Stream, north of Riverdale Plaza

Templeton Manor, south of Riverdale Plaza

Assets within the half-mile radius of the proposed station with the potential for redevelopment include Riverdale Plaza Shopping Center, Kenilfair Plaza, and other large, commercial properties along Riverdale Road and Kenilworth Avenue as well as some multifamily residential properties. Other assets include large areas of open space with passive and active recreational facilities west of the proposed station area and historic sites such as Browning-Baines House and Riverdale Baptist Church (Refreshing Spring Church of God).

Kenilworth Avenue, looking south from East West Highway

Station Area-Existing Conditions | Riverdale Park

Map 3.12 Study Area Location Ad elp h

1/2 Mile Radius Existing Roads MARC/Metro Rail Lines Purple Line Alignment Purple Line Stations

Un ive rs

ity

Blv d. E

i Rd

UMD Campus Center

-Wa

w y.

o re

Ba lti m

Kenilwo rth

t Bra Pain

College Park UMD

Av e. (M

University of Maryland

West Campus

shing ton Pkw y.

D 20 1)

East Campus

y Blvd. E Universit

Baltimore Ave. (U S

Belcrest Rd.

Adelphi Rd.

Good Luck Rd.

M Square

(Beacon Heights) (MD 4 10)

MA R C/ Met ro R ail

Ve ter an s

R iverdale Rd.

Pk w

rR Age

e Qu

Riverdale Road

Hwy.

R el

Rive r Rd.

(River Road)

East W est

D (M

Riverdale Park

0) 41

Map 3.13 Riverdale Park Station Study Area—Existing Conditions

a St.

Patterson St.

St.

62nd Pl.

Quintan

Riverdale Rd.

n St.

th Av e.

Mustang Dr.

Ke n

Nic

hol

son

nv ale

St.

Av e.

Gr ee

ilw or

Ave . 54t h

Rd.

ale

erd Riv

63rd Ave.

Powh ata

Rd .

ale

Jeff erso

56th

Ave .

n St .

55t hP l.

Riv erd

Patte rson

St.

Ave.

58th Ave.

ighw ay

e. Av

West H

East

oke

Roan

Quin tana

e. Av

60th Pl.

An a

stia

1/4 Mile Radi us

61st Pl.

Tri b

uta

Tra il

Sy ste m

Kenilworth Ave.

1/2 Mile Radius

LEGEND

Purple Line Route Proposed by MTA Proposed Riverdale Park Station 0

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

Purple Line TOD Study: Existing Conditions

Zoning

The existing zoning classifications predominantly allow for low- and mediumdensity residential with some low-density, general commercial. The zoning is typical single use (Euclidean) zoning where each land use is separated from one another, with very limited mixing. For example, per the Prince George’s County Zoning Ordinance and Use Table—Section 27, residential zones allow for few exceptions for the use-zoned property (such as allowances for funeral parlors and bed and breakfast inns); similarly, commercial zones allow for few exceptions for the use-zoned property (such as allowances for hospitals and cemeteries).

Residential:

The existing zoning classifications within the half-mile radius of the proposed station include:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

R-10: Multifamily High-Density Residential R-18: Multifamily Medium-Density Residential R-35: One-Family Semidetached, and Two-Family Detached Residential R-55: One-Family Detached Residential R-80: One-Family Detached Residential R-O-S: Reserved Open Space O-S: Open Space

Commercial: C-A: Ancillary Commercial C-O: Low-Density Commercial Office C-S-C: Commercial Shopping Center C-2: General Commercial, Existing C-M: Miscellaneous Commercial

Map 3.14 Existing Zoning

LEGEND

Purple Line

Route Proposed by MTA Proposed Riverdale Park Station

An a

stia

Tri b

uta

Tra il

Sy ste m

Kenilworth Ave.

1/2 Mile Radius

62nd Pl.

60th Pl.

61st Pl.

C-A

a St.

C-M

Patterson St.

C-O

d. ale R erd Riv

C-S-C I-1

Powh ata

Rd .

al erd Riv

I-3 M-U-I M-X-T

Av e.

MU-TC O-S

Gr ee

ilw or

54t hA ve.

Mustang Dr.

63rd Ave.

I-2

n St.

Ke n

Nic

hol

son

nv ale

St.

st Av e.

ale

Quintan

St.

C-2

R-10

Riv erd

Patte rson

C-1

Quintan 58th Ave.

ighw ay

St.

e. Av

West H

Quin tana

East

e. Av

e. e Av anok

R-18 R-20

Jeff erso

n St . Ave .

R-30C R-35

56th

55t

R-30

R-55 R-80 R-O-S R-R R-T U-L-I 0

100

200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

400

600

Station Area-Existing Conditions | Riverdale Park

Land Use

The Riverdale Park study area within a half-mile of the proposed station area is dominated by commercial uses, bordering the major and minor arterial roads. Kenilworth Avenue and Riverdale Road/East West Highway serve as magnets for commercial use. Beyond the immediate commercial properties, surrounding neighborhoods are composed of residential, including singlefamily detached homes to the north and east and multifamily dwellings to the south and west. Approximately 40 percent of the 2,400 residential units are single-family; 60 percent are multifamily units. The architectural typology of the commercial buildings is primarily strip shopping centers, converted single-family detached homes, or single-occupancy tenant buildings such as commercial fast-food restaurants. The area comprises a diverse range of businesses that reflects the cultural influences unique to this community. The main commercial property near the proposed station is the Riverdale Plaza Shopping Center constructed in 1952. The plaza’s parcel is 11 acres

with 140,000 square feet of retail in a mix of tenants, including a grocery store, service retail, a theater, an automobile service facility, and a restaurant. Combined with surrounding small parcel commercial properties and the Saint Bernard’s School property, the shopping center represents 29.56 acres at the core of the TOD study area. Parkland also occupies a portion of the study area, largely on the western edge of the half-mile radius with the Anacostia River Stream Valley Park. For details on properties with current development plans, see Development Activity on page 56.

Map 3.15 Existing Land Use 1/2 Mile Radius

Patterson St.

62nd Pl.

Riverdale Rd.

SEED Learning Academy

St. John Evangelical Lutheran

n St.

Rd .

Ke n

Nic

hol

Jeff erso

Ave .

St.

nv ale

LEGEND

Purple Line

Route Proposed by MTA Proposed Riverdale Park Station

Templeton Elementary School

Historic District Historic Site/ Structure

56th

n St .

son

Gr ee

Av e.

Av e. th ilw or

hA ve. 54t

Mustang Dr.

Saint Bernard’s School

al erd Riv

ale

a St.

Powh ata

55t

Riv erd

Quintan

St.

Refreshing Spring Church of God

Baltimore-Washington Parkway

Patte rson

Riverdale Elementary School

St.

Ave.

58th Ave.

ighw ay

e. Av

West H

East

oke

Roan

Quin tana

e. Av

60th Pl.

An a

stia

1/4 Mile Radius

63rd Ave.

Tri b

Riverdale Park Historic District

61st Pl.

uta

Tra il

Sy ste m

Kenilworth Ave.

William Wirt Middle School

Institutional Residential Commercial Industrial Recreation 0

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

Purple Line TOD Study: Existing Conditions

Area Properties

22. Bank of America 23. Tanglewood Apts. 24. River Crossing Apts. 25. Trinity Prop. Pawn Broker 26. McDonald’s Restaurant 27. La Poblanita 28. Mega Supermarket 29. St. Bernard’s Elementary School 30. Refreshing Spring Church of God In Christ 31. Refreshing Spring Prof. Bldg. 32. Riverdale Towers Apts. 33. Horizon Properties 34. Compare Foods Supermarket 35. La Chiquita Express 36. A&S Dept. Furniture 37. Professional Auto Glass 38. IHOP Restaurant 39. Riverdale Plaza Shopping Center

The following area properties diagram locates and identifies all properties (excluding residential single-family lots and parkland) within the half-mile study area of the proposed Riverdale Park station. For this study, properties will be evaluated for potential redevelopment based on such factors as proximity to the proposed station, access, ownership, and property size. 1. First Korean Presbyterian Church 2. Pollo Fiesta 3. Tires ‘R’ Us 4. Rinaldi’s Riverdale Bowl 5. La Flor de Puebla Bakery 6. Advance Auto Parts 7. Total Auto Maintenance 8. Wendy’s Restaurant 9. Image 1 Hair Design 10. Boston Market 11. St. John Evangelical Lutheran

12. Refreshing Spring Church of God In Christ 13. Riverwood Apts. 14. Riverdale Town Council 15. River of Life RCCG 16. Riverdale Village Apts. 17. Posada’s Auto Service 18. Shell Gas Station 19. Riverdale Chiropractic 20. Animal Medical Center 21. Lawyer’s Prof. Building

40. St. Bernard’s Roman Catholic 41. RTW LLC 42. River Crossing Apts. 43. BP Gas Station 44. People’s Enterprises 45. Texaco Gas Station 46. Express Auto Clinic 47. Oak Ridge Apts. 48. Jefferson Hall Apts. 49. Chop Tank Grocery 50. Templeton Manor 51. Kenilworth Liquors 52. Taqueria Tres Reyes 53. Riggs Grocery 54. El Bucano Cafe 55. Red Top Gas Station 56. Riverdale Elementary School 57. Calvert Park Apartments 58. Center for Educational Partnership

Map 3.16 Area Properties 1/2 Mile Radius

Kenilworth Ave.

oke

co An a

ighw ay

Patte rson

St.

Patterson St. 10

n St.

60th Pl.

Riverdale Rd.

19 20 21 22

Powh ata

Riv erd 14 ale Rd .

a St.

St.

Ave.

Quintan

58th Ave.

West H

e. Av

East 56

Quin tana

Roan

e. Av

62nd Pl.

uta Tri b stia

1/4 Mile Radius

d. le R

erd Riv

Mustang Dr.

63rd Ave.

Tra il

Sy ste m

4 5

61st Pl.

2 3

Jeff erso

n St .

St.

Av e.

nv ale

50 LEGEND

Ave .

Purple Line

Route Proposed by MTA

Proposed Riverdale Park Station

53 51 52 55

56th Ave.

Ken ilwo rth

son

Gr ee

45 49

hol

Nic

34 35 36

55t hP

hA ve.

38 37

54t

Key Area Properties 0

100

200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

400

600

Station Area-Existing Conditions | Riverdale Park

Open Space

Riverdale Hills Neighborhood Playground—a variety of playground equipment. Madison Hill Community Park—borders two academic recreation fields to the north and south. Templeton Knolls Neighborhood Park—playground equipment, passive recreation space, and trails. Fletcher’s Field Community Park—baseball and football fields, playground equipment surface courts, and gathering areas. Riverside Drive Neighborhood Park—football fields, baseball fields, and gathering areas. Riversdale Historic Site—Riversdale House Museum, the Trowning-

The open space diagram, shown below, locates existing parks, playgrounds, trails, and recreation centers within and surrounding the half-mile radius study area as potential amenities for future development. A large network of neighborhood and community parks exists in close proximity to the proposed Riverdale Park station location. Parks located within the half-mile radius include: Browning’s Grove Neighborhood Park—passive recreation space, surface courts, playground equipment, and gathering pavilions. Riverdale Community Recreation Center—several baseball fields, one football field, and large gathering areas. Anacostia River Stream Valley Park—mainly wooded, shared-use paths, and trails.

Baines House and Riverdale Baptist Church (Refreshing Spring Church of God)

Parks located outside of the half-mile radius include:

East Pines Neighborhood Recreation Center—surface tennis and basketball courts.

The parks along the Northeast Branch form an interconnected network of green spaces and recreational areas, connecting to larger greenway systems to the north and south.

Map 3.17 Open Space Madison Hill Comm. Park Riverdale Hills Neighborhood Playground

1/2 Mile Radius Gossling’s Pond

Anacostia River Stream Valley Park

un ’s R

We ll

Patte rson

Riverdale Historic Site

a St.

Patterson St.

Rd.

Av e.

Mustang Dr.

Ke n

nv ale

St.

Av e.

th ilw or

Ave . 54t h

son

LEGEND

Purple Line

Route Proposed by MTA

ive r

Jeff erso

Proposed Riverdale Park Station

Ave .

l. hP 55t

56th

ia R

n St .

t Br anc hA nac ost

hol

Browning’s Grove Neigborhood Park

Parkland Wetland

No rth eas

Sys te y Tr ail

East Pines Neighborhood Rec. Center

Gr ee

Nic

63rd Ave.

n St.

ale

Stream/Pond Floodplain 100 year

ia T ribu

tar

Riverdale Rd.

Powh ata

Rd . erd Riv

Riverside Drive Neighborhood Park

62nd Pl.

Quintan

ale

St.

Ave.

Riv erd

St.

oke

Roan

60th Pl.

Quin tana

KeKe nilniw lwoorrt thhAA vev. e .

ighw ay

e. Av

West H

58th Ave.

1/4 Mile Radius

East

Br east rth No

Run

Ana cos t

Well ’s

61st Pl.

aco

stia River

Riverdale Comm. Rec. Center

Floodplain Fletcher’s Field Community Park

Templeton Knolls Neighborhood Park

500 year

Trails 0

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

Purple Line TOD Study: Existing Conditions

Environmental Conditions

The environmental conditions diagram, shown below, locates existing hydrologic features such as wetlands, streams, ponds, and flood plain areas within and surrounding the half-mile radius study area as potential constraints on future development. Within the quarter-mile radius of the proposed Riverdale Park station, a channelized stream is located to the south, connecting to the Northeast Branch of the Anacostia to the west. Wetlands are confined to the Northeast Branch basin. The FEMA-identified floodplains are mainly located between the half-mile and quarter-mile radius. The designated 100 year and 500 year floodplains are largely contained within parklands. The floodplains do encroach on existing buildings around the intersection of the Northeast Branch and East West Highway and continue north enveloping buildings east and west of the stream.

Map 3.18 Environmental Conditions 1/2 Mile Radius

un ’s R

We ll

Patte rson

Patterson St.

Av e.

Mustang Dr.

son

nv ale

St.

Av e.

ilw or th

hol

63rd Ave.

Rd.

Gr ee

Nic

Ke n

hA ve. 54t

LEGEND

Purple Line

Route Proposed by MTA

Jeff erso

Ave .

Proposed Riverdale Park Station

56th

n St .

55t

r ive ia R Ana cos t t Br anc h

60th Pl.

n St.

Parkland Wetland

No rth eas

Riverdale Rd.

Powh ata

Rd . ale

y Tr ail Sys te

a St.

erd Riv

Stream/Pond Floodplain 100 year

Ana cos t

ia T ribu

tar

Quintan

ale

St.

Ave.

Riv erd

St.

oke

Roan

58th Ave.

Quin tana

KeKe nilniw lwoorrt thhAA vev. e .

ighw ay

e. Av

West H

East

Br east rth No

62nd Pl.

1/4 Mile Radius

Well ’s Ru

61st Pl.

aco

stia River

Gossling’s Pond

Floodplain 500 year

Trails 0

100

200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

400

600

Station Area-Existing Conditions | Riverdale Park

Area Traffic and Transportation Overview

The traffic and transportation assessment for Riverdale Park includes roadway types, functionality and related amenities, pedestrian facilities (e.g., sidewalks), bicycle facilities, transit services (bus and Metrorail), and parking. Major deficiencies/needs such as gaps and barriers in the nonmotorized transportation network are documented and summarized. Roadways Several major roadways cut through the residential and commercial streets of Riverdale Park. MD 201 (Kenilworth Avenue) is a four-lane, divided urban principal arterial that runs north-south from Baltimore-Washington Parkway to the Capital Beltway and carries an average daily traffic volume of 33,550 vehicles. MD 410 (East West Highway) is a four- to six-lane, divided principal arterial running in an east-west direction from New Hampshire Avenue to Riverdale Road with an average daily traffic volume of 41,950 vehicles. MD 410 (Riverdale Road) is a four-lane, divided principal arterial that runs in an eastwest direction from East West Highway to Veterans Parkway and carries an average daily traffic volume of 39,700 vehicles between MD 201 (Kenilworth Avenue) and Baltimore-Washington Parkway. Other key two-lane roadways include 58th Avenue/Roanoke Avenue (averages 1,600 vehicles per day), Carters Lane (3,000 vehicles), Longfellow Street (1,250 vehicles), 56th Avenue (4,600 vehicles), and 54th Avenue. All available ADT volumes were obtained through MDSHA internet TMS. Regarding roadway maintenance responsibilities, all numbered roadways in the study area such as MD 410 (East West Highway) and MD 201 (Kenilworth Avenue) are maintained by MDSHA. Named roadways such as River Road and Paint Branch Parkway are maintained by the county. Pedestrian Accommodations Within the study area, partial sidewalks are provided on most streets south of East West Highway and Roanoke Avenue. No sidewalks are provided through most of the northern portion of the study area. Existing sidewalks are not buffered from vehicular traffic and are broken up by many driveways. Noted Deficiencies. There are missing sidewalks along portions of MD 410, Tuckerman Street, Somerset Road, 57th Avenue, 60th Place, 60th Avenue, 61st Avenue, Ravenswood Road, 58th Avenue, Rittenhouse Road, and Sheridan Street. Major roadways such as MD 410 and MD 201 have high volumes of fast-moving traffic and long crossing distances that leave pedestrians exposed. Roadways in the study area also have many curb cuts for driveways and access points, creating more conflict points for pedestrians. Lighting is provided at most intersections, but there is no lighting provided at a pedestrian scale, such as lower (14’ +/- high) pole-mounted fixtures. The intersections along Riverdale Road and Kenilworth Avenue handle high volumes of vehicle traffic, resulting in long crossing distances and multiple points of conflict for pedestrians. Most crosswalks appear to be faded. Not all intersections provide consistent amenities, including push buttons and

countdown signals. Curb ramps are generally provided at intersections throughout the study area; however, many do not meet current ADA standards for Accessible Design. Bicycle Accommodations There are currently no designated bicycle facilities within a half-mile radius of the proposed Riverdale Park Purple Line Station. Noted Deficiencies. No bicycle network, bicycle signage, or bicycle parking is provided in the study area. Though many local residents are within short bicycle trips of commercial destinations, the connecting roadways are undesirable for cyclists without dedicated space for bikes. Bus Service Bus stops are located along Riverdale Road and Kenilworth Avenue throughout the study area; most stops have no amenities like benches or shelters. The area is served by Metrobus Routes 84, F4 and R12. Metrobus Route 84 stops in New Carrollton, Edmonston, Bladensburg, Peace Cross, Mt. Rainier, and Rhode Island Avenue-Brentwood Metro Station. Metrobus 84 has a peak hour headway of 20 minutes. Metrobus F4 serves the Silver Spring Metro Station, Takoma Park, Prince George’s Plaza Station and New Carrollton Station, and has a peak hour headway of 15 minutes. The R12 route serves Greenbelt Station, College Park, and Bladensburg and has a peak hour headway of 30 minutes. Noted Deficiencies. Existing bus stops lack amenities such as shelters, seating, and real-time transit information. Parking Regulations Approximately 2,000 parking spaces are provided within a half-mile of the proposed station. There are “No Parking” restrictions along Riverdale Road, East West Highway, and portions of Kenilworth Avenue, Jefferson Street, Spring Lane, Nicholson Road, 54th Avenue, and Greenway Drive. Otherwise, on-street parking is free and unrestricted along most residential streets.

Pipeline Recommended Public Improvements A review of short-term and long-term state, county and local plans such as the Consolidated Transportation Plan, CIP, Highway Needs Inventory, Constrained Long-Range Plan, and Master Plan of Transportation was performed to identify both funded and unfunded transportation projects for each mode of travel (other than the Purple Line). There is currently one pipeline project within a half-mile radius of the proposed Riverdale Park Station, which is part of the Highway Needs Inventory. The project is a divided highway reconstruction along MD 201 from US 50 to Paint Branch Parkway. (See plan diagram and tables on following pages for additional traffic and transportation assessments for Riverdale Park.) The walksheds for Riverdale Park are shown both as radial perimeters (circles) and as isochrones (free form shapes) based on actual predicted walking travel times from the station platform. The importance of the isochrone boundary

Purple Line TOD Study: Existing Conditions

Anacostia Tributary Trail System

s diu RQauesada Rd

Rittenhouse St

ile

RIVERDA

LE P ARK

—1

-M

ile

Map 3.19 Walksheds, Riverdale Park

WALKSHED LEGEND

Purple Line PA Alignment

WEST CAMPUS PURPLE LINE STUDY

Proposed Purple Line Station 1/2-Mile Walk 1/4-Mile Walk

N.T.S

Data Source: M-NCPPC/ Sabra-Wang & Associates

is to illustrate the actual walking time based on the current configuration of the roadway network and the provision of pedestrian facilities. The isochrone is much smaller than the generic walkshed circle as the former reflects gaps and barriers in the existing nonauto transportation network. Barriers, affecting pedestrian travel times within the study area, include MD 201 (Kenilworth Avenue), MD 410 (East West Highway), and the Northeast Branch of the Anacostia River, due to the infrequency of pedestrian crossings. Intersections along Riverdale Road and Kenilworth Avenue reduce the isochrone due to high volumes of vehicular traffic, resulting in long crossing distances and multiple points of conflict between pedestrians and vehicles. While not affecting walking travel times, the pedestrian experience is eroded by gaps in the sidewalk network. These gaps occur throughout the residential areas including partial sidewalks on streets south of East West Highway and Roanoke Avenue and no sidewalks along streets in the northern portion of the study area. Many of the sidewalks within the residential areas have multiple curb cuts for driveways, resulting in continually varying sidewalk alignments. As part of the planned station access improvements, the goal will be to recommend specific improvements that will expand the isochrone for each station area.

Station Area-Existing Conditions | Riverdale Park

Anacostia Tributary Trail System

s diu RQauesada Rd

Rittenhouse St

ile

RIVERDA

LE P ARK â&#x20AC;&#x201D;1

-M

ile

Map 3.20 Existing Transportation Conditions, Riverdale Park

EXISTING CONDITIONS LEGEND Purple Line PA Alignment Proposed Purple Line Station WMATA 84 WMATA F4/F6 WMATA R12 Bike Facility (Lane, Route, Side Path)

Data Source: M-NCPPC/ Sabra-Wang & Associates

Purple Line TOD Study: Existing Conditions

Previous Plans and Studies

1994 Approved Master Plan and Sectional Map Amendment For Planning Area 68 The Approved Master Plan Area 68 study area fully includes Riverdale (now Riverdale Park). The master plan calls for the preservation and stabilization of area neighborhoods, including Riverdale; a retention and recruitment strategy for local businesses, including those along Kenilworth Avenue; and the development of a trail network along primary environmental corridors, such as the Northeast Branch of the Anacostia. The master plan recommends a detailed study of the Riverdale Shopping Center, noting community support for enhancing development, promoting infill commercial development, faรงade improvements, increased parking, improved circulation and access, and overall site enhancement. 1994 Master Plan and Sectional Map Amendment Bladensburg, New Carrollton, and Vicinity The proposed Purple Line station area of Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) falls within the northern portion of the Bladensburg, New Carrollton and Vicinity Master Plan. The master plan noted that neighborhoods along the East West Highway Corridor, among others, continued to show signs of neglect and disrepair, particularly in many of the apartment complexes. Many neighborhoods in this general area were not planned with and do not have sidewalks, lack diversity of housing types, and have insufficient transitions between commercial and residential uses. The master plan calls for new development to include a diversity of housing types, styles, and densities; more meaningful open space; stronger connections and interface with commercial development; and densities and building heights that create a more compatible and smoother transition from new to existing development. The master plan notes that the general study area has an overabundance of retail. Shopping centers with large vacancies and those that are small and/ or becoming obsolete should consider reuse opportunities with alternative uses to retail. Some commercial corridors and shopping centers have ingress and egress conflicts and other traffic and circulation conflicts that require comprehensive infrastructure and roadway improvements. Additionally, the master plan recommends several transportation and capital infrastructure improvements that remain relevant to this Purple Line planning effort, among them an interchange at Kenilworth and East West Highway. 2008 Central Kenilworth Avenue Revitalization (CKAR) The Central Kenilworth Avenue Revitalization Study focused on the areas along Kenilworth Avenue, between River Road and Edmonston Road. Through community participation, issues and concerns were discussed and implementation strategies and action steps were developed. The 2008 collaborative community workshops involvement included area civic associations, the Town of Riverdale Park, CKAR Community Development Corporation, Neighborhood Design Center, M-NCPPC, and UMD. The study focused on nine areas with redevelopment potential, addressing issues

including mitigating pedestrian and vehicle conflicts, improved streetscapes, bicycle facilities, a gateway plaza, an integrated transit station, pocket parks and greenway connections, environmental restoration, and innovative stormwater management. The action steps developed include converting the stormwater management ditch into a more natural stream/community amenity; implementing comprehensive streetscape improvements to the Kenilworth Avenue Corridor from River Road to Edmonston Road; and developing plans for the rehabilitation and/or redevelopment of Riverdale Plaza. 2009 Approved Countywide Master Plan of Transportation The Approved Countywide Master Plan of Transportation outlines countywide goals, policies,and strategies to guide appropriate planning, funding, and implementation of an efficient multimodal transportation infrastructure system. The plan includes and recommends the Purple Line PA and a new interchange at East West Highway and Kenilworth Avenue. No other major transportation infrastructure investments are suggested within the Purple Line TOD Study area.

Station Area-Existing Conditions | Riverdale Park

Ba lti

re Pa -Wa rkw sh ay ingt o

Map 3.21 Central Kenilworth Avenue Revitalization Plan

Purple Line TOD Study: Existing Conditions

Development Activity: Riverdale Park

2011 Purple Line Phase 2 CAST Access improvement recommendations to this station included roadway, pedestrian, and bicycle transit. Roadway recommendations included new traffic signals along MD 410 and MD 201 to enhance vehicle and pedestrian access from neighborhood streets. Recommendations for pedestrian network included crosswalk striping; new amenities at signalized intersections such as push buttons, priority phasing, and ADA ramps; widened sidewalks; and new lighting to enhance pedestrian comfort and safety. Bicycle facility recommendations included new bicycle lanes and routes and new sidepaths along several neighborhood roadways to develop a designated bicycle network, along with amenities such as bicycle parking and wayfinding signage. Lastly, the bus stop upgrades proposed to enhance the comfort and safety of transit users included shelters and benches.

Headen Spring, Riverdale, Maryland Located within the half-mile study area of the Riverdale Park Purple Line Station, the Headen Spring TOD is planned for a 13-acre site east of St. Bernard’s Elementary School. The parcel is on the south side of Riverdale Road and is bordered on the south by residential neighborhoods. As currently proposed by Sowing Empowerment & Economic Development, Inc., the development is planned as a campus for education, recreation, health and human services, cultural arts, and housing. A learning center will serve children from six weeks to four years of age (Pre-K) and includes an EXCEL Academy Public Charter School. A fitness center, gymnasium, and a 250-seat theater are planned to accommodate recreation and a cultural arts program. Phase 2 development includes workforce housing and senior housing.

Map 3.22 Purple Line Phase 2 CAST—Recommendations, Riverdale Park LEGEND

Proposed Purple Line Station

Purple Line LPA Alignment

K—

2-M

ile

Bus Stop Improvements (Bench, Shelter, or Real-time Systems)

LE P AR

Proposed Sidewalk

RIVERDA

Bike Facility (Lane, Route or Side Path) 1/4-Mile Radius

Data Source: M-NCPPC/ Dewberry

PURPLE LINE PROPOSED CONDITIONS Riverdale Park

N.T.S

Purple Line TOD Study: Existing Conditions

Station Location and PA Route

Map 3.23 Station Location and PA Route Plan—Riverdale Park

The PA route and station location for Riverdale Park is shown to the right as proposed by MTA. This current proposed alignment and platform location is the culmination of community input, engineering feasibility, economic feasibility, and efforts to minimize disturbance outside of the right-of-way. All impacted properties are based on MTA’s current alignment and are subject to change during MTA’s PE phase.

MTA investigated an alternative Purple Line route along Kenilworth Avenue, which shifted the alignment to the center median of Kenilworth Avenue, in order to minimize property takings along Kenilworth Avenue north of MD 410. The alternative center-median alignment has been incorporated into the PA by MTA.

East

Disclaimer: MTA has revised its list of properties likely to be impacted by the Purple Line Project. Further update can be found from MTA’s web site, http://www.purplelinemd.com/

St.

Kenilw o

Quin tana

Patte rso

- We

n St.

st Hi

ghw ay

Powh at

an St .

Rd .

55t

n St .

Jeff erso

Ke n

54t

ilw or

hA ve.

ale

th Av e.

Riv erd

rth Av e.

The Purple Line Station at Riverdale Park would require an elevated station platform. The PA will not impact access to the Riverdale Park Shopping Center. Mustang Drive is proposed to be realigned to improve operations at MD 410 (Riverdale Road) and 62nd Place by providing safe pedestrian crossings and relocating the current offset traffic signals. The access from Quesada Road to MD 201 (Kenilworth Avenue) is proposed to be relocated to a traffic signal opposite Rittenhouse Street.

Nic

hol

son

St.

Station Area-Existing Conditions | Riverdale Park

1/4 Mile Radius

62nd Pl.

61st Pl.

e. Av

Quintan

a St.

58th Ave .

na St.

St.

o oan

Quinta

Patterson

e. Av ke

60th Pl.

e. Av

63rd Ave.

Riverdale Rd.

al erd Riv

Mustang Dr.

Gr ee

LEGEND

Purple Line

Av e.

Route Proposed by MTA

61 st

nv ale

Ave .

Proposed Riverdale Park Station

56th

Impacted 1/ 4 mi. 0

100

200

Radius 300

SCALE: 1” = 100’

Station Area-Existing Conditions | M Square (River Road)

3.3

MÂ Square (River Road) Introduction 62

Wes t Ca mpu s

Zoning 64

Coll ege P UM ark D

(Riv quare er R oad )

Rive rdal e Pa rk

Rive (Bea rdale R con Heig oad hts)

Land Use

Area Properties

Open Space

Area Traffic and Transportation

Previous Plans and Studies

Station Location and PA Route

Purple Line TOD Study: Existing Conditions

Introduction The TOD study area centered on the proposed M Square (River Road) Purple Line Station extends outward a half-mile from the station stop, as shown on Map 3.24 on the facing page. A half-mile represents an average 10-minute walk. The inner circle represents a quarter mile radius or an average 5-minute walk. A major vehicular thoroughfare, Kenilworth Avenue, travels through the study area to the east. Area commuters use this road to access larger transportation corridors such as the Baltimore-Washington Parkway to the east, I-495 to the north, and East West Highway to the south. River Road is the only connecting road through the study area. Additionally, the MARC Camden Line and the Metro Green Line run north-south to the west. No roadways within this station study area cross the rail line. Vehicular access across the rail line occurs to the north at Paint Branch Parkway and to the south at East West Highway. Connections between River Road and the residential neighborhood to the south of the proposed station location are made through Rivertech Court. Vehicles use Rivertech Court and travel through a parking lot to connect to Lafayette Avenue. Pedestrians use a paved trail to connect from Rivertech Court to Taylor Road. At the MARC/Metro station, pedestrians use the tunnel to connect west to downtown College Park and UMD. The Anacostia Valley Trail System runs to the east, connecting to larger greenway networks north and south. The Rhode Island Avenue Trolley Trail also runs north-south, paralleling the rail line but to the west of the train tracks. The M Square half-mile study area falls within the College Park and Riverdale Park municipality boundaries. Within a half-mile of the proposed station, land uses include residential, commercial (both office and retail), and industrial as well as parkland. No vertical mixed use currently exists in the study area. Publicly-owned land predominates; more than ninety percent of the land area is owned by the State of Maryland, M-NCPPC, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), or the federal government. The majority of properties are within the Aviation Policy Area (APA-6) and are subject to certain height and notification requirements. Within APA-6, no building permit may be approved for a structure higher than 50 feet unless the applicant demonstrates compliance with Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77. Additionally, the development standards and guidelines of the Approved Transit District Development Plan for the College Park-Riverdale Transit District Overlay Zone established parcel-specific maximum heights for the transit district. It is also important to note that approximately 131 acres within the M Square study area are subject to covenants between Riverdale Park and ACP Industries. Signed in 1981 and amended in 1990, the declaration of covenants requires large front setbacks and limits certain uses (see the Zoning Section for more information). These requirements, in conjunction with current federal tenant security needs, create hurdles to shifting the development pattern of Riverdale Park from suburban and autocentric to more urban and transit oriented.

M Square Research Park

NOAA Building, view from proposed entrance to M Square Lots 15-17

River Road, looking Southeast

Riverdale Community Recreation Center

Station Area-Existing Conditions | M Square (River Road)

Map 3.24 Study Area Location

w y.

shing ton Pkw y. Ba lti m

o re

t Bra Pain

College Park UMD

Av e. (M

University of Maryland

Kenilwo rth

West Campus

D 20 1)

East Campus

y Blvd. E Universit

Existing residential development extends to the south and includes the Riverdale Park Historic District. The Calvert Hills Historic District, to the west of the rail line, lies just outside the half-mile study area.

Good Luck Rd.

Baltimore Ave. (U S

Belcrest Rd.

Adelphi Rd.

M Square

(Beacon Heights) (MD 4 10)

Ve ter an s

R iverdale Rd.

Pk w y.

e Qu

Riverdale Road

Hwy.

MA R C/ Met ro R ail

p ha

Rive r Rd.

(River Road)

East W est

rR Age

Riverdale Park

D (M 0) 41

One in five residents within the M Square station area is under 20, and the median age is 22.9 according to the 2000 U.S. census. A large share of residents in the study area own their homes, estimated at 73 percent in 2010. The half-mile study area captures approximately 300 residential units in the Town of Riverdale Park, 85 percent of which are single-family homes. The M Square station area consists of moderate-income households with a median household income of $60,921; 45.4 percent of households reported earning between $30,000 and $74,999. The income distribution is likely influenced by the proportion of UMD-student residents in the area.

UMD Campus Center

-Wa

Un ive rsit y

Blv d. E

i Rd

Retail land uses are focused along Kenilworth Avenue and consist largely of one-story strip commercial.

1/2 Mile Radius Existing Roads MARC/Metro Rail Lines Purple Line Alignment Purple Line Stations

Ad elp h

Office buildings within the M Square Research Park include federal tenants that require secure facilities, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the Center for Advanced Language Studies.

51st

Ave.

Map 3.25 M Square Station Study Area—Existing Conditions Pain t Bra nch Pkw y.

1/2 Mile Radius

Ken i

lwo

rth

Ave .

Univ ersity Research Ct. Dr. Haig

Lafa yett e

Ave.

Riv ert e

ch Ct .

MAR C

/ Me

tro R

ail

1/4 Mile Radius

River

Rd.

Taylor Rd .

Tuckerman St.

LEGEND

EastWest

Purple Line Route Proposed by MTA

Hwy.

(MD 41

Proposed M Square (River Road) Station 0

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

Purple Line TOD Study: Existing Conditions

Zoning

The zoning diagram below reflects the study area zoning classifications established by the 1997 Approved Transit District Development Plan for the College Park-Riverdale Transit District Overlay Zone. The predominant residential, commercial, and industrial zones are typically single-use zones (Euclidean zones) that limit intermingling of land uses. A small portion of the study area is subject to mixed-use zoning that permits a range of uses, including commercial, industrial, institutional, public, recreational, residential, and transportation.

Street; and a four-story height limit for buildings and structures abutting residential properties fronting on Tuckerman Street up to 400’ from the property lines. For properties within the TDOZ boundary that are governed by the declaration of covenants, the more restrictive requirements prevail. While a diverse mix of commercial and industrial uses are allowed by the declaration of covenants, residential is not currently included. The omission of residential uses and the large front setbacks run counter to the elements critical to creating a desirable TOD environment.

As mentioned in the introduction, the M Square development area is subject to convenants. These covenants require a 40-foot building setback from any publicly maintained roadway or private roadway; that buildings shall not occupy more than 50 percent of the building site; limited uses, including manufacturing, processing, storage, wholesale, office, warehouse, laboratory, hotel, research and development activities, and any minor service and retail; a 100-foot setback and buffer to residential properties fronting on Tuckerman

The existing zoning classifications within the half-mile radius of the proposed station include Residential (R-18, R-55, R-O-S, and O-S), Commercial (C-2, C-O, and C-S-C), Mixed Use (M-X-T), and Industrial (I-3).

51st

Ave.

Map 3.26 Existing Zoning Pain t Bra nch Pkw y.

1/2 Mile Radius

LEGEND

Purple Line

Route Proposed by MTA

1/4 Mile Radius

Proposed M Square (River Road) Station

ch Ct .

C-S-C

Ave.

I-2

Riv ert e

I-1

Lafa yett e

I-3 M-U-I M-X-T MU-TC

Tuckerman St.

Taylor Rd .

O-S R-10 R-18 R-20 R-30 R-30C R-35 R-55

East W est H

R-80

wy. (M

R-O-S R-R R-T U-L-I 0

100

200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

400

600

D 410

)

Ave . rth lwo

C-O

Ken i

MAR C

C-M

Dr.

/Me

C-A

Haig

tro R

ail

C-2

Univ ersity Research Ct.

C-1

River

Rd.

Station Area-Existing Conditions | M Square (River Road)

Land Use

The M Square (River Road) study area is dominated by office buildings with surface parking along River Road. New and planned construction of M Square Research Park buildings immediately adjacent to the proposed station creates a suburban office park environment. Up to 2.5 million square feet of office and research and development space is planned within the 134-acre M Square Research Park. Currently, 1,668,816 square feet of development space has either been constructed or is approved for construction.

Parkland also occupies a portion of the study area to the east, including the Anacostia River Stream Valley Park. For details on properties with current development plans, see Development Activity on page 72.

Beyond the immediate commercial buildings, surrounding neighborhoods are composed of residential to the south and east, including approximately 300 dwelling units, 85 percent of which are single-family homes, and retail to the east along Kenilworth Avenue. The architectural typology of the retail buildings to the east is mainly single-story shopping centers, specialty retail, converted single-family detached homes, or single occupancy tenant buildings such as fast-food restaurants.

51st

Ave.

Map 3.27 Existing Land Use Calvert Hills Historic District

Pain t Bra nch Pkw y.

1/2 Mile Radius

State of MD UM Center for the Advanced Study for Language

University Park Historic District

American Assoc. of Physics Teachers

lwo Ken i

M-NCPPC

rth

Ave .

Univ ersity Research Ct. Dr. Haig

University of MDOwned Building

Riv ert e

Lafa yett e

Ave.

ch Ct .

MAR C

/Me

tro R

ail

1/4 Mile Radius

River

Rd.

Taylor Rd .

Tuckerman St.

LEGEND Purple Line

Route Proposed by MTA Proposed M Square (River Road) Station

Historic District Historic Site/ Structure

Riverdale Park Historic District

Institutional

East W est H

wy. (M

Residential

D 410

)

Commercial

Riverdale Elementary School

Industrial Recreation 0

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

Purple Line TOD Study: Existing Conditions

Area Properties

Wendy’s Restaurant Total Auto Maintenance Advance Auto Parts La Flor de Puebla Bakery Rinaldi’s Riverdale Bowl Tires R Us Pollo Fiesta

15. State of Maryland 16. UMD Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center 17. State of Maryland NOAA Center for Weather and Climate Prediction 18. USDA Center at Riverside HUB Realty Funding INC 19. State of Maryland, University of Maryland 20. State of Maryland UM Center for the Advanced Study for Language 21. Riverdale FDA LLC 22. State of Maryland 23. WMATA

8. First Korean Presbyterian Church 9. Riverdale Medical Center 10. Parks & Rec. Admin. Bldg. 11. Prince George’s County Elks Lodge 12. M-NCPPC 13. Vacant 14. Primerica Financial Services

24. American Center for Physics INC 25. Rivertech LLC National Park Services 26. CP Office Asc. LLC Raytheon 27. State of Maryland 28. Prince George’s County 29. State of Maryland 30. State of Maryland 31. Calvert Tract LLC 32. Riverdale Town Treasurer

Map 3.28 Area Properties 51st

Ave.

Pain t Bra nch Pkw y.

1/2 Mile Radius

23 17

1/4 Mile Radius 16

Lafa yett e Av e.

Riv ert e

Ave .

rth

15 10

River

Ken ilw o

ch Ct .

Univ ersity Research Ct.

MAR C

Dr.

/Me

tro R

Haig

ail

Rd.

28 8

Taylor Rd .

Tuckerman St. 7 6 5

LEGEND

Purple Line

East W est H

wy. (M

Route Proposed by MTA

D 410

)

Proposed M Square (River Road) Station

2 1

Key Area Properties

32 0

100

200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

400

600

Station Area-Existing Conditions | M Square (River Road)

Open Space

The open space map, shown below, locates existing parks, playgrounds, trails, and recreation centers within and surrounding the half-mile radius study area as potential amenities for future development. A large network of neighborhood and regional parks exists in close proximity to the proposed M Square (River Road) station location. Parks located within the half-mile radius include: Riverdale Community Recreation Center—several baseball fields, one football field, and large gathering areas. Anacostia Tributary River Trail System—mainly wooded with shared-use paths and trails.

Parks located immediately outside of the half-mile radius include: Riverdale Neighborhood Playground—a variety of playground equipment. Calvert Neighborhood Park—playground equipment, a baseball field, surface basketball courts, and gathering areas.

Paint Branch Parkway Community Park—surface tennis courts, volleyball courts, and gathering areas. Herbert W. Wells Ice Skating Center—an ice rink and clubhouse. Ellen E. Linson Aquatic Center—basketball courts, an outdoor pool, and a volleyball court.

While the variety of recreation offerings and land area devoted to parks is rich in this study area, connectivity through M Square Research Park and across the MARC/Metrorail line is very limited. The north-south trail system is continuous and well used. For more details on park areas within current development plans, see Development Activity on page 89.

Map 3.29 Open Space 51st

Ave.

Pain t Bra nch Pkw y.

1/2 Mile Radius Paint Branch Parkway Comm. Park

Calvert Neighborhood Park

hA ve. Ken ilw or t

Ri ve

Northea st

Haig

Dr.

Gosling Pond

Anacostia River Stream Valley Park

Bran ch A nac ost ia

Rd .

Univ ersity Research Ct.

Riv er

Tuckerman St. Taylor Rd .

Riverdale Neighborhood Playground

Lafa yett e

Ave.

Riv ert e

ch Ct .

MAR C

/Me

tro R

ail

1/4 Mile Radius

Riverdale Comm. Rec. Center

LEGEND

Purple Line

Route Proposed by MTA Proposed M Square (River Road) Station

Parkland East W est H

wy. (M

Wetland D 410

Stream/Pond

)

Floodplain 100 year

Floodplain 500 year

Trails 0

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

Purple Line TOD Study: Existing Conditions

Environmental Conditions

do encroach on existing buildings east and west of the Northeast Branch and the 500-year floodplain is in close proximity of the proposed Purple Line station location.

Within the quarter-mile radius of the proposed M Square (River Road) station, the Northeast Branch of the Anacostia River is located to the east of the Metro station. The branch is located among a wooded tract of parkland. Wetlands are confined to the Northeast Branch basin south of River Road; however, the wetlands expand beyond the basin north of River Road and cover large significant forested areas. The FEMA identified floodplains are within the half-mile and quarter-mile radii. The designated 100-year and 500-year floodplains, however, are largely contained within parkland. The floodplains

Map 3.30 Environmental Conditions 51st

Ave.

Pain t Bra nch Pkw y.

1/2 Mile Radius

hA ve. lwo rt Ken i

Ri ve

Northea st

Bran ch A nac ost ia

Univ ersity Research Ct.

Rd .

Dr.

Riv er

Haig

Lafa yett e

Ave.

Riv ert e

ch Ct .

MAR C

/Me

tro R

ail

1/4 Mile Radius

Taylor Rd .

Tuckerman St.

LEGEND

Purple Line

Route Proposed by MTA Proposed M Square (River Road) Station

Parkland East W est H

wy. (M

Wetland D 410

Stream/Pond

)

Floodplain 100 year

Floodplain 500 year

Trails 0

100

200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

400

600

Station Area-Existing Conditions | M Square (River Road)

Area Traffic and Transportation Overview

Bicycle Accommodations

The traffic and transportation assessment for the M Square (River Road) study area includes roadway types, functionality and related amenities, pedestrian facilities (e.g., sidewalks), bicycle facilities and transit services (bus and Metrorail), and parking. Major deficiencies/needs such as gaps and barriers in the nonmotorized transportation network are documented and summarized.

As mentioned above, the Rhode Island Trolley and Northeast Branch trails are shared-use paths that run through the River Road area. None of the roadways in the study area provide designated space for bicyclists.

Roadways The M Square (River Road) study area overlaps a significant portion of the College Park-UMD study area to the north and a small portion of the Riverdale Park study area to the southeast. The primary roadway in the study area is River Road, a four-lane, divided roadway that runs in a north-south direction, connecting Paint Branch Parkway and Kenilworth Avenue. According to MDSHA’s internet TMS, River Road carries an ADT volume of 8,900 vehicles. Rivertech Court and University Research Court are two-lane commercial access roads, and Haig Drive is a two-lane roadway that provides access to Anacostia River Park and the Northeast Branch Trail. Several other two-lane, residential streets are included in the southwestern and eastern portions of the study area. All numbered roadways in the study area, such as MD 410 (East West Highway) and MD 201 (Kenilworth Avenue), are maintained by MDSHA. Named roadways, such as River Road and Paint Branch Parkway, are maintained by the county. Pedestrian Accommodations Sidewalks are provided along both sides of River Road, except where the road narrows on the bridge over the Anacostia River and sidewalk is provided only on one side of the roadway. Partial sidewalks are provided on most residential and commercial roads. Additionally, there are two shared-use trails in the study area: the Rhode Island Trolley Trail runs north-south, just to the west, and the Northeast Branch Trail runs north-south, east along the Anacostia River. Noted Deficiencies. Within the study area, there is poor pedestrian connectivity to the Rhode Island Trolley Trail. Additionally, some sidewalks are missing in the residential areas. In the commercial area, buildings are set back from the roadway, discouraging pedestrian access. Lighting is provided at most intersections; however, there is no lighting provided at a pedestrian scale such as low, pole-mounted fixtures.

Noted Deficiencies. Though there are shared-use recreational trails in the study area, most of the local roadways have no designated space for cyclists. As with the pedestrian access, there is also limited bicycle connectivity to the Rhode Island Trolley Trail. Transit Service The study area is served by Metrobus Routes F6 and R12; both have peak hour headways of 30 minutes. Metrobus route F6 serves Silver Spring Metro Station, Takoma Park, Prince George’s Plaza and New Carrollton Metro Stations. The R12 route serves Greenbelt Metro Station, Riverdale Park, and Bladensburg. The Shuttle-UM serves stops along River Road and Rivertech Court in the morning and evening with a peak hour headway of 15 minutes. The MARC Camden Line and the Metro Green Line stop at the College Park-UMD Metro Station, just north of the half-mile study area. Noted Deficiencies. Existing bus stops lack amenities such as shelters and real-time transit information. Parking Regulations There are 674 parking spaces provided within the study area, 87 of which require a parking permit. There is no on-street parking along River Road, Rivertech Court, University Research Court, Haig Drive, and Lafayette Avenue. Open parking is available throughout most of the residential street network to the south and east.

Pipeline Recommended Public Improvements A review of short-term and long-term state, county, and local plans such as the Consolidated Transportation Plan, CIP, Highway Needs Inventory, Constrained Long-Range Plan, and Master Plan of Transportation was performed to identify both funded and unfunded transportation projects for each mode of travel (other than the Purple Line). There are currently no pipeline projects within a half-mile radius of the proposed M Square (River Road) Purple Line Station (see plan diagrams and tables on following pages for additional traffic and transportation assessments for M Square (River Road)).

There are very few crosswalks provided on River Road, and most crosswalks appear to be faded. Not all intersections provide consistent amenities, including push buttons and countdown signals. Curb ramps are generally provided at intersections through the study area, but many do not meet current ADA standards. Specific recommendations for improvements will be made for each intersection.

Purple Line TOD Study: Existing Conditions

d Ra

)—

ile

Map 3.31 Walksheds, M Square (River Road)

WALKSHED LEGEND

Purple Line PA Alignment Proposed Purple Line Station 1/2-Mile Walk 1/4-Mile Walk

Data Source: M-NCPPC/ Sabra-Wang & Associates

A walkshed is defined as an area that can be reached on foot from a specific starting point, such as a station platform. The graphic above reflects two types of walksheds for the M Square (River Road) Station. The first (denoted by dashed circles) is based on “straight-line” distances from the station platform. The second type of walkshed is based on the distances an average pedestrian can walk in 5 and 10 minutes, respectively, based on the current roadway configuration and pedestrian facilities. It covers a much smaller area than the more generic walkshed circle due to gaps and barriers in the existing pedestrian network. Barriers affecting pedestrian movement within the study area include MD 201 (Kenilworth Avenue), the MARC/Metrorail line, River Road, and the Northeast Branch of the Anacostia River. Gaps are generated by breaks in the sidewalk network in residential and commercial areas. An important goal of the planned station access improvements will be to recommend the expansion of the latter walkshed type for each of the station areas.

N Br orth an e ch ast

1/4-Mile R ad ius

M SQUARE (R ive

r Ro ad

Anacostia River Trail System

Station Area-Existing Conditions | M Square (River Road)

d Ra

—

ile

Map 3.32 Existing Transportation Conditions, M Square (River Road)

N Br orth an e ch ast

ius 1/4-Mile R ad

University. Research Ct.

M SQUARE (R ive

r Ro a

Anacostia River Trail System

EXISTING CONDITIONS LEGEND

Purple Line LPA Alignment Proposed Purple Line Station Existing Sidewalk Existing Bike Path WMATA 84 WMATA F4/F6 UM Shuttle

Data Source: M-NCPPC/ Sabra-Wang & Associates

Purple Line TOD Study: Existing Conditions

Previous Plans and Studies

1989 Approved Master Plan for Langley Park-College Park-Greenbelt and Vicinity The study area of the Langley Park-College Park-Greenbelt Approved Master Plan (October 1989) and Adopted Sectional Map Amendment encompasses areas mostly north of this Purple Line TOD study area. However, the plan targeted five key properties (now, largely, M Square) for development of up to 2.5 million square feet of employment in a 60/40 split of research/ development to general office. These parcels included, at the time, Kropp’s Addition, WMATA property at the station, UMD property, Litton, and the ACF property (154 acres south of Calvert Road). 1997 Approved Transit District Development Plan for College ParkRiverdale Transit District Overlay Zone The Approved Transit District Development Plan for the College Park-Riverdale Transit District Overlay Zone study area coincides with the College Park-UMD and M Square station areas of this Purple Line TOD Study area. The plan calls for employment and mixed use and outlines specific development regulations and guidelines for development within what is currently the M Square area. Specific development recommendations are outlined for each of 16 parcels within the TDDP area. Recommended building heights range from 48 to 90 feet. The study notes that much of the area is within a floodplain, especially areas closest to the College Park Airport. Parking requirements are reduced, per the TDOZ, within 1,320 feet of the station (1.75/1000 square foot office/ retail/industrial and 1 per du). Parking requirements increase, although only slightly (2.00 and 1.11, respectively), up to 2,640 feet from the station. The study also calls for a financing and funding strategy to include shared parking, shuttle, roads, transit, and trail improvements—including one-time and annual fees, varying from parcel to parcel. 2005 Approved Countywide Green Infrastructure Plan Within the Countywide Green Infrastructure Plan, the Northeast and Northwest branches of the Anacostia River are recognized as important resources and targeted as needing protection. The plan suggests that, in areas where important green infrastructure exists, flexible design standards should be considered that will, among other objectives, minimize impervious surfaces, maximize utilization of a property, establish new linkages, minimize ecological impacts, minimize road impacts, enable public access (visual and/or physical) to the preserved areas, increase stream buffers, and many others. 2009 Countywide Master Plan of Transportation Bikeways and Trails The Master Plan of Transportation identifies important existing bike routes and trails along Paint Branch Parkway, Good Luck Road, and River Road, connecting the UMD campus to Kenilworth Avenue and along the Northeast Branch. Planned trails are recommended within M Square to connect to the Northeast Branch; along Roanoke Avenue to William Wirt Middle School, and to Good Luck Road; and south along 67th Avenue to Lewisdale Park to Annapolis Road.

2011 Purple Line Phase 2 CAST Recommended access improvement to these stations included pedestrian and bicycle transit. Recommendations for pedestrian network included crosswalk striping; new amenities at signalized intersections such as push buttons, priority phasing, and ADA ramps; widened sidewalks; and new lighting to enhance pedestrian comfort and safety. Bicycle facility recommendations included new bicycle lanes and routes and new sidepaths along several neighborhood roadways to develop a designated bicycle network, along with amenities such as bicycle parking and wayfinding signage. Lastly, the bus stop upgrades proposed to enhance the comfort and safety of transit users included shelters and benches.

Development Activity: M Square (River Road) M Square Lots 15-17, College Park and Riverdale Park, Maryland Located within College Park, Maryland, M Square Lots 15-17 consist of 13.4 acres along River Road. The parcels lie at the intersection of the half-mile study areas of two of the proposed Purple Line stations, the M Square and College Park-UMD stations. As currently proposed by UMD and the Corporate Office Properties Trust, the development is single-use with surrounding surface parking and one four-level parking garage. In each of the three 5-story buildings, 150,000 square feet of general and research office space is planned. The parcels lie within the TDDP for the College Park-Riverdale TDOZ. Cafritz Property, Riverdale Park, Maryland Consisting of 35.8 acres, the Cafritz Property is located in Riverdale Park, Maryland. The site fronts US 1 (Baltimore Avenue) to the west and is bounded by the neighborhood of Calvert Hills to the north, the CSX and MARC/Metrorail lines to the east, and the US Army Reserve and US Postal Service properties to the south. The Cafritz Property lies at the western edge of the half-mile study area of the proposed Purple Line M Square (River Road) station and just south of the half-mile study area of the proposed College Park-UMD station. The project site plan is organized with a grid of streets and blocks, accompanied by a variety of open spaces, and contemplates a mix of uses including retail, office, and residential. Proposed commercial uses include a 32,000 square foot Whole Foods; a 45,000 square foot health club; additional, supporting neighborhood retail; as well as 22,000 square feet of office space and the potential of a 120-room boutique hotel. For residential, the plan currently envisions a variety of housing types, including 100 townhouses, 640 multifamily units, 224 senior housing units, as well as 30 graduate and/ or faculty housing units. In January 2012, the Planning Board approved the Riverdale Park MUTC Zone Development Plan amendment for the Cafritz property with conditions, including additional screening of the surface parking with buildings, walls, and/or landscaping along Baltimore Avenue (Route 1), crossing the CSX rail line, and promoting shared parking strategies.

Station Area-Existing Conditions | M Square (River Road)

A crossing of the CSX and MARC/Metrorail lines from the Cafritz property to the east would provide needed connectivity to M Square and the Anacostia Tributary Trail System. Currently, rail crossings in the area are limited for vehicles to Paint Branch Parkway and East West Highway; an additional crossing for pedestrians occurs at the College Park-UMD station.

Map 3.33 Purple Line Phase 2 CAST—Proposed Recommended, M Square (River Road) LEGEND

Proposed Purple Line Station Bus Stop Improvements (Bench, Shelter, or Real-time Systems)

)—

ile

Purple Line LPA Alignment

r Ro ad

Proposed Sidewalk

M SQUARE (R ive

Bike Facility (Lane, Route, or Side Path) 1/4-Mile Radius

Data Source: M-NCPPC/ Dewberry

PURPLE LINE PROPOSED CONDITIONS M Square (River Road)

N.T.S

Purple Line TOD Study: Existing Conditions

Station Location and PA Route

Map 3.34 Station Location and PA Route Plan—M Square (River R

The PA route and station location for M Square (River Road), as proposed by MTA, is shown to the right. The current proposed alignment and platform location is the culmination of community input, engineering feasibility, economic feasibility, and efforts to minimize disturbance outside of the right-of-way. All impacted properties are based on MTA’s current alignment and are subject to change during MTA’s PE phase. As of February 2012, the alignment through the M Square area travels down the median of Kenilworth Avenue, minimizing the light rail’s impact on properties abutting the roadway. The Purple Line then turns west at the intersection of River Road following the southern side of River Road.

MAR C

/Me

tro R

ail

This alignment may require modifications to crossings at Rivertech Court and University Research Court and the removal or relocation of an access road off of River Road, connecting to the Physics Ellipse.

Riv ert ech

Ct.

Disclaimer: MTA has revised its list of properties likely to be impacted by the Purple Line Project. Further update can be found from MTA’s web site, http://www.purplelinemd.com/

Taylor R d.

Tuckerman St.

Station Area-Existing Conditions | M Square (River Road)

Road)

Haig

River

Rd.

Ken i

Dr.

lwo

rth

Ave .

Uni versity

t. Research C

1/4 Mile Radius

LEGEND

Purple Line

Route Proposed by MTA Proposed M Square (River Road) Station Impacted 1/ 4 mi. 0

100

200

Radius 300

Station Area-Existing Conditions | College Park-UMD

3.4

College Park-UMD Introduction 78

Wes t Ca mpu s

Zoning 80

Coll ege P UM ark D

(Riv quare er R oad )

Rive

Rive rdal e Pa rk

(Bea rdale R con Heig oad hts)

Land Use

Area Properties

Open Space

Environmental Conditions

Area Traffic and Transportation

Previous Plans and Studies

Purple Line TOD Study: Existing Conditions

Introduction The TOD study area centered on the proposed College Park-UMD Purple Line Station extends outward a half-mile from the station stop, as is shown on Map 3.35 on the facing page. A half-mile represents an average 10-minute walk. The inner circle represents a quarter mile radius or an average fiveminute walk. The proposed Purple Line College Park-UMD station location is set back from River Road, located just south of the MARC/Metro station on the east side of the existing WMATA rail lines. Gateway roads to the UMD, such as Paint Branch Parkway, travel through the study area as do existing public transportation nodes, including College ParkUMD WMATA station, College Park-UMD MARC train station, and numerous WMATA, UMD’s Shuttle-UM, and Central Maryland Regional Transit bus nodes. Commuters access the existing MARC/Metro station from the east or west side of the rail lines, utilizing pedestrian tunnels under the tracks, surface parking, structured parking, Kiss & Ride drop-off zones, bus drop off zones, and bike storage areas. The College Park-UMD half-mile study area falls within the College Park and Riverdale municipality boundaries. The study area is divided into two distinctly different development patterns to the west and east of the rail line. To the west lies the Old Town College Park Historic District and the Calvert Hills Historic District. These two areas within the City of College Park are mixed use, predominantly residential with commercial and institutional properties concentrated closer to US 1 (Baltimore Avenue) and Paint Branch Parkway. Approximately 620 households are located within the half-mile study area about half of which are single-family units. Due to the proximity to UMD, many of the single-family houses are rented to students. Small blocks and a girded network of streets compose the neighborhoods to the west. To the east of the MARC/Metrorail line, the small block and street pattern gives way to an office/industrial park environment. No vertical mixed use currently exists within this area. Publicly-owned land predominates; more than ninety percent of the land area is owned by the State of Maryland, M-NCPPC, WMATA, or the federal government. Surrounding office properties within the M Square Research Park include federal tenants requiring secure facilities, including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the Center for Advanced Language Studies. Existing development at M Square is based on suburban office park planning standards and is not currently transit-oriented or pedestrian-friendly. North of Paint Branch Parkway, small-scale industrial buildings, a tennis facility, and the College Park Airport are located. An ice rink and parkland are located to the east. The majority of properties are within the APA-6 and are subject to certain height and notification requirements. Within APA-6, structures taller than 50 feet may not be approved unless the structure demonstrates compliance with FAR Part 77. The declaration of covenants requiring large front setbacks and limitation on certain uses as well as the current security requirements and methods of federal tenants are

Paint Branch Parkway, looking east towards River Road intersection

MARC College Park Station and connection to METRO station

College Park Metro Station parking garage and bus stops

Industrial area, south of College Park Airport

Station Area-Existing Conditions | College Park-UMD

1/2 Mile Radius Existing Roads MARC/Metro Rail Lines Purple Line Alignment Purple Line Stations

Ad elp h Un ive rsit y

UMD Campus Center

w y.

o re

Ba lti m

Kenilwo rth

t Bra Pain

College Park UMD

Av e. (M

University of Maryland

West Campus

shing ton Pkw y.

D 20 1)

East Campus

y Blvd. E Universit

-Wa

Blv d. E

i Rd

Adelphi Rd.

Good Luck Rd.

Baltimore Ave. (U S

Closer to the UMD, the dynamics of the housing units shift as the student population impacts the housing supply. In the half-mile radius around the College Park-UMD station, 37 percent of all units are multifamily in buildings with five or more units. As would be expected, one in four households in the College Park-UMD station area are one-person households. This area’s student population impacts household formation. Household size averages only 2.2 persons. In comparison, Prince George’s County and Suburban Maryland have average household sizes of 2.78 and 2.73 persons, respectively.

Map 3.35 Study Area Location

Belcrest Rd.

hurdles to shifting the development pattern of the park from suburban and autocentric to more urban and transit-oriented.

M Square

East W est

(Beacon Heights) (MD 4 10)

Ve ter an s

R iverdale Rd.

Pk w

rR Age

e Qu

Riverdale Road

Hwy.

MA R C/ Met ro R ail

p ha

Rive r Rd.

(River Road)

D (M

Riverdale Park

0) 41

Map 3.36 College Park-UMD Station Study Area—Existing Conditions 1/2 Mile Radius

Colle

ge Av e.

Rhod

Hop ki

e Isla

ns Av e.

nd Av e.

1/4 Mile Radius

Ave.

ge A ve.

Scott D

Colu

t Rd.

ral Fr ank

Calver

Colle

mbia

outh

Ave.

Rd.

Dartm

Corp o

M Harva

Bow doin

Ave .

rd Rd .

Pain t

Bra

Pkw

d Ave .

nch

52n

Ave. 51st

Drexel Rd.

r Rd .

Erskine Rd.

Rive

Fordham Rd.

ro Ra

Guilf ord Rd .

MAR C/Me t

Knox

LEGEND

Purple Line Route Proposed by MTA Proposed College ParkUMD Station 0

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

Purple Line TOD Study: Existing Conditions

Zoning

The existing zoning classifications allow for low- and medium-density residential and low-density, general commercial with mixed use and industrial. Within the half-mile radius study area, the zoning diagram below incorporates the TDOZ underlying zoning classifications established by the 1997 Transit District Development Plan (TDDP). The residential, commercial, and industrial zonings are typically single use (or Euclidean zoning), where each land use is separated from one another with very limited mixing, whereas the mixed-use zoning allows for a range of uses. Mixed-use zoning allows for uses in multiple categories (such as commercial, institutional, and residential).

wholesale, office, warehouse, laboratory, hotel, and research and development activities as well as any minor service and retail; a 100-foot setback and buffer to residential properties fronting on Tuckerman Street; and a four-story height limit for buildings and structures abutting residential properties fronting on Tuckerman Street up to 400 feet from the property lines. For properties within the TDOZ boundary that are governed by the declaration of covenants, the more restrictive requirements prevail. While a diverse mix of commercial and industrial uses are allowed by the declaration of covenants, residential is not currently included. The omission of residential as well as the large front setback are counter to creating a desirable TOD environment.

A declaration of covenants for the M Square development area was created on November 5, 1981, and amended on August 8, 1990. These covenants require a 40-foot building setback from any publicly maintained roadway or private roadway; that buildings shall not occupy more than 50 percent of the building site; limited uses, including manufacturing, processing, storage,

The existing zoning classifications within the half-mile radius of the proposed station include: Residential (R-18, R-35, R-55, R-R, R-O-S, and O-S), Commercial (C-1, C-O, and C-S-C), Mixed Use (M-X-T and M-U-I), and Industrial (I-1 and I-3).

Map 3.37 Existing Zoning

nd A ve.

1/2 Mile Radius

LEGEND

e Isla

e Ave .

th Av e.

Rhod

mou

Rd.

Route Proposed by MTA Proposed College ParkUMD Station

Rd.

C-1

Coll eg

e Av e.

Colu m

Calve rt

Dart

s Ave . Hop kin

Knox

Purple Line

1/4 Mile Radius bia A ve.

Colle g

C-2 C-A C-M

C-O C-S-C

Bow doin Ave .

Guilfo

Ave.

I-2

Bra

nch

Pkw

I-3

M-U-I M-X-T

51st

r Rd .

Drexel Rd.

Rive

Erskine Rd.

etro

Rd.

MAR C/M

Fordham

Pain t

Rail

rd Rd .

I-1

MU-TC O-S R-10 R-18 R-20 R-30 R-30C R-35 R-55 R-80 R-O-S R-R R-T U-L-I 0

100

200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

400

600

Station Area-Existing Conditions | College Park-UMD

Land Use

The College Park-UMD study area within a half-mile of the proposed station is largely bifurcated by the MARC/Metrorail lines. West of the rail lines, the land use is mainly residential, with commercial and institutional properties concentrated closer to US 1 (Baltimore Avenue) and Paint Branch Parkway. The residential properties west of the rail line are composed of single-family detached, semidetached, and multifamily dwelling units.

For details on properties with current development plans, see Development Activity on page 89.

East of the rail line, the land use is mainly industrial or institutional. Within the quarter-mile radius east of the rail lines, surface parking comprises large areas around the institutional and industrial lands. North of Paint Branch Parkway, small-scale industrial buildings, a tennis facility, and the College Park Airport are located. An ice rink and parkland are located to the east. Publicly owned land predominates; more than 90 percent of the land area is owned by the State of Maryland, M-NCPPC, WMATA, or the federal government.

Map 3.38 Existing Land Use

nd A ve.

Colle g

e Isla

e Ave .

bia A ve.

th Av e.

Rd.

mou Calve rt

College Park Airport

Coll eg

e Av e.

Colu m

Knox

Dart

Friends Community School

1/4 Mile Radius

Rhod

Hop kin

s Ave .

1/2 Mile Radius

Rd.

Bow doin

Ave .

Ave.

Bra

nch

Pkw

51st

Drexel Rd.

r Rd .

Erskine Rd.

Rive

Rd.

Pain t

Rail

Calvert Hills Historic District

Fordham

etro

rd Rd .

MAR C/M

Guilfo

LEGEND

Purple Line

Route Proposed by MTA Proposed College ParkUMD Station

University Park Historic District

Historic District Historic Site/ Structure Institutional Residential Commercial Industrial Recreation 0

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

Purple Line TOD Study: Existing Conditions

Area Properties

The following area properties diagram locates and identifies all properties (excluding residential single-family lots and parkland) within the halfmile study area of the proposed College Park-UMD station. For this study, properties will be evaluated for potential redevelopment based on such factors as proximity to the proposed station, access, ownership, and property size. 1. USDA Center at Riverside HUB Realty Funding Inc 2. State of Maryland NOAA Center for Weather and Climate Prediction 3. State of Maryland 4. State of Maryland UM Center for the Advanced Study for Language 5. Riverdale FDA LLC 6. Food and Drug Administration

15. College Park Metro Auto Service 16. Capital Bldg. Maintenance Corp. 17. C & D Auto Service 18. WMATA 19. Prince George’s County 20. WMATA 21. WMATA 22. U.S. Post Office 23. State of Maryland 24. WMATA 25. American Center for Physics Inc 26. Calvert Tract LLC 27. Laundry World 28. College Park Auto Parts 29. Vacant

7. State of Maryland Patapsco Building 8. Linson Pool/Wells Ice Rink 9. WMATA College Park station 10. Vacant 11. Congressional Glass 12. Ace Fire Extinguisher Service 13. Black Boar Industries 14. B & C Auto Clinic

30. ZIPS Dry Cleaners 31. College Park Animal Control 32. College Park Dental 33. McCollum & Associates, LLC 34. M&T Bank 35. New Leaf Church 36. University of Maryland 37. Maryland Fire and Rescue Institute 38. University of Maryland

Map 3.39 Area Properties 1/2 Mile Radius 37 36

nd A ve.

Colle g

e Isla

e Ave .

bia A ve.

th Av e.

Calve rt

Rd.

18 17

mou

Rd.

Colu m

Knox

Hop kin

Dart

s Ave .

Rhod

1/4 Mile Radius

e Av e.

Ave .

Coll eg

9 6

Bow doin

Guilfo

Pain t

Rive

MAR C

Drexel Rd.

Ave.

r Rd .

/Me

Erskine Rd.

Rd.

Bra

nch

Pkw

51st

Fordham

tro R a

rd Rd .

5 4

24 LEGEND

Purple Line

Route Proposed by MTA Proposed College ParkUMD Station

Key Area Properties 26

1 0

100

200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

400

600

Station Area-Existing Conditions | College Park-UMD

Open Space

Indian Creek Stream Valley Park—an indoor ice rink, baseball field, and facilities. Calvert Road Park Disc Golf

While the north-south trail connectivity is established and well used, the east-west connections are not frequent due to limited rail line crossings. East– west trail crossings occur just north of the study area under US 1 (Baltimore Avenue). Pedestrians can also cross the rail line through a tunnel at the MARC/ Metro station.

Calvert Neighborhood Park—playground equipment, a baseball field, surface basketball courts, and gathering areas. Anacostia Tributary River Trail System—largely wooded with shared use paths and trails. The Trolley Trail—runs to the west and parallel to the MARC/Metrorail line.

Parks located beyond the half-mile radius include: Paint Branch Parkway Community Park—includes surface tennis courts, volleyball courts, and gathering areas. Lake Artemesia Conservation Area—pavilions, piers, and trails.

Map 3.40 Open Space Lake Artemesia

1/2 Mile Radius

Indian Creek Comm. Park

Paint Branch Stream Valley Park

Colle

ge Av e.

Rhod

Hop ki

e Isla

ns Av e.

nd Av e.

1/4 Mile Radius

Ave.

ge A ve.

Scot tD

Colu

Dart t Rd.

oral Fran k

Calver

Colle

mbia

th Av e.

Rd.

mou

Knox

Corp

M Harv ard Rd .

Bow doin

Ave .

Calvert Recreation Center

Bra

Pkw

d Ave .

nch

Paint Branch Parkway Comm. Park

52n

Ave. 51st

Drexel Rd.

Rive r Rd .

Erskine Rd.

Pain t

Fordham Rd.

MAR C/Me tro R a

Guilf ord Rd .

Calvert Recreation Center LEGEND

Purple Line

Route Proposed by MTA

Parkland Wetland Stream/Pond Floodplain 100 year

Floodplain 500 year

Trails 0

100

200

300

Anacostia River Stream Valley LEGEND Park

SCALE: 1” = 200’

Purple Line TOD Study: Existing Conditions

Environmental Conditions

The environmental conditions diagram, shown below, locates existing hydrologic features such as wetlands, streams, ponds, and flood plain areas within and surrounding the half-mile radius study area as potential constraints on future development. Within the half-mile radius of the proposed College Park-UMD station, the Northeast Branch of the Anacostia River is located along the edge of the radius to the north and east. A few small wetlands are within the half-mile radius, while most of the larger wetlands are located just outside of the radius, within parkland areas and surrounding Lake Artemesia. The FEMA-identified floodplains are significant within the half-mile and quarter-mile radius. The designated 100 year and 500 year floodplains, however, are largely contained within parkland, but the floodplains do encroach on existing buildings east and northeast of the proposed station location.

Map 3.41 Environmental Conditions tB in Pa ch

n ra

Lake Artemesia er Riv

1/2 Mile Radius

n Cr India

nd A ve.

eek

e Isla

e Ave .

th Av e.

Rhod

mou

Coll eg

e Av e.

Colu m

Dart

s Ave .

r ve Ri

Hop kin

Calve rt

n ra

Rd.

B nt

Knox

i Pa

1/4 Mile Radius bia A ve.

Colle g

Rd.

Bow doin

Ave .

Guilfo

Purple Line

Route Proposed by MTA

Parkland Wetland Stream/Pond Floodplain 100 year

Floodplain 500 year

Trails 0

100

200

SCALE: 1â&#x20AC;? = 200â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

400

600

Ave.

nch

Pkw

No rth ea st B nacos t i iver aR hA nc ra

Proposed College ParkUMD Station

Bra

51st

Drexel Rd.

Rive r Rd .

Erskine Rd.

tro R

Rd.

MAR C/M e

Fordham

LEGEND

Pain t

ail

rd Rd .

Station Area-Existing Conditions | College Park-UMD

Area Traffic and Transportation Overview

Bicycle Accommodations

The traffic and transportation assessment for College Park-UMD includes roadway types, functionality and related amenities, pedestrian facilities (e.g., sidewalks), bicycle facilities, transit services (bus and Metrorail), and parking. Major deficiencies/needs such as gaps and barriers in the nonmotorized transportation network are documented and summarized.

A small portion of the shared-use Paint Branch Trail enters the northern section of the study area and terminates at Paint Branch Parkway, and the shared-use Rhode Island Trolley Trail follows the southern portion of Rhode Island Avenue within the study area. Bike racks and bike lockers are provided at the College Park-UMD Metrorail Station.

Roadways

Noted Deficiencies. Though there are small sections of the shared-use trail in the study area, most of the local roadways have no designated space for bicyclists. There is also no connection to the Rhode Island Trail.

The College Park-UMD study area encompasses the College Park Airport and the College Park Metrorail/MARC Station. Major roadways in the study area include Paint Branch Parkway and River Road. Paint Branch Parkway is a fourlane collector that runs in an east-west direction between Baltimore Avenue and Kenilworth Avenue, and carries an average daily traffic volume of 17,550 vehicles. The roadway is undivided through most of the study area, except between River Road and 52nd Avenue, where there is a curbed median. River Road is a four-lane, divided roadway that runs in a north-south direction, connecting Paint Branch Parkway and Kenilworth Avenue. There are many residential streets west of the train tracks and several small commercial streets east of the tracks. Most of the roadways are two-lane and two-way, except for Rhode Island Avenue, which has one-way segments. All available ADT volumes were obtained through MDSHA internet TMS. Regarding roadway maintenance responsibilities, all numbered roadways in the study area such as MD 410 (East West Highway) and MD 201 (Kenilworth Avenue) are maintained by MDSHA. Named roadways such as River Road and Paint Branch Parkway are maintained by the county. Pedestrian Accommodations Sidewalks are provided along the south side of Paint Branch Parkway and along both sides of River Road. There is a shared-use trail within the median of Rhode Island Avenue south of Calvert Road and a small portion of the Paint Branch shared-use trail appears in the north portion of the study area. Partial sidewalks are provided on some residential streets. Noted Deficiencies. There is poor pedestrian connectivity to the Northeast Branch Trail, Metro and MARC. There are no sidewalks along Wake Forest Drive, Clemson Road, 51st Avenue, 52nd Avenue, Frank Scott Drive and Lehigh Road. In the commercial area, buildings are set back from the roadway, which discourages pedestrian access. Connections across the Metrorail/MARC lines are limited, making it difficult for local residents on the west side to access the commercial areas in the east. Lighting is provided at most intersections, but there is no lighting provided at a pedestrian scale. Most crosswalks appear to be faded. Not all intersections provide consistent amenities, including push buttons and countdown signals. Curb ramps are generally provided at intersections through the study area, but many do not meet current ADA standards. Specific recommendations for improvements will be made for each intersection.

Transit Service The study area is served by the Metrorail Green Line and the MARC Camden Line. Metrobus Routes C8, F6, J4 and R12 stop at the metro station. Metrobus Routes C8 and F6 have peak hour headways of 30 minutes; the C8 route serves White Flint and Glenmont Metro Stations, while the F6 route serves Silver Spring Metro Station, Takoma Park, and Prince George’s Plaza and New Carrollton Metro Stations. Metrobus J4 is an express route serving Langley Park, Takoma Park, and Silver Spring and Bethesda Metro Stations with a peak hour headway of 20 minutes. The R12 route serves the Greenbelt Metro Station, Riverdale Park, and Bladensburg and has a peak hour headway of 30 minutes. The UMD shuttle serves stops along College Avenue and Rhode Island Avenue in the morning and evening, with a peak hour headway of 15 minutes. The UM Shuttle stops do not have amenities like benches or shelters. Noted Deficiencies. Seamless all-weather connections between platforms are needed at the existing Metrorail/MARC multimodal hub and will be needed for the future Purple Line addition. Parking Regulations A total of 2,900 parking spaces are provided within the proposed station’s half-mile radius. There is no parking permitted on-street along most roadways in the northwest quadrant of the study area. Off-street parking west of the MARC and Metro tracks is generally by permit only. Open parking is only available south of Drexel Road on Beechwood Road, Albion Road, and portions of Rhode Island Avenue.

Pipeline Recommended Public Improvements A review of short-term and long-term state, county and local plans such as the Consolidated Transportation Plan, CIP, Highway Needs Inventory, Constrained Long-Range Plan, and Master Plan of Transportation was performed to identify both funded and unfunded transportation projects for each mode of travel (other than the Purple Line). There is currently one pipeline project within a half-mile radius of the proposed College Park-UMD Purple Line Station, which is funded through the CIP. This project will extend the shared-use Rhode Island Avenue Trolley Trail southward to Hyattsville. (See plan diagrams and tables on following pages for additional traffic and transportation assessments for College Park-UMD.)

Purple Line TOD Study: Existing Conditions

x Rd

-M

ile

Rad

ius

MAR C/

Metr o Ra

COLLEGE P ARK -

Kno

Dâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;

ile

Map 3.42 Walksheds, College Park-UMD

WALKSHED LEGEND

Purple Line PA Alignment Proposed Purple Line Station 1/2-Mile Walk 1/4-Mile Walk

Data Source: M-NCPPC/ Sabra-Wang & Associates

The walksheds for College Park-UMD are shown both as radial perimeters (circles) and as isochrones (free form shapes) based on actual predicted walking travel times from the station platform. The importance of the isochrone boundary is to illustrate the actual walking time based on the current configuration of the roadway network and the provision of pedestrian facilities. The isochrone is much smaller than the generic walkshed circle as the former reflects gaps and barriers in the existing nonauto transportation network. Barriers affecting pedestrian travel times within the study area include the Paint Branch Parkway, MARC/ Metrorail line, and River Road. While not affecting walking travel times, the pedestrian experience is eroded by gaps in the sidewalk network. These gaps occur throughout the study area, including limited pedestrian connectivity across the MARC/Metrorail line and partial sidewalks on streets in residential areas. Many of the sidewalks within the residential areas have multiple curb cuts for driveways, resulting in continually varying sidewalk alignments. As part of the planned station access improvements, the goal will be to recommend specific improvements that will expand the isochrone for each station area.

Station Area-Existing Conditions | College Park-UMD

-M

ile

Rad

ius

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Metr o Ra

x Rd

LEGEND

Purple Line PA Alignment

MAR C/

Kno

COLLEGE P ARK -

Dâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;

ile

Map 3.43 Existing Transportation Conditions, College Park-UMD

Proposed Purple Line Station Existing Sidewalk Existing Bike Path WMATA 84 WMATA F4/F6 WMATA R12 WMATA C8 Data Source: M-NCPPC/ Sabra-Wang & Associates

WMATA J4 UM Shuttle

Purple Line TOD Study: Existing Conditions

Previous Plans and Studies

1989 Approved Master Plan Langley Park-College ParkGreenbelt The study area of the Langley-College Park-Greenbelt Approved Master Plan (October 1989) and Adopted Sectional Map Amendment encompasses areas mostly north of this Purple Line planning study area. However, the plan targeted five key properties (now, largely, M Square) for development of up to 2.5 million square feet of employment in a 60/40 split of research/ development to general office. These parcels included, at the time, Kropp’s Addition, WMATA property at the station, UMD property, Litton, and the ACF property (154 acres south of Calvert Road). 1997 Approved Transit District Development Plan for College ParkRiverdale Transit District Overlay Zone The Approved Transit District Development Plan for College Park-Riverdale Transit District Overlay Zone study area coincides directly with the College Park-UMD and M Square station areas of this Purple Line TOD Study area. The plan calls for employment and mixed use and outlines specific development regulations and guidelines for development within what is currently the M Square area. Specific development recommendations are outlined for each of 16 parcels within the TDDP area. Recommended building heights range from 48 to 90 feet; mostly in the 60 to 90 foot range. The study notes that much of the area is within a floodplain, especially areas closest to the College Park Airport. Parking requirements are reduced, per the TDOZ, within 1,320 feet of the station (1.75/1,000 SF office/retail/industrial and 1 per du). Parking requirements increase, although only slightly (2.00 and 1.11, respectively), up to 2,640 feet from the station. The study also calls for a financing and funding strategy to include shared parking, shuttle, roads, transit, and trail improvements—including one-time and annual fees, varying from parcel to parcel.

2005 Approved Countywide Green Infrastructure Plan Within the Approved Countywide Green Infrastructure Plan, the Northeast and Northwest Branches of the Anacostia River are recognized as important resources and targeted as needing protection. The plan suggests that, in areas where important green infrastructure exists, flexible design standards should be considered that will, among other objectives, minimize impervious surfaces, maximize utilization of a property, establish new linkages, minimize ecological impacts, minimize road impacts, enable public access (visual and/ or physical) to the preserved areas, increase stream buffers, and many others.

2008 A Technical Assistance Panel Report—College Park Metrorail Station Area ULI Washington The study area for the College Park Metrorail Station Area ULI TAP Report falls within the half-mile radius of the proposed Purple Line College ParkUMD station. The ULI TAP recommended mixed-use redevelopment of the site, including residential, office, hotel, and retail. The panel estimated a development program of 600 market-rate units, including flats, lofts, and

stacked townhouses; up to 300,000 square feet of office space, in both traditional and industrial loft space; a 140- to 180-room extended-stay hotel; and approximately 40,000 square feet of neighborhood-serving retail. The College Park Aviation Museum and Airport were recommended as anchors of the development, along with a plaza as a focal open space. Additionally, the panel recommended a change to the current TDOZ, which currently does not allow residential or reduced parking ratios within the study area.

2009 Countywide Master Plan of Transportation Bikeways and Trails The master plan identifies important existing bike routes and trails along Paint Branch Parkway, Good Luck Road, and River Road, connecting the UMD campus to Kenilworth Avenue, and along the Northeast Branch. Planned trails are recommended within M Square (to connect to the Northeast Branch) along Roanoke Avenue to William Wirt Middle School and to Good Luck Road and also south along 67th Avenue to Lewisdale Park and to Annapolis Road.

2010 Approved Central US 1 Corridor Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment The study area of the Approved Central US 1 Corridor Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment includes those properties immediately along US 1 from the Beltway to Guildford Road in College Park. The study area does not extend east of the rail corridor and, therefore, does not include any areas that coincide with the five station areas of the Purple Line TOD Study area. The plan does anticipate significant amounts of development, particularly within the east campus, and could create some market competition for development that may be contemplated within the College Park-UMD and M Square station areas.

2011 Purple Line Phase 2 CAST Access improvements to these stations included pedestrian and bicycle transit. Pedestrian network improvements included crosswalk striping; new amenities at signalized intersections such as push buttons, priority phasing, and ADA ramps; widened sidewalks; and new lighting to enhance pedestrian comfort and safety. Bicycle facility improvements included new bicycle lanes and routes as well as new sidepaths and trails along several neighborhood roadways and across the existing rail line to develop a new designated bicycle network, along with amenities such as bicycle parking and wayfinding signage. Lastly, bus stop upgrades to enhance the comfort and safety of transit users were proposed, including shelters and benches.

Station Area-Existing Conditions | College Park-UMD

Development Activity: College Park-UMD

Cafritz Property, Riverdale Park, Maryland

WMATA Property, College Park, Maryland

Consisting of 35.8 acres, the Cafritz property is located in Riverdale Park, Maryland. The site fronts US 1 (Baltimore Avenue) to the west and is bounded by the neighborhood of Calvert Hills to the north, the CSX and MARC/Metrorail lines to the east, and the U.S. Army Reserve and U.S. Postal Service properties to the south. The Cafritz property lies at the western edge of the half-mile study area of the proposed Purple Line M Square (River Road) station and just south of the half-mile study area of the proposed College Park-UMD station. The project site plan is organized with a grid of streets and blocks, accompanied by a variety of open spaces, and contemplates a mix of uses, including retail, office, and residential. Proposed commercial uses include a 32,000 square foot supermarket; a 45,000 square foot health club; additional, supporting neighborhood retail; as well as 22,000 square feet of office space and the potential of a 120-room boutique hotel. For residential, the plan currently envisions a variety of housing types, including 100 townhouses, 640 multifamily units, 224 senior housing units, as well as 30 graduate and/ or faculty housing units.

Consisting of 15.6 acres, the WMATA property is located in College Park, Maryland. The site runs parallel to the CSX and MARC/Metrorail lines to the west, and it fronts River Road to the east. The WMATA property lies at the center of the half-mile study area of the proposed Purple Line College ParkUMD station and directly adjacent to UMD’s M Square Research Park. In 2004, Fairfield Residential Company LLC and Manekin LLC were approved as the joint venture development team, and in 2005, a 740-space parking garage was constructed. Additional planned TOD includes a mix of uses, including retail, office, and residential. Proposed commercial includes 348,000 square feet of office space in two mid-rise, six-story buildings, along with 34,000 square feet of supporting, ground-level retail. For residential, 290 units are proposed in a mid-rise, seven-story courtyard building, wrapping a 600-space parking garage. For additional information and updates on the WMATA property, see www. wmata.com.

The proposed plan generally complies with the 2004 Riverdale Park Mixed Use Town Center Zone Development Plan, in keeping with the 2002 General Plan

Map 3.44 Purple Line Phase 2 CAST—Recommendations, College Park (UMD)

Purple Line LPA Alignment

Proposed Purple Line Station

ile

LEGEND

- UM

D—

Bus Stop Improvements (Bench, Shelter, or Real-time Systems)

COLLEGE P ARK

Proposed Sidewalk Bike Facility (Lane, Route, or Side Path) 1/4-Mile Radius

MAR C/

Metr o Ra

Data Source: M-NCPPC/ Dewberry

PURPLE LINE PROPOSED CONDITIONS College Park-UMD

N.T.S

Purple Line TOD Study: Existing Conditions

and the state’s Smart Growth principles. One noted deviation in the current plan is the retreating building frontage along US 1 (Baltimore Avenue); the buildings are set back behind surface parking lots. In January 2012, planning staff recommended Planning Board approval of proposed modifications to the Riverdale Park MUTC Zone Development Plan for the Cafritz property with conditions, including additional screening of the surface parking with buildings, walls, and/or landscaping along US 1 (Baltimore Avenue) crossing the CSX rail line and promoting shared parking strategies. The Rhode Island Trolley Trail is a shared-use path running north-south. Continuing the trail through the Cafritz property as currently planned would improve connectivity to the College Park-UMD station and promote walking and cycling in the area. For additional information and updates on the Cafritz Property, see www. cafritzpop.com Linson Pool/Wells Ice Rink, College Park, Maryland Renovations are planned for the Linson Pool and Wells Ice Rink as well as the construction of a new bathhouse. The current plans are in the schematic design phase with construction completion anticipated in 2013. New Airport Operations Building, College Park, Maryland Construction of a new airport operations building and meeting space is in design development phase with construction completion anticipated in 2013.

Purple Line TOD Study: Existing Conditions

Station Location and PA Route

Map 3.45 Station Location and PA Route Plan—College Park-UMD

Ave.

Rd.

bia A ve.

mou th

Knox

Calve r

Colu m

The proposed Purple Line UMD-College Park station location is set back from River Road, located just south of the MARC/Metro station on the east side of the existing WMATA rail lines.

e Ave .

Dar t

The current proposed Purple Line route through the College Park-UMD study area travels along River Road, turning north to MARC/Metro station; the route then joins Paint Branch Parkway, traveling at grade with the roadway under the existing rail line.

1/4 Mile Radius

Colle g

R ho d e Isla

The PA route and station location for College Park-UMD is shown to the right as proposed by MTA. This current proposed alignment and platform location is the culmination of community input, engineering feasibility, economic feasibility, and efforts to minimize disturbance outside of the right-of-way. All impacted properties are based on MTA’s current alignment and are subject to change during MTA’s PE phase.

nd A ve.

t Rd.

Bow doin

Ave .

Disclaimer: MTA has revised its list of properties likely to be impacted by the Purple Line Project. Further update can be found from MTA’s web site, http://www.purplelinemd.com/

Guilf ord R

Fordham

Rd.

tro R /Me MAR C

Drexel Rd.

ail

Erskine Rd.

Station Area-Existing Conditions | College Park-UMD

Coll eg

e Av e.

Bra

Pkw

Ave.

nch

51st

Rive

r Rd .

Pain t

LEGEND

Purple Line

Route Proposed by MTA Proposed College ParkUMD Station Impacted 1 /4 mi. 0

100

200

Radius 300

SCALE: 1” = 100’

Station Area-Existing Conditions | West Campus

3.5

West Campus Introduction 96

Wes t Ca mpu s

Zoning 98 Land Use Coll ege P UM ark D

(Riv quare er R oad )

Rive rdal e Pa rk

Rive (Bea rdale R con Heig oad hts)

Area Properties

100

Open Space

101

Environmental Conditions

102

Area Traffic and Transportation

103

Station Location and PA Route

108

Purple Line TOD Study: Existing Conditions

Introduction The TOD study area centered on the proposed West Campus Purple Line Station extends over a half-mile radius from the station stop, as shown in the Existing Conditions Plan on the facing page. A half-mile represents an average 10-minute walk. The inner circle represents a quarter-mile radius or an average five-minute walk. Major vehicular thoroughfares—Adelphi Road and University Boulevard— bisect the study area. Area commuters and students use Campus Drive to connect between and access these corridors and US 1 to the east. Existing residential development within a quarter mile of the proposed station includes the 331-unit Graduate Hills garden-style apartment complex, as well as surrounding 1940s and 1950s single-family detached homes.

Cool Spring Road with rural character

Key commercial and institutional properties within the half-mile radius of the proposed station include the M-NCPPC-owned University Hills Duck Pond Park, the Marriott Inn and Conference Center, the University of Maryland, University College (UMUC) facilities, the UMD Golf Course, St. Mark’s Catholic Church and School, the University Baptist Church, the University United Methodist Church, the Clarice Smith Performing Arts Center, and Byrd Stadium. Pedestrian, road, and streetscape improvements, targeted new development and redevelopment and an accessible and integrated Purple Line station have the potential to reposition the study area as a true alternate gateway to the University of Maryland, College Park campus.

History

Looking at University Blvd. crossing Adelphi Rd.

The unincorporated Adelphi community takes its name from the historic Adelphi Mill, established in 1796 along the Northwest Branch of the Anacostia River. In Adelphi, subdivisions now include Adelphi Hills, Adelphi Knolls, Buck Lodge, Chatham, Cool Spring Terrace, Heitmuller Estates, Hillandale Forest, Knollwood, Riggs Hill Manor, and White Oak Manor. A community focal point originally developed in the late 1950s is the Adelphi Pool. University Hills is a neighborhood annexed into the City of Hyattsville, Prince George’s County, Maryland in 2006. The land was developed in the 1950s and the majority of the streets in the neighborhood do not have sidewalks. Graduate Hills is an apartment complex located on Stanford Street and Adelphi Road. The main road through University Hills is Wells Boulevard. It runs between Adelphi Road and University Hills Neighborhood Park and ends at the Stanford Street intersection. Most of the streets in the University Hills neighborhood connect to Wells Boulevard and Stanford Street. There is little through traffic in University Hills.

Looking at station site from Presidential Drive

Graduate Hills at intersection

Station Area-Existing Conditions | West Campus

Map 3.46 Study Area Location Ad elp h

1/2 Mile Radius Existing Roads MARC/Metro Rail Lines Purple Line Alignment Purple Line Stations

Un ive rsit y

w y.

o re

Ba lti m

Kenilwo rth

t Bra Pain

College Park UMD

Av e. (M

University of Maryland

West Campus

shing ton Pkw y.

D 20 1)

East Campus

y Blvd. E Universit

-Wa

Blv d. E

i Rd

UMD Campus Center

Baltimore Ave. (U S

Belcrest Rd.

Adelphi Rd.

Good Luck Rd.

M Square (River Road)

East W est

Riverdale Park

Ve ter an s

Pk w

D (M

MA R C/ Met ro R ail

R iverdale Rd.

rR Age

0) 41

Map 3.47 Existing Conditions

(Beacon Heights) (MD 4 10)

e ap

Riverdale Road

Hwy.

d lR

e ue

Rive r Rd.

Adelphi Rd .

ive

rsi

Blv d. E.

e Radius 1/2-Mil

Co ol

eR 1/4-Mil adius

S p rin g Rd.

Cha

Temple St.

UMUC University of Maryland College Park

Blvd. E. University

el W

t. eS

y ns

Purple Line

t. aS

lva

. vd

u rd Pu

Windsor Ln.

Ru tg

t. sS er

Sta nf

n Pe

LEGEND

Dr. n att L Mow

d or

Campu s

Rd. Adelphi

Tulane D

der

man

Com

Dr.

Route Proposed by MTA Proposed West Campus Station 0

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

Purple Line TOD Study: Existing Conditions

Zoning

Mixed-Use:

The existing zoning classifications predominantly allow for low- and mediumdensity residential and institutional uses with the exception of the mixed-use, transportation-oriented zoning designation on the recently approved Domain at the College Park site and the high-density residential zoning on the Mosaic at Turtle Creek site.

M-X-T: Mixed Use, Transportation-Oriented

The existing zoning classifications within the half-mile radius of the proposed station include: Residential: R-10: R-18: R-55: R-80: R-R: O-S: R-O-S:

Multifamily High Density Residential Multifamily Medium Density Residential One-Family Detached Residential, maximum 6.7 DUs/Acre One-Family Detached Residential, maximum 4.58 DUs/Acre Rural Residential Open Space Reserved Open Space

Map 3.48 Existing Zoning Blv d. E.

e Radius 1/2-Mil

Adelphi Rd .

ive

rsi

University of Maryland Golf Course

Co ol

eR 1/4-Mil adius

S p rin g Rd.

Cha th

University

Pres iden tia l

Temple St.

UMUC

Blvd. E. Tulane D

LEGEND

University of Maryland College Park

Campu s

Dr.

Purple Line

ZONING

Ru tg

C-O C-S-C

t. sS er

t. eS

el W ls

M-U-I

u rd Pu

y ns

t. aS

lva

. vd

M-X-T

n Pe

O-S

St. Mark’s School

R-O-S R-18

Windsor Ln.

Sta nf

d or

R Adelphi

Proposed Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Station

n. att L Mow

Route Proposed by MTA

der

man

Com

Dr.

R-35 R-55 R-80 R-R 0

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

April 11, 2012 Prince George’s County Planning Department

THE MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION

PRR, Inc. Sabra, Wang, & Associates, Inc. Partners for Economic Solutions, LLC

West Campus

Existing Conditions

connect ing

Station Area-Existing Conditions | West Campus

Land Use

The study area is largely university oriented with approximately a third of the land owned and/or leased by UMD. The balance of the properties are divided between M-NCPPC, several institutional uses (three churches and the now-closed St. Mark’s School), and multifamily apartment buildings used as off-campus graduate student housing. A number of single-family detached homes are located to the south and north of the proposed platform location, offering a mix of owner-occupied and student rental housing opportunities.

“Mother” Jones Elementary School and the Friends Community School are located immediately outside of this boundary. Two fire stations—the College Park and Chillum-Adelphi stations—are approximately one mile to the east and west, respectively, of the station.

Two development applications of note have been approved during the last three years—Mosaic at Turtle Creek and Domain College Park. Other institutional uses include two schools—Lewisdale Elementary School and Northwestern High School—within one mile of the station. Mary Harns

Map 3.49 Land Use

Blv d. E.

e Radius 1/2-Mil

Adelphi Rd .

ive

rsi

University of Maryland Golf Course

Co ol

eR 1/4-Mil adius

S p rin g Rd.

Cha th

Pres iden tia l

Temple St.

UMUC

Blvd. E. University

St. Mark’s School

u rd Pu

Morrill Hall (UMD)

(

t. aS

. vd

a ylv

n Pe

Institutional

Windsor Ln.

Ru tg

Historic District Historic Site/ Structure

. St

(

t. eS

el W

Proposed Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Station

s er

R Adelphi

Sta nf

Route Proposed by MTA

Dr. n. att L Mow

Purple Line

University of Maryland College Park

Campu s

. Tulane Dr

d or

LEGEND

der

man

Com

Residential

Dr.

Commercial Industrial Recreation 0

100

200

400

600

(

Ash Hill / Hitching Post Hill

SCALE: 1” = 200’

April 11, 2012 Prince George’s County Planning Department

THE MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION

PRR, Inc. Sabra, Wang, & Associates, Inc. Partners for Economic Solutions, LLC

West Campus

connect ing

Existing Conditions

Purple Line TOD Study: Existing Conditions

Area Properties

Properties affected by the current proposed Purple Line PA route and station location are identified below and discussed in this section. Other potential redevelopment sites are identified on the diagram below. For this study, properties will be evaluated for potential redevelopment based on such factors as proximity to the proposed station, access, ownership, and property size. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Graduate Hills Corner Parking Lots State of Maryland University Baptist Church State of Maryland University Baptist Church FEP Estate Final Plat-University Methodist Church 8. Domain College Park

17. UMD SE of Mosaic at Turtle Creek 18. St. Mark’s Church and School

9. University Methodist Church 10. Homes Owned by Cedars LLD 11. State of Maryland 12. Undeveloped—Buddington & EVG 13. College Heights 14. Windsor Mill Gospel Hall Final Plat 15. UMD—Hillel Center 16. Potomac Electric Company

Map 3.50 Area Properties Blv d. E.

e Radius 1/2-Mil

Co ol

Adelphi Rd .

ive

rsi

University of Maryland Golf Course

eR 1/4-Mil adius

S p rin g Rd.

Cha

Pres iden tia l

Temple St.

UMUC

Blvd. E. University

Tulane D

University of Maryland College Park

Campu s

Dr. 7

s er

. St

B ls

el W

t. eS

u rd Pu

d. lv

t. aS

lva

y ns

n Pe

LEGEND

St. Mark’s School

Purple Line

Route Proposed by MTA

Windsor Ln.

Ru tg

Sta nf

d or

Rd. Adelphi

n att L Mow

13 18

man

Com

. r Dr

Proposed Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Station

Key Area Properties 0

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

April 11, 2012 Prince George’s County Planning Department

THE MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION

100

PRR, Inc. Sabra, Wang, & Associates, Inc. Partners for Economic Solutions, LLC

West Campus

Existing Conditions

connect ing

Station Area-Existing Conditions | West Campus

Open Space

The Open Space diagram, shown below, locates existing parks, playgrounds, trails, and recreation centers within and surrounding the half-mile radius study area as potential amenities for future development. Several community and neighborhood parks are located within the half-mile radius of the proposed West Campus Purple Line Station. One park—the University Hills Neighborhood Park—is located within the half-mile radius. This park includes open space and a playground.

Additionally, the UMD’s 18-hole golf course extends to the north of the intersection of Adelphi Road and University Boulevard. Connectivity to the recreation facilities is limited to the major roadways and the Northwest Branch Trail—a part of the Anacostia Tributary Trail System that skirts to the east of the Lane Manor and Adelphi Manor Community Recreation Centers. Sidewalk gaps, inadequate buffering, and the vehicularoriented nature of the primary crossing point—the intersection of University Boulevard, Adelphi Road, and Campus Drive— further limit pedestrian accessibility.

Parks located just outside of the half-mile radius include: Lane Manor Aquatic Center—offers an array of outdoor facilities, including softball, combination football/soccer fields, half- and full-size basketball courts, outdoor tennis courts, and volleyball courts. Adelphi Manor Community Recreation Center—features softball and cricket fields.

Sidepaths along Adelphi Road north of University Boulevard and the shareduse road designation of University Boulevard north of Adelphi Road provide the only bike connections in the study area.

Map 3.51 Open Space Blv d. E.

e Radius 1/2-Mil

Adelphi Rd .

ive

rsi

University of Maryland Golf Course

Co ol

eR 1/4-Mil adius

S p rin g Rd.

Cha th

Blvd. E.

Dr.

t. sS er

St. Mark’s School

el W

t. eS

y ns

t. aS

lva

. vd

u rd Pu

n Pe

Windsor Ln.

Ru tg

Sta nf

Campu s

n. att L Mow

d or

University of Maryland College Park

Tulane D

R Adelphi

University

Pres iden tia l

Temple St.

UMUC

der

man

Com

Dr.

LEGEND

Park Land Wetland Stream/Pond Trail April 11, 2012 Prince George’s County Planning Department

THE MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION

PRR, Inc. Sabra, Wang, & Associates, Inc. Partners for Economic Solutions, LLC

West Campus

connect ing

Existing Conditions

101

Purple Line TOD Study: Existing Conditions

Environmental Conditions

It is important to note that the Green Infrastructure Plan evaluation areas and network gaps are identified on the properties extending along and south of Campus Drive at the proposed West Campus station.

The environmental conditions diagram locates hydrologic features such as wetlands, streams, ponds, and flood plain areas. Within a half-mile radius of the proposed West Campus Purple Line platform, a wetland exists in the forested area owned by M-NCPPC east of Adelphi Road and north of University Boulevard. A channelized stream runs north-south through the wetland and extends under University Boulevard. A second channelized stream runs southeast of St. Mark’s Catholic Church. The study area lies primarily in two watersheds—the Northwest and Upper Northeast Branches of the Anacostia River. A smaller segment of the study area drains into the Paint Branch watershed. The designated 100-year floodplain areas within the half-mile radius are generally confined to the stream basins and M-NCPPC-owned forested areas.

Map 3.52 Environmental Conditions Blv d. E.

e Radius 1/2-Mil

Adelphi Rd .

ive

rsi

University of Maryland Golf Course

Co ol

eR 1/4-Mil adius

S p rin g Rd.

Cha th

Blvd. E.

Dr.

el W

t. eS

ls Bl

u rd Pu

. vd

n lva sy

. St

n Pe

Windsor Ln.

Ru tg

t. sS er

St. Mark’s School

Sta nf

Campu s

n att L Mow

d or

University of Maryland College Park

Tulane D

R Adelphi

University

Pres iden tia l

Temple St.

UMUC

der

man

Com

Dr.

LEGEND

Wetland Stream/Pond Floodplain 100 year

April 11, 2012 Prince George’s County Planning Department

THE MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION

102

PRR, Inc. Sabra, Wang, & Associates, Inc. Partners for Economic Solutions, LLC

West Campus

Existing Conditions

connect ing

Station Area-Existing Conditions | West Campus

Area Traffic and Transportation Overview

The traffic and transportation assessment for West Campus includes roadway types, functionality and related amenities, pedestrian facilities (e.g., sidewalks), bicycle facilities and transit services (bus and Metrorail), and parking. Major deficiencies/needs such as gaps and barriers in the nonmotorized transportation network are documented and summarized below. The proposed West Campus (Adelphi Road) Purple Line Stations will be located on Campus Drive across from UMUC. The station is in close proximity to UMD. Nearby major roads include University Boulevard (MD 193) and Adelphi Road along with the surrounding residential neighborhoods and the UMD campus. The station is also within ½ mile of the Northwest Branch trail and park system.

Roadways The primary roadways within walking and biking distance of the study area are Adelphi Road and MD 193. University Boulevard (MD 193) supports an ADT of more than 30,000 vehicles. Adelphi Road (ADT 12,281) is a four-lane divided highway north of the study area and four-lane highway south of the study area. Campus Drive (ADT 12,766) provides the main access to the UMD Campus at Adelphi Road. Mowatt Lane is also presently accommodating many vehicles between US 1 and Adelphi Road. Local roads that are close to the proposed station location include Presidential Drive on the UMD Campus, Cool Spring Road (ADT 1,632) just outside of the study area to the north of MD 193, and several local neighborhood streets within the City of Hyattsville’s University Hills neighborhood. Roads in unincorporated Adelphi and the Town of University Park will also influence travel to and from the proposed Purple Line Station.

Road. MD 193 south of Adelphi Road contains sidewalks on both sides of the street. For the most part, local streets in the study area and beyond the study area do not contain sidewalks (See Map 3.54 on page 106). The intersection of Adelphi Road and University Boulevard (MD 193) presents a particular challenge to pedestrians crossing MD 193. There are missing sidewalks and no sidewalk connection to Cool Springs Road. An improved roundabout is planned for the intersection of Mowatt lane and Campus Drive to improve the current design.

Bicycle Accommodations Existing bicycle accommodations within or close to the study area include a sidepath on Adelphi Road north of Campus Drive. A bikeway is located on MD 193 north of Adelphi Road with the wide outside lanes, road shoulders, and some intermittent bike lanes that are used by bicyclists. Northwest Branch Trail access is located about ¾ of a mile west of Adelphi Road near West Park Drive. The City of Hyattsville has produced a bicycle and pedestrian facilities plan, which includes bikeways for Adelphi Road and Wells Boulevard. Noted Deficiencies Campus Drive is narrow and not striped for bicyclists. West of Adelphi Road, MD 193 contains wide shoulders and short sections of bicycle lanes to West Park Drive where the road intersects with the Northwest Branch Trail. No sidepaths exist for novice bicycle riders. Levels of “comfort” for bicyclists are presumed to be low in this area.

Transit Service Bus stops are located along Adelphi Road, MD 193 and Campus Drive. The area is served by Metrobus routes and Shuttle UM.

Pedestrian Accommodations

Noted Deficiencies

Within and close to the study area, sidewalks are available on Campus Drive, Mowatt Lane, Adelphi Road, and MD 193 south of Adelphi Road. The City of Hyattsville has planned sidewalks for Sanford Street and Wells Boulevard. The Countywide Master Plan of Transportation includes recommendations for on-street bicycle facilities (bike lanes, cycle tracks, or shared-use roads) and a sidepath (north of MD 193) on Adelphi Road with continuous sidewalks. The Countywide Master Plan of Transportation also recommends a sidepath and bicycle lanes on MD 193.

Within the study area, existing bus stops lack basic amenities such as shelters and seating. Bus stops may not be optimally located for easy access to and from the platform. Access to the platform from the bus shelters will need to be carefully considered to ensure safe and convenient transit access.

Noted Deficiencies Some of the sidewalks within the study area are not separated from the vehicle travel lanes by landscape buffers; rather, they are located directly on the street curb, which does not create a safe, more comfortable walking and bicycling environment. North of the study area and north of MD 193, Adelphi Road contains a sidepath on the north side of the street. South of MD 193, Adelphi Road contains fourfoot-wide sidewalks. MD 193 does not contain sidewalks north of Adelphi

Parking Regulations There are no on-street parking locations along major roads. Minor roads within most of the residential street network allow on-street parking without regulation. Visitor parking for UMUC is located in a parking garage. Surface parking is available for UMUC on the south side of Campus Drive.

103

Purple Line TOD Study: Existing Conditions

Map 3.53 Walkshed, West Campus

There are currently no pipeline projects within a half-mile radius of the proposed West Campus (Adelphi) Purple Line Station.

Additional Access Issues and Challenges • Campus Drive is a major gateway onto the campus, making it a high priority for UMD to upgrade the roadway with a streetscape. • MTA is coordinating with UMD concerning sidewalk and landscaping improvements in conjunction with the Purple Line PA. • The new platform installation requires widening along both sides of Campus Drive.

104

Station Area-Existing Conditions | West Campus

Previous Plans and Studies 2002 Prince George’s County Approved General Plan The 2002 General Plan designates University Boulevard (MD 193) as one of the county’s eight corridors. The boundaries of the corridor extend onequarter mile from the edge of the right-of-way, encompassing the proposed location of the West Campus Purple Line platform. Developed Tier corridors are envisioned to contain a higher intensity of residential and nonresidential land uses and a greater mix of uses than Developing Tier corridors. Development should be planned as TOD within selected corridor nodes. While no corridor node has been designated in the vicinity of the West Campus platform, this vision for TOD complements the vision for the Purple Line.

1989 Langley Park-College Park-Greenbelt Approved Master Plan and 1990 Adopted Sectional Map Amendment The current master plan for the West Campus study area recognizes significant public or quasi-public land uses in the vicinity of the proposed platform location, reflecting the presence of UMD, College Park campus and the numerous religious and educational institutions south of Campus Drive. The rest of the land within a one-half-mile radius of the proposed platform consists almost entirely of medium suburban and suburban land uses with single-family residential densities of 3.6 to 5.7 dwellings per acre and 2.7 to 3.5 dwellings per acre, respectively.

University of Maryland Facilities Master Plan The prior facilities master plan (superseded in late 2011 by the University System of Maryland’s approval of the facilities master plan update) was revised in 2007 to reflect a desire for higher intensity, mixed-use and residential development on university holdings in the southwest quadrant of Campus Drive and Mowatt Lane. Subsequent to the amendment, two projects have been approved in this area—the Mosaic at Turtle Creek and Domain College Park—which have the potential to change the character of the West Campus station area and serve as potential future anchors for additional development.

2010 Domain Project Area Charrette During spring 2010 Design Collective worked with the City of College Park and key property owners in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Campus Drive and Mowatt Lane to develop several potential design approaches to the development of the West Campus station area south of Campus Drive. Three primary themes emerged from the charrette: (1) create a compact, pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use neighborhood; (2) enhance Campus Drive as an attractive pedestrian-oriented ‘gateway’ with calm traffic; and (3) improve Mowatt Lane as a pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly, residential-scaled street.

Corridor Access Study In June 2011, the Commission completed an access study for the purpose of providing the community, State of Maryland and Prince George’s County staff, and elected officials with documentation of access issues at each of the proposed Purple Line stations in the county. CAST provides detailed information about each station’s transit and access issues. The report describes the station location as being partially located within the UMD Master Plan area. Thus, UMD will be closely involved in the detailed recommendations from the report. The report recommended new bikeways, new and improved bus stops and shelters, and enhanced street crossings so that people can easily and safely reach the proposed Purple Line station. MTA has moved the proposed Purple Line station location from Presidential Drive to Campus Drive since the time that the report was completed in 2011. Further analysis of the existing conditions in the study area will ultimately improve upon the CAST recommendations. Preliminary Feasibility Study for the Green Street Project – University Hills Subdivision The City of Hyattsville contracted with Charles P. Johnson & Associates, Inc. (CPJ) to perform a feasibility study for installation of sidewalks throughout the University Hills neighborhood, traffic calming measures, and a turnaround at the end of the western section of Rosemary Lane. The city also tasked CPJ with evaluating the pavement conditions in the neighborhood. Roads considered for improvement include: Wells Boulevard, Stanford Street, Rutgers Street, Purdue Street, Pennsylvania Street, Notre Dame Street, Gumwood Drive, Hitching Post Lane, Claymore Avenue, Rosemary Lane—Eastern Section, Rosemary Lane—Western Section, Bridle Path Lane, Pony Trail Lane, Pony Trail Court, and Calverton Drive. Some of the preliminary observations of the streets within University Hills included an analysis of places where traffic calming could be implemented to reduce vehicle speeds and improve safety. These measures would probably ensure safer and more direct access to the proposed Purple Line station on Campus Drive. Most of the streets within the neighborhood are 26-feet wide with on-street parking on both sides of the street, and Wells Boulevard, Stanford Street, and Gumwood Drive are the major routes through the neighborhood. These streets contain 36 feet of paving and are identified as being in need of traffic calming. Some of the intersections along Wells Boulevard have been identified as having corner radii of 50 feet or more, which is very wide and allows vehicles to take corners at high speeds.

105

Purple Line TOD Study: Existing Conditions

Map 3.54 Purple Line Phase 2 CASTâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Proposed Conditions, West Campus Bike Hub Proposed Purple Line Station Existing Bus Stop Locations Point of Interest

Intersection Improvement Bike Lane-Recommended Cycle Track-Recommended Roadway-Recommended Sidepath-Recommended Sidewalk-Recommended Shared Use Path-Recommended Shared Use Roadway-Recommended Bike Lanes-Planned Shared Use Roadways-Planned Hard Surface Trails-Planned/Existing Natural Surface Trails-Planned Side Paths-Planned County Boundary Purple Line PA Alignment 1/2-Mile Radius

106

1 inch=500 feet

Purple Line TOD Study: Existing Conditions

Station Location and PA Route

Map 3.55 Station Location and PA Route

The PA route and station location for West Campus as proposed by MTA is shown to the right. This current proposed alignment and platform location is the culmination of community input, engineering feasibility, economic feasibility, and efforts to minimize disturbances outside of the right-of-way. All impacted properties are based on MTA’s current alignment and are subject to change during MTA’s PE phase. The West Campus alignment currently follows the median of University Boulevard (MD 193) until it crosses Adelphi Road at grade, whereupon the alignment shifts to the southern side of Campus Drive to the proposed station location. Just east of the station, the alignment turns north along Presidential Drive and Campus Drive Extended to the Center Campus station area and east toward New Carrollton. Within proximity to the proposed station location, several institutional properties are impacted, including university parking areas and the University Baptist Church. The current proposed Purple Line alignment would necessitate significant modifications to the intersection of University Boulevard (MD 193), Adelphi Road, and Campus Drive.

Disclaimer: MTA has revised its list of properties likely to be impacted by the Purple Line Project. Further update can be found from MTA’s web site, http://www.purplelinemd.com/

y Blv Universit

LEGEND

Purple Line

Route Proposed by MTA Proposed West Campus Station 0

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

Prince George’s County Planning Department

108

THE MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION

PRR, Inc. Sabra, Wang, & Associates, Inc. Partners for Economic Solutions, LLC

Station Area-Existing Conditions | West Campus

Adelphi Rd .

Un ive rsi ty

Blv d. E.

e Radius 1/2-Mil

Co ol

eR 1/4-Mil adius

S p rin g Rd.

Cha

Presidential Dr

Temple St.

UMUC University of Maryland College Park

vd. E. Campu s

r. Tulane D

el W ls

. St ia

. vd

ue rd Pu

an ylv

. St

n Pe

Windsor Ln.

Ru tg

t. sS er

R Adelphi

Sta nf

n att L Mow

d or

Dr.

er D

Com

d man

April 11, 2012

West Campus

Existing Conditions

connect ing

109

Purple Line TOD Study Part 2: MarketConditions Analysis Existing Report February 2012 May 2013

Contents 1. Introduction 115 1.1 Purpose of Market Analysis

2. Demographic Profile 2.1 Regional Economic Overview 2.2 Demographic Profile

117

119 121 122

3. Residential Market

125

3.1 Housing Stock

127

4. Commercial Market 4.1 Office

133 135

113

Purple Line TOD Study—Part 2: Market Analysis

List of Maps Map 1.1 Map 3.1 Map 4.1 Map 4.2 Map 4.3 Map 4.4 Map 4.5

Purple Line Corridor Rental Submarket Purple Line Office Market Area Purple Line Grocery Stores Purple Line Shopping Centers Purple Line Shopping Centers Commercial Improvements as Percent of Value

List of Figures 117 130 135 141 141 142 143

List of Tables Table 2.1: Population Trends, 2000-2010 122 Table 2.2: Household Size, Tenure, and Vehicle Ownership, 2010 123 Table 3.1: Purple Line Projected Household 131 Growth, 2025 Table 3.2: Residential Potential Demand 2010-2025 132 Table 4.1: Office Space Trends, Purple Line Submarket Area, 1993-2011 136 Table 4.2: Office Space Trends, Prince George’s County, 137 2007-2011 Table 4.3: Purple Line Projected Employment Growth, 2025 139 Table 4.4: Baseline Office Demand Based on Employment Growth, 2025 139 Table 4.5: Demand Summary Based on Employment 140 Growth, 2025 Table 4.6: Retail Leakage/Surplus by Industry 144 Group, 2011 Table 4.7: Hotel Inventory, Proposed Purple 145 Line Area, 2011 Table 4.8: Day of Week Hotel Occupancy 147

114

Figure 2.1: Figure 3.1: Figure 3.2: Figure 4.1:

Employment Trends, 2001-2010 Housing Units by Year Built, 2000 Value of Owner-Occupied Housing, 2010 Prince George’s County Office Space by Year Built Figure 4.2: Proposed Purple Line Office Space by Year Built Figure 4.3: Purple Line Area Hotel Occupancy Annual Averages, 2005-2010

121 127 128 138 138 146

1. Introduction

Purpose of Market Analysis

117

Overview Prince George’s County, as part of the thriving metropolitan Washington, D.C., region, continues to gain momentum. As Prince George’s County has grown and matured into a housing and employment center, challenges remain as growth outside the suburban core in rural sections of the county stretches resources and pressure mounts to increase development inside the Beltway (I-495) in communities with existing infrastructure. As a priority planning principle for the county, smart growth in these inner Beltway communities focuses on enhancing commercial and residential strengths. Prince George’s County benefits from extensive transit service, including, but not limited to, bus and a variety of different rail services (Metro, MARC, and Amtrak). Recently the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) proposed the creation of a new east–west, high capacity light rail transit line to link Prince George’s and Montgomery Counties. This new light rail line, the Purple Line, would serve 16 miles with 11 stations in Prince George’s County. Those communities along the proposed Purple Line are well-positioned within the I-495 Beltway and major highways to enjoy geographic access to the District of Columbia and major institutional anchors, including the University of Maryland at College Park. In an effort to capitalize on this major infrastructure improvement, The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission of Prince George’s County contracted a multidisciplinary consultant team headed by Design Collective Inc. to work with area stakeholders and develop future land use plans for four of the key transit station areas along the Purple Line. This work includes a review of existing market conditions by Partners for Economic Solutions. The planning effort focused on the Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights), Riverdale Park, M Square (River Road) and the College Park-UMD stations.

As these Purple Line communities embark on this planning process to accommodate the introduction of the new light rail transit system into their development futures, consideration must be given to the built-out nature of each community, existing development patterns of the area, and the potential to meet community needs while maintaining integrity of the individual station area’s identity. Locations along the proposed Purple Line present opportunities for additional infill development and redevelopment within established communities. Some of the station areas also benefit from high levels of existing transit access, such as College Park-UMD, with access to Metro’s Green Line. Other station areas represent built-out automobileoriented residential neighborhoods near major highways such as the Beacon Heights neighborhood at the proposed Riverdale Road station. The dynamics of each station area present unique challenges and opportunities to build on the market realities of today and the potential of future market shifts.

Introduction

1.1 Purpose of Market Analysis

This market analysis explores the areas’ past demographic, economic, and real estate market trends as well as regional forecasts in order to estimate future market-supportable development along sections of the proposed Purple Line. The region’s economic outlook, competing urban and suburban centers throughout the region, and the push to add substantial new housing and commercial development at the University of Maryland’s M Square Research Park campus create a new market reality. In addition to analyzing market factors, this planning process will test scenarios for redevelopment along the proposed Purple Line that expand on traditional estimates of market support. These market recommendations extend beyond current build-out estimates, relating land supply and density rather than relying solely on market trends and the historic nature of development. This market analysis considers opportunities to expand development capacity along the proposed Purple Line to accommodate future demand generated by this major transit infrastructure upgrade.

Map 1.1 Purple Line Corridor 2010 Central US 1 Corridor 2009 TakomaLangley Crossroads TakomaLangley Transit Center

LRT Alignment on Aerial

ation

Proposed Station Location MARC Commuter Rail WMATA Metrorail Sector/Revitalization Plan

y Zone

Transit District Development Plan

Overlay Zone

Transit District Overlay Zone

y Area

Development District Overlay Zone

d Facilities

East Campus

Riggs Road

LRT Alignment

ial

Functional

West Campus (University Hills)

UM Campus Center

East Campus

1997 College ParkWest Campus Riverdale (University Hills) College Park-UMD

College Park-UMD

LRT Alignment in Tunnel

opment Plan

Center

Riggs Road

nel

Plan

UM TakomaCampus Langley Center Transit

Central Kenilworth Avenue M Square (River Road) Riverdale Park

2010 New Carrollton M Square (River Road)

Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights)

Riverdale Park

Glenridge

Riverda Road (Bea Heights

Purple Line TOD Study Area University of Maryland Facilities Master Plan Area Purple Line Corridor Functional Master Plan

2010 Central Annapolis Road

New Carrollton Transit Center

117

2. Demographic Profile 2.1 Regional Economic Overview

121

2.2 Demographic Profile

122

Overview The following section profiles recent demographic and economic trends in the region, Prince George’s County, and the communities along the proposed Purple Line, examining current real estate market conditions and assessing future market demand for office, housing, local-serving retail, and hotels. For this portion of the analysis, the boundaries for each station area include a half-mile radius around the proposed station location. Following this demographic profile, the market analysis sections by land use define unique trade areas based on characteristics of potential customers. The larger area is principally defined by its primary transportation corridors— US 1, MD 201 (Kenilworth Avenue), MD 410 (East West Highway) and the MD 295 (Baltimore-Washington Parkway). For context, the demographic section also reviews Prince George’s County and the Suburban Maryland area (Prince George’s and Montgomery counties) to understand how these demographics compare or contrast with other geographies. An understanding of the regional market dynamics provides further insight and direction for market conclusions by land use.

Demographic Profile

2.1 Regional Economic Overview

The Metropolitan Washington region continues to remain stable after several decades of strong economic growth, resulting from the increased federal procurement captured within the region, advances in numerous technology sectors, and population growth. The Washington regional economy demonstrates remarkable diversity and vitality, especially in leading technology sectors. For example, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics in November 2011, the Greater Washington metropolitan area had the lowest rate of unemployment, 5.4 percent compared to the other 10 largest metropolitan regions, many of which remained above 10 percent. According to The Economist, while most of America frets over a jobless recovery, the Greater Washington’s economy is booming. Washington’s unemployment rate is easily the lowest among America’s large metropolitan areas. Employment in Greater Washington has risen by about 84,000 jobs over the past year— roughly six percent of America’s total job growth in a region with just two percent of its population.1 Households within the Greater Washington region have the second highest household income at $85,168.2 Home values reflect the strength of the Greater Washington economy with the Case-Shiller Home Price Index giving Metropolitan D.C. the highest level of housing appreciation at more than four percent during 2011. The Greater Washington Initiative attributes much of this strength in job growth to federal government spending.

by 3.9 percent in Prince George’s County with 1.1 percent of job growth in the private sector, according to a report on workforce trends.3 As with much of the nation, Prince George’s County suffered job loss and business closures as a result of the economic downturn. Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that from 2008 to 2010 Prince George’s County lost 16,771 jobs or 5.3 percent of all jobs, while the State of Maryland and Metropolitan Washington area declined more slowly losing 3.7 and 2.0 percent, respectively. During the same period, the unemployment rate in Prince George’s County rose from 4.5 percent in 2008 to an estimated average of 7.0 percent in 2011, based on data from the Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation. This mirrors the trends in Maryland, where the unemployment rate increased from 3.6 percent in 2007 to 7.0 percent in 2011, down from 7.5 percent in 2010.

Prince George’s County as a whole represents a stable part of the Greater Washington regional economy. Since 2001, Prince George’s County has increased the total number of business establishments from 14,352 to 15,667 as shown in Figure 2.1. From 2001 to 2007, total employment grew

Data from the 2000 census show the types of industries and jobs that area residents hold. This distribution does not quantify the type of industries or jobs available locally but rather the occupations of existing residents. These residents may work locally in Prince George’s County or elsewhere. As other metropolitan D.C. communities can attest, the presence of the federal government greatly impacts job opportunities. The majority of jobs for Prince George’s County residents are in the service sector, government, and retail trade, based on the 2000 census at place of employment. Data provided by ESRI for 2010 show that both M Square (River Road) and College Park-UMD station areas had a high concentration of white-collar jobs with 74.1 and 83.5 percent of employment. A review of the Riverdale Park station area revealed only 46.2 percent white-collar jobs compared to 59.1 percent for residents

1 The Economist, Washington, D.C.’s, economy “Blooming: Boom times in the capital” April 14, 2011, www.economist.com/node/18561085. 2 Florida, Richard, The Atlantic Cities, “D.C., the Economic Superstar” June 6, 2011, www.theatlantic.com.

3 Battelle Technology Partnership Practice, Jacob France Institute at the University of Baltimore. “Technical Report: A Study of Occupational Shifts and Workforce Characteristics for Prince George’s County,” December 2011.

Figure 2.1: Employment Trends, 2001-2010 2.50% 2.00% 1.50%

Prince George's County 1.00%

Maryland

0.50%

Washington‐Baltimore Region

0.00% ‐0.50% ‐1.00% ‐1.50% ‐2.00% ‐2.50%

2010

2008

2006

2004

‐3.50%

2002

‐3.00%

121

Purple Line TOD Study—Part 2: Market Analysis

in the Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) station area. It is expected that the West Campus station area also has a high concentration of white-collar jobs.

2.2 Demographic Profile Within the five station areas, data from the 2010 U.S. Census Bureau provide a scale of the size of each community and the nature of the residents that live in these neighborhoods. Along the eastern end of the proposed Purple Line, the Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) station area is home to 6,169 residents within one-half mile of the station (see Table 2.1 below). This station area gained 982 new residents over the last decade, while the College Park-UMD station area added 713 new residents. The growth in the College Park-UMD station area can be attributed to the expansion of housing opportunities for University of Maryland students. In comparison, the M Square (River Road) station area realized a small amount of growth with the addition of 86 new residents, while the Riverdale Park station area lost 92 residents. In 2010, 2,035 residents lived within a one-half mile radius of the proposed West Campus station. From 2000 to 2010, the area’s population has grown by 542 persons, an increase of 36.6 percent over the ten-year period. This equates to an annual growth rate of 3.15 percent. Appendix Table A-1 on page 319 shows the distribution of the population by age groups. In the College Park-UMD station area, college age students represent 48 percent of the population. In both the Riverdale Road station area and Riverdale Park, those between the ages of 25 to 44 years represented 33.3 percent and 36 percent of the population, respectively. The age distribution in the M Square (River Road) station area mirrors the characteristics of Prince George’s County and Suburban Maryland. In all three instances the dominant age cohort is 25 to 44 years of age, representing roughly 29 percent. Those over 65 account for 9 to 11 percent of the population. One in five residents within the M Square (River Road) station area is under 20 while a higher proportion of the Prince George’s County population (27.4 percent) is under

20 years of age. When examining the distribution of the population by age cohorts for the West Campus station, the impact of the University of Maryland is noticed immediately. Persons between the ages of 20 to 24 years represent 27.9 percent of the population in the area but only 8.2 percent in the county. There is also a relatively high percentage of persons between the ages of 24 to 29, resulting in a total percentage of persons between 20 to 29 years of 44 percent. Those 65 and over account for 6.4 percent of the population. Table 2.2 and Appendix Table A-3 on page 321 show households by tenure and number of persons per household in 2010 as well as vehicle ownership. Tenure statistics provide information on the number of renters and homeowners. Along the proposed Purple Line, dynamics shift between the station areas under review with rental communities at the College Park-UMD and Riverdale Park station areas, representing between 66 and 63 percent of occupied units, respectively. In the Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) neighborhood, the tenure splits almost evenly with 51 percent owner households. A larger share of households close to the proposed M Square (River Road) station area own their homes, estimated at 73 percent in 2010. The household tenure patterns within a one-half mile of the West Campus station differ from the county as a whole. In 2010 the homeownership rate for the county in the area around the station was 43.5 percent. Conversely, the area had a higher rental rate of 56.5 percent. In comparison, Prince George’s County owner households represent 62.8 percent of the occupied units and 65 percent in the Suburban Maryland area.4 In terms of household size, the majority of households in all areas were evenly distributed between one- or two-person households and three or more persons in a household. In the Riverdale Park station area more than two-thirds of households had three or more persons. This is reflected in its 2010 average household size of 3.76 persons in the half-mile radius around 4 Suburban Maryland includes the jurisdictions of Prince George’s and Montgomery Counties.

Table 2.1: Population Trends, 2000-2010 Population 2000 2010 2000-2010 Change Median Age 2010

Riverdale Road Riverdale (Beacon Heights) Park Station Station Area Area

College ParkWest UMD Station Campus Area Station Area

Prince George’s County

Suburban Maryland

5,187 6,169 18.9%

9,109 9,017 -1.0%

802 888 10.7%

1,249 1,962 57.1%

1,493 2,035 36.6%

801,473 863,420 7.7%

1,674,856 1,793,857 7.1%

29.8

28.0

33.1

22.9

25.5

35.0

37.3

Source: ESRI, 2012; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2012.

122

M Square (River Road) Station Area

Demographic Profile

Table 2.2: Household Size, Tenure, and Vehicle Ownership, 2010 Riverdale Riverdale M Square Road (Beacon Park Sta(River Road) Heights) Station tion Area Station Area Area Percent of Households by Household Size One Person 18.6 16.0 22.5 Two Persons 20.7 17.5 28.2 Three to Four Persons 33.6 34.4 28.2 Five or More Persons 27.1 32.2 21.8 Average Household Size Average Household 3.52 3.76 3.13 Size Household Tenure Percent Owner 48.9 39.9 73.2 Percent Renter 51.1 60.1 26.8 Vehicle Ownership, 2000 Vehicles Owned per 1.6 1.3 1.8 Household

College ParkUMD Station Area

Prince West Campus Suburban George's Station Area Maryland County

25.0 30.2 22.6 22.3

22.9 39.4 26.1 11.6

24.1 29.0 33.8 13.1

24.3 30.3 33.2 12.1

2.20

2.90

2.78

2.73

33.4 66.6

43.5 56.5

62.8 37.2

65.4 34.6

1.9

1.5

1.6

1.7

Source: ESRI, 2012; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2012.

the proposed Riverdale Park station. As would be expected, one in four households in the College Park-UMD station area are one-person households. This area’s student population impacts household formation, and as a result, the households in the half-mile radius support the fewest number of families with per household average size of 2.2 persons. In comparison, Prince George’s County and Suburban Maryland had average household sizes of 2.78 and 2.73 persons, respectively. Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) and M Square (River Road) had an average of 3.52 and 3.13 persons per household, respectively. The West Campus station area had an average household size of 2.9. In Riverdale Park the more transient nature of residents and the underground economy mean that the estimated median household income may underestimate this income due to unreported cash payments for service. The national trend indicates upticks in household size with the increase in multigenerational homes or young adults living with their parents for longer periods of time before forming their own households. Finally, Appendix Table A-2 shows that, according to the 2000 census, the majority of households in all areas own one or more vehicles. Seventeen percent of the Riverdale Park station area residents did not own vehicles.

station areas; in fact, in the community surrounding the Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) station 29 percent earned between $50,000 and $74,999 in 2010. The M Square (River Road) station area consists of moderateincome households with a median household income of $60,921 and 45.4 percent of households earning between $30,000 and $74,999. The income distribution highlights the presence of University of Maryland students who receive minimal income with approximately one-third of all College ParkUMD station area households earning less than $25,000. The Riverdale Park community has a median household income of $49,891, only $615 more than the median household income for College Park-UMD station area households. The income disparity in College Park-UMD’s households remains significant with 5.5 percent of householders earning more than $150,000 annually. In comparison the Riverdale Park station area households include 19.5 percent earning less than $25,000 and only 2.3 percent earning more than $150,000.

Appendix Table A-4 on page 323 shows household income distribution for each of the four station areas, Prince George’s County, and Suburban Maryland. Over one in five households make between $50,000 and $74,999 for all four

123

3. Residential Market 3.1 Housing Stock

127

Overview The following section provides data on the residential market along the Purple Line Corridor in Prince Georgeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s County. Internet research and direct interviews with residential real estate professionals (including brokers/agents, housing builders, and developers) about current housing market characteristics augments information from the 2010 census and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to characterize current, local housing trends. In some instances aggregated information provides more detail and insight into housing conditions. At times information available for a larger geography or neighborhood segment provides market insight even when the boundaries exceed the immediate vicinity of the proposed Purple Line Corridor.

Residential Market

3.1 Housing Stock

The most recently available data from the 2000 U.S. Census Bureau break down the number of housing units in each of the market areas by the number of units within each structure, as shown in Appendix Table A-6 on page 325. More than two-thirds of housing units around the proposed Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) station are single-family detached houses and townhouses. In Riverdale Park, 40 percent of housing units are single-family homes, and almost 60 percent are multifamily. There is a notable rental population that makes up 57 percent of households, according to recent 2010 census estimates for the half-mile radius around the proposed Riverdale Park station area. The proposed M Square (River Road) Purple Line station area captures most of the residential neighborhoods in the Town of Riverdale with 85 percent of housing units in single-family homes. Closer to the University of Maryland, the dynamics of the housing units shift as the student population impacts the housing supply. In the half-mile radius around the College Park-UMD and West Campus stations, 37 and 36 percent respectively of all units are multifamily in buildings with five or more units.

Appendix Table A-7 shows owner-occupied housing by value in 2010. Overall, the Riverdale Road, Riverdale Park, and M Square (River Road) station areas’ housing tend to have much lower values than Prince George’s County as a whole. This is reflected in the median housing value of $245,427 for M Square (River Road), $217,439 for Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights), and Riverdale Park at $207,472 compared with $270,668 for Prince George’s County and $318,201 for Suburban Maryland. Approximately 40.2 percent of housing in the West Campus station area was valued between $300,000 and $499,999, and the area had a median housing value of $307,900. The College Park-UMD station area has the largest group of higher-priced housing—approximately 64.9 percent of its stock was valued between $300,000 and $499,999. The median housing value was $368,557 for College Park-UMD with 15 percent of the housing stock valued in excess of $500,000. The U.S. Census Bureau provides data on the new housing units authorized by annual building permits by the number of units in the structure. Appendix Table A-8 on page 327 shows new housing units from 2002 to 2010 in Prince George’s County. The county had more than 19,362 new housing units authorized by building permits from 2002 through 2010, slightly less than 10 percent of which were multifamily units. As in most markets, new construction slowed from peak records. Prince George’s County’s highest level for permits was in 2005 with 3,425 units permitted, and the low point for permit activity reached 707 units in 2010.

The vast majority of housing is older stock. In all five station areas more than 70 percent of the existing housing was built at least 40 years ago, according to the 2000 census. In fact, the median year built ranges from 1949 in the College Park-UMD station area to 1961 in both Riverdale Park and the Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) station areas and to 1965 in the West Campus station area. This compares to the M Square (River Road) station area’s median year built of 1950, and the larger Suburban Maryland area’s median year built of 1972.

Figure 3.1: Housing Units by Year Built, 2000 Suburban Maryland

Prince George's

College Park

1969 or Earlier 1970 to 1979 1980 to 1989

M Square

1990 to 2000

Riverdale Park

Riverdale Road

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

127

Purple Line TOD Study—Part 2: Market Analysis

Figure 3.2: Value of Owner-Occupied Housing, 2010 100%

80%

$500,000 and Over

60%

$300,000 to $499,999 $200,000 to $299,999 $150,000 to $199,999

40%

$100,000 to $149,999 Under $100,000

20%

0% Riverdale Road (Beacon Riverdale Park Station M‐Square (River Road) Heights) Station Area Area Station Area

For-Sale Housing There are many factors involved in the decision to purchase a home. Although monetary considerations are typically primary, physical and social factors also play a determining role. Neighborhood conditions, proximity to retail and services, community amenities, religious institutions, schools, public transit options and highway access are among the most influential factors. Recent residential sales activity data were compiled using internet research, interviews with local real estate agents, and Redfin and Metropolitan Regional Information System (MRIS) data to profile the sales activity. A review of home sales across Prince George’s County showed 710 sales for December 2011—a drop of approximately three percent in sales volume from the same month the previous year. The average sales price for homes rose a little over the course of the last year, with an average price of $185,900 in December 2011. In the Riverdale zip code of 20737, MRIS reports an estimated 17 homes sold in December 2011 with an average sales price of $110,635. This level of activity is down slightly from December 2010 when 20 homes were sold. The more interesting statistic is the rise in contingent contracts, which represent those homes sold as a part of foreclosure or as short sales that almost doubled compared to the previous year, reaching 46 for December 2011. The number of home sales shows not only the balance between supply and demand in any given market but also the ability of individuals to purchase new homes. It is important to note that the federal tax credit incentives for firsttime home buyers dramatically increased the number of homes sold during the

128

College Park‐ UMD Station Area

Prince George's County

first two quarters of 2010; comparisons to year over year numbers by month reflected a dramatic drop. In Prince George’s County the sales volume decreased in 2011, reflecting the impact of the 2011 tax credit to stimulate demand for new homes. Perhaps a more telling sign of demand is the amount of supply available in the county in November 2011 compared to the previous November, which shows a drop from 10.5 months of supply to 6 months, according to Long & Foster. The available supply represents the current inventory divided by the current sales to determine how many months would be needed to sell all available inventory based on the current rate of demand. As homeowners across the country struggle with high unemployment rates, economic displacement, and the recent housing crisis, those neighborhoods along the proposed Purple Line reflect this hardship. Current information on home foreclosures was obtained from RealtyTrac and Redfin for zip code 20737, which represents the majority of the study area. During the course of 2011, almost one in five home sales represented distressed activity (short sales or foreclosures). In total there are currently 257 bank-owned properties in the 20737 zip code. Prince George’s County’s inner-Beltway communities tend to have a large supply of affordable housing, which is an attractive draw for first-time homebuyers and others in the ownership market, though much of the affordable housing needs significant investment and repair. Because the larger region suddenly has a lot more affordable housing, the competition for this market has increased. The Riverdale Park and Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) station areas show promise as pioneering locations for infill residential

Residential Market

development and renovation of existing housing. The average list price in Riverdale Road, estimated at $121 per square foot or a $140,000 total price, represents a reasonable price for those interested in purchasing a home. In the Riverdale Park station area, the average list price increased to $200,000, and the broader zip code of 20737 lists homes for an average price of $135 per square foot. In the broader market area, there is evidence of demand for newly built single-family detached and attached housing with high-end finishes. For example, the Hyattsville Arts District offers newly constructed products between $300,000 to $350,000. Newly constructed townhomes in Westphalia and plans for new stacked townhouse products in nearby Lanham show the interest in newly constructed housing. Unfortunately, the condominium market continues to struggle for market penetration. The county’s unproven condominium market and stock of affordable single-family housing make it more challenging to market condominiums. Even sales of condominiums at popular new developments like the signature National Harbor project reflect a slow pace of demand. The 300-acre National Harbor mixed-use development enjoys water views within a newly built community. This project included 423 condominiums in the first phase of residential development and pre-sold approximately 80 percent within the development’s initial 18 months; unfortunately, only 60 percent of these sales were completed with the downturn in the national economy. Plans for this large-scale development shifted away from condominium products to $500,000 luxury townhouses. While this type of development does not represent the anticipated price point for the proposed Purple Line station areas, it indicates the lack of demand for condominiums even in a more attractive setting. Competitive Residential Projects Overall economic conditions in the national and regional marketplace are impacting local development and real estate investment. There are limited residential construction projects in Prince George’s County. The majority of new residential endeavors consists of previously planned greenfield projects in suburban neighborhoods outside the Beltway (I-495). A number of planned and proposed developments are currently underway in these areas or will be on-line over the next 12 months. 1. The Willows—This residential project started in 2006 with the purchase of 11 acres off of MD 450 by Ryland but stalled with pending approvals from the county’s Planning Board and an Adequate Public Facilities moratorium. Now proceeding, this project will include 156 two-over-two condominium units, akin to a stacked townhouse development. 2. Fairview Manor—This development along Church Road and MD 50 continues to build out with recent upticks in home builder activity. Craftmark Homes is constructing homes, and Lonergan Homes plans a second phase of development with home sales prices starting at $777,900. 3. Westphalia Row—The long-planned and proposed Westphalia residential development off of Ritchie Marlboro Road just inside the

Beltway presents an opportunity for new single-family development. Richmond American began its Westphalia Row project with a 20-foot wide, 1,740 square-foot home selling for $279,900. This initial phase will include 39 homes. 4. Marlboro Ridge—This Toll Brothers’ project near FedEx Field represents the largest townhomes in the area with units ranging from 2,500 to 3,700 square feet. These large homes offer two-car garages and many community amenities, including a club house, pool, fitness centers, tennis courts, playgrounds, jogging trails, and picnic areas. These townhomes start as low as $330,000 up to $400,000.

Rental Housing Data on recent apartment trends were obtained from Reis, Inc. (a national data provider), for the Hyattsville and College Park/Greenbelt submarkets and direct interviews with local rental and property management officials within the proposed Purple Line study area. The Hyattsville rental submarket most closely relates to the proposed Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) and Riverdale Park station areas. See Map 3.1 on page 130 for rental apartment statistic boundaries. This submarket, in close proximity to the proposed Purple Line, reflects the nature of apartment housing in this broader community. The majority of the apartment complexes in the area are older stock—85 percent were built prior to 1970. In terms of unit mix, 51.2 percent are two-bedroom units, followed by 42.3 percent one-bedroom units, 4.0 percent three-bedroom units, and only 2.5 percent efficiency/studios units. For the entire Hyattsville submarket, rents vary from $1.50 to $1.90 per square foot on average. The average rents by unit type are as follows for the Hyattsville submarket: $888 for a studio/efficiency; $1,032 for a one-bedroom unit; $1,270 for a two-bedroom unit; and $1,560 for a three-bedroom unit. A survey of sample apartment complexes in the Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) community suggests slightly lower rents on average between $1.20 to $1.50 per square foot, with two to three months of free rent offered as a concession to new tenants. Statistics from REIS for the Hyattsville submarket highlight a successful 3.3 percent overall vacancy rate and show a higher vacancy of 7.6 percent for multifamily rental units built since 2009. Occupancy rates are well over 95 percent at all of the selected apartment complexes. The College Park/Greenbelt submarket reaches north of the Beltway (I-495), capturing rental communities often within the search area for University of Maryland College Park related students, staff, and employees. The average rents in the College Park/Greenbelt submarket tended to be higher than the Hyattsville submarket with an average monthly rent of $1,314. In general, the higher vacancy rate of seven percent shows the recent additions to the rental market community and presence of older multifamily buildings. Multifamily units built before 1970 represent 84 percent of the stock, similar to Hyattsville. One-half of the multifamily units have two bedrooms.

129

Purple Line TOD Study—Part 2: Market Analysis

Map 3.1 Rental Submarket

There are a few examples of planned or proposed rental housing products: 1. Beltway Plaza—The redevelopment of Beltway Plaza currently includes an additional 700 rental apartment units. 2. Cafritz Property Redevelopment—The Cafritz property located along US 1 in College Park is proposed for a mixed-use development with 995 residential units. While plans for this development do not specify the price points or housing type, it is anticipated that some portion of these units would be rental apartments. 3. Book Exchange Redevelopment—The redevelopment of the Book Exchange property along US 1 in College Park is proposed to include 341 rental apartments over first-floor retail. The project, led by the development team of Freedom Tower Developer and Josef Mittleman, is designed to redevelop the site while incorporating 14,300 square feet of retail.

Residential Demand In general, demand for new residential development relates to the projected growth in households. With assistance from county staff, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) prepares population and household projections. The MWCOG growth projections indicate an addition of 3,810 households by 2025, representing only a modest 289 households added annually over the next 15 years for all five of the proposed Purple Line station areas (see Table 3.1 on page 131)1. Table 3.1 highlights that much of the growth is anticipated 1 Transportation analysis zones include the following for each proposed station area: Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights): 1001, 1002, 1004; Riverdale Park: 990, 992,

130

at the College Park-UMD station area with many of the other long-standing nearly built-out neighborhoods unable to accommodate construction of new housing. However, these estimates do not account for the creation of place likely to occur along the proposed Purple Line. There are likely to be other new households attracted to the area as renovation of the existing housing continues. Some of the more modest products for first-time homebuyers could be upgraded to provide move-up housing alternatives. Along the proposed Purple Line, the existing communities offer homebuyers limited choices when purchasing a newly constructed home, which results in a steady pace of sales for new developments where land is available. For-sale demand appears strongest for single-family attached homes due to the built-out nature of these neighborhoods and the price point for homebuyers in this section of Prince George’s County. Over the mid- to long-term future, escalating transportation costs and traffic congestion are likely to support continued strong demand for infill housing in close-in, first-ring suburban areas. The vibrancy of neighborhoods with convenient access to Metro and other alternative transportation as well as walkable, amenity-filled urban environments, such as D.C.’s Columbia Heights and Arlington, Virginia’s Clarendon neighborhoods, demonstrates the potential for this type of transit-oriented housing. Segments of the millennials generation (the population age cohort born between 1982 and 2002) are now forming new households. The National Association of Realtors conducted a study in 2011 to better understand 993, 994, 1006; (M Square) River Road: 983,984, 985, 994; and College Park-UMD: 915,981,982, 996.

Residential Market

this market segment’s housing preferences. Survey results suggest these new millennial households prefer urban neighborhoods with walkable communities, smaller housing units, and easy access to transit. Target Markets The proposed Purple Line Corridor within Prince George’s County will attract private investment to match the public infrastructure investment. These investors and current property owners hoping to capitalize on the trends for transit-oriented housing will search for opportunities at each station area. As the corridor expands its mix of housing choices, new market segments will be attracted to the area seeking an optimal housing alternative that will diminish their reliance on the automobile and provide a unique quality of life, taking advantage of the existing communities’ amenities and features. The market segments attracted to the Purple Line Corridor include a mix of several target groups: students; young professionals and couples without children; beginner families; empty-nesters wanting a closer-in location to the urban core of D.C.; and those employed locally, looking for a close-by residential community. Supportable prices/rents shift between areas. The target clientele for new residential development in the Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) and Riverdale Park station areas includes several potential customer types, including, but not limited to, young singles and couples as well as beginner families. The prices for new townhouses in this community likely attract price-sensitive consumers interested in purchasing their first homes. In the M Square (River Road), College Park-UMD, and West Campus station areas, customers may include those in the other two station areas and university affiliates (students, faculty, and staff). The customer base is slightly larger, and new residential developments along a new light rail line would offer a prime location for students, faculty, and staff interested in a short commute to classes or work at the University of Maryland College Park. They can also take advantage of good Metro access.

The best mix of floor plans, given current demographic trends, prevailing household incomes, and neighborhood attributes unique to the broader community suggests predominantly one- and two-bedroom units. Because of the success of rental communities in the local area and the limited supply of newly constructed rental options, Partners for Economic Solutions (PES) recommends a mixture with more rental as the optimum tenure for all five of the proposed Purple Line stations. Given the success of townhouses and plans for new projects within the broader community, new townhouse products are recommended for any new for-sale construction in the near-term. Once the creation of place is complete and residential infill starts, the for-sale market for more risky ventures such as condominium products may be offered at the stations closest to the University of Maryland. As the housing market accelerates again over the mid-term, the economics of moderate-density residential development close in to the station areas will become more feasible. Our estimates suggest that new residential development could include one to two new moderate-density apartment complexes (75 to 150 units per building) at each station area except College Park-UMD and West Campus, which might support more extensive rental apartment development with up to 3,120 new apartment units by 2025. It is important to note that the higher density residential products are likely relevant only in the College ParkUMD and West Campus areas. The housing recommendations for the eastern end of the proposed Purple Line by the Riverdale Road and Riverdale Park stations focus on new rental housing alternatives, which represent two-thirds of the total new housing units (or 640 units) by 2025. The existing residential community occupies much of the existing land area in both Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) and Riverdale Park, but there are several opportunities to redevelop the existing shopping centers and create mixed-use alternatives that incorporate rental housing.

Table 3.1: Purple Line Projected Household Growth, 2025 Station Areas Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Riverdale Park M Square (River Road) College Park/UMD West Campus Total Purple Line Area Prince George's County Region

2010 Households 4,567 7,418 553 1,352 579 14,469 306,006 2,488,170

Projected 2025 Households 4,582 7,935 731 4,202 829 18,279 340,456 2,996,854

Increase in Households 15 517 178 2,850 250 3,810 34,450 508,684

Share of County Growth (%) 0.044 1.501 0.517 8.273 0.726 11.061

Source: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Round 8.0, 2011; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2012.

131

Purple Line TOD Study—Part 2: Market Analysis

The projected growth would result in a total demand of 19 percent owneroccupied units and 81 percent new rental units for the five station areas reviewed in this analysis, allowing for vacancies of one percent among owneroccupied units and five percent among rental units. Many of these more dense residential apartments in these station areas should locate within a quarter-mile of the proposed Purple Line transit stops. The target audience for new types of residential over retail and more dense townhome developments will be attracted from outside the region to these station areas, representing approximately 10 percent of total demand. These audiences tend to be less risk averse and willing to accept new residential housing types in emerging markets. The following table details the demand for residential housing based on tenure and product type. Achieving the full level of development supported by the market demand will require the creation of a true neighborhood place at each station area, building on the assets of the existing communities. While many of the new residential units will be built to take advantage of the proposed transit line, the new development of housing on sites formerly used for commercial development allow for residential development and mixed-use development. The following chapter provides a snapshot of the residential development potential for these redevelopment opportunities.

Table 3.2: Residential Potential Demand 2010-2025 Riverdale Road Riverdale Park (Beacon Heights) Product Type Rental Residential Apartments Townhouses Subtotal For-Sale Residential Single Family Townhouses Condominiums Subtotal Total

Units

Percent Units

M Square River Road)

Percent Units Percent

College Park/ West Campus UMD Total Units PerUnits Units Percent cent

170 90 260

65 35

228 152 380

60 40

350 90 440

80 20

2,673 297 2,970

90 10

500 75 575

87 13

3,921 704 4,625

50 40 0 90 350

56 44 0

30 190 0 220 600

14 86 0

20 100 70 190 630

11 53 37

20 160 140 320 3,290

6 50 44

5 15 230 250 825

2 6 92

125 505 440 1,070 5,695

Source: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Round 8.0 Forecast, 2011; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2012.

132

4. Commercial Market 4.1 Office

135

Overview This section evaluates market opportunities for commercial developmentâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;office, retail, and hotel. Employment trends are key indicators for commercial and residential demand. Jobs are integral to where people reside, what they can afford, and how much they are willing and able to pay for housing.

Commercial Market

4.1 Office

The analysis considers the market support for office space based on review of historic absorption and development data for the region, Prince George’s County, and each of the five station areas. This assessment considers each station area’s ability to compete for office development based on its competitive advantages and disadvantages, including access, proximity to major employment centers, workforce, office environment, cost, support services, and other factors. The office market does not consist of one type of office space; rather, distinct users create the need for space that varies greatly in character and construction type, impacting the rents and location. For the purpose of this analysis, the office market assessment includes general office market insights, focusing on a review of research and development (R&D) office space related to University of Maryland M Square Research Park and neighborhood-serving office. The Greater Washington region’s office market supported by federal government activity stabilized more quickly than other metropolitan regions in recent years, showing growth as vacancy rates declined steadily. Prince George’s County did not participate fully in the region’s office market growth; the county’s total office inventory of approximately 26 million square feet of office space enjoyed only a one-percent increase in rent from 2010 to 2011 as much of the older office stock struggled to maintain and increase its occupancy levels. Prince George’s County’s office vacancy rate reached its highest point at 17.2 percent in 2011 compared to the metropolitan region with an office vacancy rate of 13.2 percent, according to CoStar. Typically, healthy office market vacancy rates range from 8 to 10 percent. Office market key indicators reflect obstacles for new speculative development in Prince George’s County due to the slow rate of employment growth and competitive offerings in the regional marketplace. While vacancy rates remained high in 2011, reported construction of new office space in Prince George’s County remained stable with plans for approximately 270,000 square feet. Along the proposed Purple Line Corridor, the nature of office space varies dramatically from those within the M Square Research Park to typical suburban office park development and neighborhood-serving office space along major thoroughfares or on the ground level of other commercial buildings. The office or R&D space offers rents from $32 to $36 per square foot, depending greatly on amenities and features of each space, and is more often located close to the University of Maryland College Park if not within the M Square Research Park campus. More price-sensitive office users or those in need of office space close to the neighborhood customers they serve find office spaces within existing shopping centers or stand-alone buildings along Kenilworth Avenue, MD 410 (East West Highway) or Riverdale Road. Rents average $16 per square foot for neighborhood-serving office space up to $24, depending on the nature of the space, age of the shopping center, and other lease term options. These rents do not support the cost of constructing new office space. The proposed Purple Line section within Prince George’s County crosses several distinct office submarkets, including Takoma Park, College Park, Hyattsville

and New Carrollton. Map 4.1 delineates the proposed Purple Line submarket for office space. This area reflects the boundaries of the College Park/Takoma Park submarket as defined by REIS. These data only provide a snapshot of office activity and do not capture activity in single tenant or government buildings. Within the Purple Line office market area, single tenant or government buildings account for approximately 2.6 million square feet of space. To

Map 4.1 Purple Line Office Market Area

understand the office market conditions for all of the office space, CoStar data that captures government and single tenant buildings are shown in Table 4.1 on page 136. Office rents average approximately $20 per square foot according to these data. A closer review shows that some of the Class C office space or older office space constructed in the 1960s and 1970s rents for as little as $9 up to $13 per square foot. These rents tend to reflect industrial office space rates as opposed to traditional office space. Flex space within the area includes single-story or low-density structures with a combination of office, warehouse, and/or showroom space. Rental rates in the flex portion of office buildings at M Square range from $15 to $18 per square foot. This flex/office space does not provide Class A office space but rather offers lower rents, easy access and surface parking within less than a half-mile of the University of Maryland Metro Station. Conversations with local brokers revealed that tenants willing to pay office rents from approximately $30–$35 per square foot tend to locate in the M Square Research Park or other newly constructed adjacent buildings but not elsewhere in the proposed Purple Line submarket area. The less conventional office space located in mixed-use buildings or adaptive reuse buildings along major thoroughfares tends to rent for $18 to $22 per square foot, similar to rents in commercial shopping centers. Neighborhood-serving office users need to be located close to their customer base and tend to pay for visibility along major traffic routes with dedicated parking for customers. Vacancy rates for office space in this submarket area have varied over time, dipping to a low of 8.9 percent in the second and third quarter of 2002.

135

Purple Line TOD Study—Part 2: Market Analysis

The submarket held on and inched up slightly over the next several years with the addition of new office space, reaching 11 percent vacancy rate in 2005. Unfortunately, market pressures from the economic recession and past additions to the office supply impacted occupancy levels, and the vacancy rate jumped to 15 percent in 2006. This submarket continues to gain momentum as space fills in the M Square Research Park and a few other key properties renovate to keep existing tenants. Annual construction averaged 58,000 square feet from 2000 through 2010 as absorption averaged 57,000 square feet. In Prince George’s County, the annual absorption of office space fell from a positive absorption of 480,000 square feet in 2008 to a negative absorption of 1,260 square feet in 2011. CoStar reports vacancy rates in 2011 from 12 to 13 percent for the Purple Line submarket. Despite fluctuations in construction and absorption of office space in the proposed Purple Line office market area, a historical view of this submarket compared to the total office inventory in

Prince George’s County shows that the submarket maintained a relatively stable niche throughout the past decade. In Prince George’s County, the vacancy rate climbed from 12.5 percent in the second quarter of 2007 to 17.3 percent for the fourth quarter of 2011. More specific data from REIS offers a perspective on private multitenant office space in the College Park/Takoma Park submarket, which shares the same boundaries as the CoStar proposed Purple Line submarket area. The submarket’s average rent for private office space (excluding single-tenant and government buildings) ranges from $21 to $23 per square foot with a vacancy of 20.5 percent, which peaked at 22 percent in the third quarter of 2010. Within this submarket approximately 49 percent of the office space was constructed before 1980.

Table 4.1: Office Space Trends, Purple Line Submarket Area, 1993-2011 Year

Total Sq. Ft.

1993 3,303,069 1994 3,640,569 1995 3,640,569 1996 3,801,161 1997 3,801,161 1998 3,811,161 1999 3,811,161 2000 3,822,341 2001 3,822,341 2002 4,000,791 2003 4,000,791 2004 4,081,468 2005 4,081,468 2006 4,081,468 2007 4,279,952 2008 4,279,952 2009 4,279,952 2010 4,402,952 2000-2010 Change Amount 580,611

Vacant Sq. Ft.

Occupied Sq. Ft.

Occupancy Rate (%)

Average Rent

379,115 634,040 705,970 672,318 615,832 653,015 610,480 564,919 388,951 500,822 426,017 474,365 460,725 643,064 674,945 585,971 580,708 575,698

2,923,954 3,006,529 2,934,599 3,128,843 3,185,329 3,158,146 3,200,681 3,257,422 3,433,390 3,499,969 3,574,774 3,607,103 3,620,743 3,438,404 3,605,007 3,693,981 3,699,244 3,827,254

89 83 81 82 84 83 84 85 90 87 89 88 89 84 84 86 86 87

$15.70/fs $14.86/fs $15.05/fs $16.15/fs $16.26/fs $16.98/fs $16.93/fs $18.61/fs $19.86/fs $20.82/fs $20.45/fs $20.35/fs $20.48/fs $22.94/fs $23.33/fs $22.87/fs $22.44/fs $21.73/fs

10,779

569,832

$3.12/fs

Note: Full service average rent, including taxes, utilities, and janitorial. Source: CoStar, 2011; Partners for Economic Solutions, LLC, 2012.

136

Commercial Market

Table 4.2: Office Space Trends, Prince George's County, 2007-2011 Year Annual 2007 2Q 2007 3Q 2007 4Q 2008 1Q 2008 2Q 2008 3Q 2008 4Q 2009 1Q 2009 2Q 2009 3Q 2009 4Q 2010 1Q 2010 2Q 2010 3Q 2010 4Q 2011 1Q 2011 2Q 2011 3Q 2011 4Q Current Qtr 2007-2011 Change Amount Percent

Total Sq. Ft.

New Construction

Vacant Sq. Ft.

Vacancy Rate (%)

Annual Net Absorption

25,553,516 25,572,836 25,764,609 25,788,405 25,952,497 26,067,797 26,167,797 26,383,950 26,373,356 26,378,356 26,454,572 26,520,091 26,517,747 26,517,747 26,601,515 26,601,515 26,601,515 26,601,515 26,600,255 26,869,017

n/a 0 186,560 23,796 164,092 115,300 100,000 283,277 0 5,000 9,092 144,000 0 0 62,768 0 0 0 0 268,762

n/a 3,593,814 3,653,518 4,102,954 4,182,046 4,278,729 4,257,622 4,178,814 4,255,688 4,568,250 4,671,421 4,646,541 4,570,914 4,662,305 4,569,056 4,408,533 4,676,141 4,615,994 4,607,679 4,916,153

12.5 14.1 14.2 15.9 16.1 16.4 16.3 15.8 16.1 17.3 17.7 17.5 17.2 17.6 17.2 16.6 17.6 17.4 17.3 18.3

403,188 286,775 146,943 (1,260)

1,046,739 4.0%

1,013,865 28.2%

Note: Full service average rent, including taxes, utilities, and janitorial. Sources: CoStar; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2012.

Within the station area submarket, 46 percent of the office space is Class B office space. In comparison 49 percent of Prince George’s County’s office space consists of Class B office space and 18 percent Class C office space. Classing of commercial space helps to properly evaluate existing supply by differentiating buildings by physical condition and operating performance. Class A represents those buildings that command the highest rents, and Class C represents those properties in average condition receiving lower than average rents. According to data from CoStar, one-third of the office space in Prince George’s County could be characterized as Class A space, compared with 37 percent in the proposed Purple Line office submarket area. Within the proposed Purple Line

submarket, Class A office space remains the bright spot with more than 45 percent of the 1.5 million square feet of Class A space built since 1990. The review of the inventory by year built for the proposed Purple Line submarket areas suggests that a large portion of the existing office space may be in buildings that have reached their useful life with approximately 36 percent of the space constructed before 1970.

Office Demand Traditional office demand forecasts rely on the expected growth in the number of employees who need a place to work. Industries that use office

137

Purple Line TOD Study—Part 2: Market Analysis

2000-2010 13% 1990 -1999 17%

1950 or less 4%

1951- 1969 10%

1970-1989 56%

2000-2010 14% 1990 -1999 17%

1950 or less 2% 1951- 1969 34%

1970-1989 33%

Figure 4.1: Prince George’s County Office Space by Year Built

Figure 4.2: Proposed Purple Line Office Space by Year Built

space most heavily include information; finance and insurance; professional, scientific and technical services; health care and social assistance; other services; and government. Typically the first three are most important for the general occupancy office market. It should be noted that state educational institutions, such as the University of Maryland College Park, are captured as public administration or government positions.

snapshot of expected growth based on historic trends, available land, existing zoning, and projects in the pipeline. The proposed Purple Line area would gain 2,903 new jobs over the next 15 years based on these projections, which represents seven percent of all Prince George’s County employment growth. While these boundaries capture activity in areas along the proposed Purple Line, the demarcation between station areas does not accurately portray office development patterns. New development may occur within either the M Square (River Road) or College Park-UMD area reflecting the availability of land and/or opportunity to expand a current office product. Almost two-thirds of the employment growth will happen within the M Square (River Road) station area, and the College Park-UMD station area will capture another 491 new jobs.1 In total the M Square (River Road) and College Park-UMD area represent the majority of all office growth for the proposed Purple Line. This employment growth reflects the anchor institution’s popularity and the cluster of office activity in the immediate area. Both the Riverdale Park and Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) communities will gain minimal new jobs related to the existing office market, which serves area residents with neighborhood-serving office space.

Prince George’s County has a distinct mix of industry sectors creating jobs in the marketplace. The major industry sectors identified with Maryland Department of Labor and License data suggest that construction, government, transportation/distribution, medical (health and hospitals), and retail rank as the top five industries for Prince George’s County based on employment. Data provided by CoStar and Delta Associates show that from 2006–2010 the percent of space leased by government institutions grew as the tech and telecom industries reduced the amount of space leased. In the third quarter 2011 Transwestern Outlook Report for Suburban Maryland, government leasing increased by eight percent from 2009 to 2010, reaching 22 percent of all 2010 leasing deals. In Prince George’s County, office demand is led by the federal government and, to a lesser extent, the health services, technology, and biosciences industry sectors. Though the technology industry is expanding around the world, it has shown great propensity for clustering in a select set of geographic locations. This clustering is driven largely by the need for a specialized labor pool, advanced science, industry experience, and financing. Human capital is the most critical resource; it is important to be in a location that can attract the talent, offering a good quality of life, good employment opportunities among other similar firms, continuing education opportunities, and other amenities. Most competitive clusters of technology companies have developed near major research universities for access to researchers, graduate students, and specialized equipment. The University of Maryland M Square Research Park offers an opportunity to build on this trend and capitalize on the federal institutions present. To project future employment growth and office demand, PES used the MWCOG Round 8.0 projections as a base and estimated the changing share of jobs within the metropolitan area. The MWCOG projections provide a

138

The jobs data were adjusted further by estimating the share of jobs in each industry that requires office space as opposed to hospital, retail, or industrial facilities. Those estimates ranged from 20 percent of other services jobs to 100 percent of finance jobs. Growth in office-using jobs is projected to total 550,000 new metropolitan area jobs by 2025 with more than 24,000 new jobs in Prince George’s County. Table 4.3 on page 139 delineates the expected growth within the proposed Purple Line area. Assuming an average of 225 square feet per employee and a stabilized occupancy rate of 95 percent, the projected growth would suggest annual demand for 35,000 to 41,000 square feet of office space by 2025. It should be noted that trends suggest a decline in the amount of office space per employee for general office space as a result of several factors that include the increased popularity of telecommuting, decreased need for storage, and improved efficiency of space layout. Plans for the development of the M Square Research Park project growth exceed the MWCOG projections with a total of 2 million square feet at 1 M Square (River Road) area includes transportation analysis zones 983,984, 994

Commercial Market

Table 4.3: Purple Line Projected Employment Growth, 2025 Station Areas

2010 Employment

Projected 2025 Employment

Increase in Jobs

Share of County Growth (%)

Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Riverdale Park M Square (River Road) College Park/UMD West Campus Total Purple Line Area Prince George's County Region

1,629 2,946 5,752 3,661 1,834 15,822 358,385 4,012,116

1,767 3,368 7,604 4,152 2,159 19,050 399,635 4,921,093

138 422 1,852 491 325 3,228 41,250 908,977

0.335 1.023 4.490 1.190 0.788 7.826

Source: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Round 8.0, 2011; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2012.

Table 4.4: Baseline Office Demand Based on Employment Growth, 2025 Station Areas Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Riverdale Park M Square (River Road) College Park/UMD West Campus Total Purple Line Area

Office Allocation Increase in Jobs Office Jobs (%) 138 422 1,852 491 325 3,228

30 40 90 80 80

41 169 1,667 393 260 2,530

Office Demand (SF) Jobs 9,810 39,980 394,770 93,030 61,572 599,162

Years Jobs 15 15 15 15 15

Annual Increase (SF) 654 2,665 26,318 6,202 4,105 39,944

Source: MWCOG, Round 8.0, 2011; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2012.

buildout. At this time the M Square Research Park provides office space for elite federal government tenants and institutions, including FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Center for Advanced Study of Language (CASL), American Center of Physics, Raytheon, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Joint Climate Change Research Center. It should be noted that these University of Maryland growth plans for the M Square Research Park area rely on many single-user decisions for build-to-suit office development as opposed to speculative office construction. This pattern of development will not match the annual office demand projections as the buildings typically encompass several years’ worth of office space growth at one point in time. In fact, the projected development at M Square may extend beyond this study’s horizon date of 2025. The College Park-UMD and M Square (River Road) station areas remain the key office location within the proposed Purple Line submarket with access to Metro. Other growing submarkets compete strongly in Prince George’s County for new office tenants. These locations include New Carrollton and Greenbelt.

In order to compete, the area needs to create a better office environment that is more pedestrian oriented and mixed use in nature. The future of the office market reflects not only trends in the types of jobs available but also the workers and how they will work in the future. Over one-half of the American workforce will be millennials (born 1982 to 2002) in the near future, as baby boomers retire. Many of these workers are tech-enabled, transit-oriented individuals interested in working in green, efficient buildings with easily accessible amenities. To capture these future workers, employers will seek office space in places that offer future incentives to attract talent. The M Square Research Park offers an opportunity to expand the current projections for the office market by creating an attractive place for workers and residents. With the creation of a mixed-use environment with access to public transit and amenities, including restaurants, public open space, and some residential options that enliven the space after the business day, projected growth could increase by 40 percent in the M Square (River Road) and College Park-UMD station areas. This increase would result in approximately 45,000 to 50,000

139

Purple Line TOD Study—Part 2: Market Analysis

Table 4.5: Demand Summary Based on Employment Growth, 2025 Type of Space Office Flex/Industrial Total

Annual 35,800 6,500 42,300

Baseline Total 537,000 97,500 634,500

Creation of Place Annual Total 48,800 732,000 6,500 97,500 55,300 829,500

Leveraged Demand 195,000 n/a

Source: MWCOG, Round 8.0, 2011; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2012.

square feet of annual demand for office space or 730,000 to 745,000 square feet by 2025. In addition to traditional office buildings, office space also exists in industrial and flex/office buildings. Flex users in incubator space have focused around the College Park/UMD station area but other pockets of flex office space exist around the M Square station area. For flex office space, the employee density per square foot varies based on the type of industry. This requires a variation for the inputs to calculate the baseline demand for flex/industrial space. Flex office users tend to need employee densities estimated at one manufacturing employee per 400 to 450 square feet, one transportation/warehousing employee per 1,250 square feet, and one wholesale trade employee per 1,000 square feet. After a review of existing zoning, development patterns, and market conditions, PES divided the projected employment from MWCOG’s Round 8.0 projections into categories for flex/industrial demand. This does not include the growth in jobs expected in service industrial (auto repair) or those office users (insurance agents) that will locate in shopping center retail spaces. In total, 129 jobs could be categorized as flex/industrial. These new jobs account for approximately 98,000 square feet of future space demand, the majority of which would be located in the M Square station area.

Retail The potential performance of new retailers in the neighborhoods along the proposed Purple Line depends on their ability to compete for and “capture” the expenditures of trade area residents and to attract “inflow” from residents of other areas. For each cluster of retail within the different communities in Prince George’s County there exists a distinct trade area from which retailers expect to draw the bulk of their customers. In some instances these trade areas extend into neighboring jurisdictions, such as the District of Columbia or Montgomery County. Competitive Framework To better understand the competitive retail environment for the five station areas along the proposed Purple Line, PES examined the existing supply of shopping centers and other commercial retail in this section of the Purple Line. Much of the study area’s retail stock consists of older commercial strip centers built before 1970. Neighborhood shopping centers with less than 30,000 square feet dominate the landscape, followed by community shopping centers

140

in excess of 100,000 square feet with a junior or discount department store as an anchor. This retail format caters to smaller, neighborhood-sized market areas. These centers, which include Wildercroft Shopping Center, West Lanham Shopping Center, East Pines Shopping Center, Riverdale Plaza, and Belcrest Plaza, offer an array of neighborhood goods and services from grocers to beauty salons to dry cleaners. For the slightly larger neighborhood centers, grocery stores or pharmacy operations anchor the retail destination. Map 4.2 on page 141 highlights the national chain grocery stores that operate in the broader Purple Line market area. In addition to these operations and Walmart, area residents have access to more than eight specialty grocers such as YES! Organic Market in the Hyattsville Arts District and Selena International Supermarket, Periyar Asian Grocery, La Grande Supermarket, and others throughout the Riverdale, Hyattsville, New Carrollton, and Landover Hills communities. These independent stores are noted with blue markers on the map. Larger scale big box community shopping centers, which tend to include national chains, such as Home Depot, Lowe’s, Target, and Kohl’s, draw a larger customer base. These community shopping centers tend to rent out space between $24 and $28 per square foot and include the Shops at New Carrollton, Glenridge Shopping Center, and University Town Center. Many residents travel outside the five station areas to patronize nearby shopping centers that offer a wider variety of stores. This includes The Mall at Prince Georges, Beltway Plaza, and Capital Plaza Mall shopping center, anchored by Walmart along Annapolis Road at the intersection with MD 295. These larger scale community shopping centers outside the immediate neighborhoods that surround the five station areas present competitive locations with recently upgraded or newly constructed retail shopping centers. Individual storefront and freestanding retailers outside of shopping centers include national chain carry-out or fast food operations, stand-alone banks, and miscellaneous service and entertainment providers. Most of these stores are fully occupied with very little change in tenancy over time. Additional retail space exists along major routes/thoroughfares; the building stock is mature with many structures built for residential use and then converted to commercial uses over time.

Commercial Market

Map 4.2 Purple Line Grocery Stores

Map 4.3 Purple Line Shopping Centers

141

Purple Line TOD Study—Part 2: Market Analysis

Map 4.4 Purple Line Shopping Centers

PES reviewed the value of each commercial shopping center’s improvements or building in comparison to the value of the total property. This assessment, along with a review of the age for shopping centers, helped to assess the potential for reinvestment or redevelopment for these retail centers. It should be noted that this is only one of a series of indicators to be considered when determining the feasibility of redeveloping shopping centers. For example, a separate surface parking lot without structures would reflect a value disparity, but it may be linked to a neighboring shopping center, serving as necessary parking. Within the M Square (River Road) and College Park-UMD station areas, there is a limited amount of commercial retail property. Map 4.5 on page 143 highlights those properties in red and orange that may be viable for redevelopment and should be reviewed more closely in the Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) and Riverdale Park station areas. Table 4-6 on page 144 summarizes retail expenditures of station area residents by retail category and shows the potential expenditures captured by area retailers (i.e., retail sales). Leakage (shown as a positive number) represents the dollars that area residents spend outside the area. The negative values represent inflow or categories for which retailers’ sales exceed the spending of area residents by attracting shoppers from outside the area. In these instances the area has retail stores that capture the market potential from area residents. The table shows many dollars being spent outside the area (positive values), which should be expected given the incomplete retail offerings within the station areas and the presence of highly competitive big box retailers nearby. In some markets it may be possible to reposition stores and the merchandising mix to better align with customers’ needs and stop some of the leakage of retail spending. However, some types of stores, such as apparel stores or general merchandise stores, prefer to locate in shopping malls or risk competing directly with Walmart. Walmart presents such a formidable

142

challenge that many retailers cannot and should not attempt to compete with this national retailer. In some instances, such as the Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) station area, an electronics and appliance store could capture retail dollars from local residents, but these types of stores typically require largeformat lifestyle shopping centers with high visibility and accessibility for auto-dependent customers. The locations potentially available in the Beacon Heights community could not compete for these types of retailers. To date, the U.S. Census Bureau and related agencies do not collect or distribute information regarding the population or concentration of unauthorized immigrants. Consequently, retail expenditures by undocumented immigrants are not officially estimated or known. The following factors have been identified as indicators of an informal economy: • A concentration of foreign-born immigrants. • A preponderance of the stores and restaurants in the area named in a language other than English and regularly conducting business in another language. • An absence of traditional banking centers coupled with an infusion of check cashing and/or money transfer outlets. • A significant percentage of households declaring that conversations in the home are conducted in a language other than English. When the Riverdale Park station area’s demographic conditions are evaluated against these criteria, the area is considered likely to include a significant number of residents participating in an informal economy. A windshield survey of area retail surrounding the Riverdale Park station area shows an interesting trend for retail operations. One of every ten retail stores and

Commercial Market

Map 4.5 Commercial Improvements as Percent of Value

143

Purple Line TOD Study—Part 2: Market Analysis

Table 4.6: Retail Leakage/Surplus by Industry Group, 2011 College Park-UMD & M Square (River Road) Primary Market Areas Motor Vehicle & Parts Dealers (NAICS 441) $770,672 Furniture & Home Furnishings Stores (NAICS 442) $825,153 Electronics & Appliance Stores (NAICS 443/NAICS 4431) -$1,082,867 Bldg Materials, Garden Equip. & Supply Stores (NAICS 444) -$386,078 Food & Beverage Stores (NAICS 445) $4,836,775 Health & Personal Care Stores (NAICS 446/NAICS 4461) -$979,149 Gasoline Stations (NAICS 447/NAICS 4471) -$4,136,563 Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores (NAICS 448) $1,014,822 Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book, and Music Stores (NAICS 451) -$20,240,909 General Merchandise Stores (NAICS 452) $2,683,851 Miscellaneous Store Retailers (NAICS 453) $64,385 Nonstore Retailers (NAICS 454) $575,938 Food Services & Drinking Places (NAICS 722) -$15,274,368 Industry Group

Riverdale - East Pines (Beacon Heights) Primary Market Area -$79,099,349 -$92,638 $5,424,122 $320,549 -$17,800,606 $694,399 -$4,539,188 $561,453 $3,139,351 $15,333,241 $1,673,302 $5,727,587 $15,013,163

Riverdale Park Primary Market Area $15,025,686 $2,753,870 $2,327,842 -$1,049,285 $17,548,491 $798,605 -$13,309,728 $5,423,802 -$14,477,382 $13,277,865 $722,394 $2,402,178 -$7,477,027

Source: ESRI Business Analyst, 2011; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2012.

restaurants is Spanish-named or has Spanish-speaking operators. For every traditional banking center, three to four check cashing or money transfer outlets are present. In the M Square (River Road) station area, the current and future daytime population changes the dynamics for retail development. The consultant team conducted a survey aimed at this population with questions regarding current retail spending habits during the workday and commuter activity related to transit usage. These questions helped to engage the area workers and expand the understanding of this critical market for area retailers. Appendix B provides a summary of the survey and results. For the retail analysis, the retail spending of those 178 respondents included estimates of weekly spending on breakfast, lunch, dinner, and social drinking after work hours. On average, those respondents that purchased food items within the building where they worked spent $33 a week compared to $88 for food items purchased outside the building within close walking proximity. Estimates of annual spending suggest the potential to capture an additional $20 million in food and beverage sales, assuming a capture rate of 20 percent for future new workers interested in eating within the immediate area.

• Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) station area does not have sufficient unmet retail demand at this time to support new retail development. • In Riverdale Park, the current configuration of older shopping centers should be adapted to incorporate mixed-use alternatives and a contraction of retail offerings. The Town of Riverdale Park may be able to assist existing retail offerings with loans or grants for façade upgrades. Efforts should be made along the Kenilworth Avenue Corridor to keep key destination retail anchors, such as Rinaldi’s Riverdale Bowl, which attract customers from outside the immediate neighborhoods. • M Square (River Road) and College Park-UMD have retail potential for ancillary restaurants and service providers to serve the daytime population. While additional retail may be appropriate within a mixed-use environment at the M Square Research Park campus, this retail should be tailored to meet the needs of the daytime population while not cannibalizing the retail in the nearby commercial corridors. • West Campus station area does not have sufficient unmet retail demand at this time to support new retail development.

Retail Potential

Hotel

In conclusion, the retail analysis for each of the five station areas determined that:

As an industry, lodging relates to business travelers and visitors to a region for a variety of reasons (e.g., passing through on a longer trip to visit family,

144

Commercial Market

tourists, visiting higher education facilities). The hospitality industry links closely with the economy and follows its highs and lows, especially as it relates to business travel. Hotel development needs close proximity to its customer base and tends to locate on well traveled routes (roadways, rail lines, and waterways) or near employment centers and tourist attractions, depending on the market segment of the particular hotel. Visibility from the highway, aesthetics of the area, and perceived safety also rank top in factors considered when selecting a location. For these reasons interstate hotels, unlike resort hotel operations, cluster around highway exits with easy access. Collocation with retail, restaurants, and entertainment operations enhances a hotel’s appeal to potential customers. Prince George’s County hotels benefit from high visibility and proximity to generators of room-night demand. Hotel Market Conditions The majority of hotel developments within northern Prince George’s County center on employment hubs and interstate travel. The separation among the hotels reflects both the year built and specific location within the county. Most of Prince George’s County’s hotels cluster around I-495, MD 295 (Baltimore-

Washington Parkway) exits, and major institutional anchors, such as the University of Maryland College Park. The presence of the University of Maryland near the proposed Purple Line attracts hotel patrons. Visitors to the university, business travelers, area visitors/tourists, and those traveling to downtown D.C. in search of more affordable lodging are the area hotels’ major client groups. Table 4.7 provides a hotel inventory organized by areas close to the University of Maryland in College Park and those along major roadways and interstates that shows the segmentation of the market focused along the MD 295 (Baltimore-Washington Parkway). This inventory includes more than 1,350 hotel rooms with two independently run operations. The remaining hotels consist of national hotel chains with four economy class, two midscale, and seven upper midscale and upper upscale hotels. The majority of the inventoried hotels— 57 percent of all rooms— were built in the 1960s with only the Holiday Inn’s 220 rooms built in 1971. In the 1990s, 299 rooms were constructed, rounding out the offerings and spurring many of the existing national chains to upgrade their existing hotels. Construction slowed, and only three new hotels entered the market in 2000, adding 165 new rooms. As indicated by this age distribution, much of the hotel inventory is

Table 4.7: Hotel Inventory, Proposed Purple Line Area, 2011 Property Name College Park Cluster Marriott Inn & Conference Center University of Maryland University College Ramada Limited College Park Quality Inn & Suites, College Park, MD Clarion Inn, College Park Days Inn College Park MD Washington DC Holiday Inn Washington College Park Comfort Inn & Suites, College Park, MD Super 8 College Park Washington, D.C. Area Econo Lodge (College Park, MD) Courtyard Greenbelt Howard Johnson Express Inn College Park Budget Inn (College Park, MD) Hampton Inn College Park, MD B-W Parkway (295) Howard Johnson Inn Washington DC North/B-W Parkway Holiday Inn Express Washington DC B-W Parkway Deluxe Motel

Number of Rooms

Year Opened

Type

237 82 169 118 68 220 125 51 30 152 29 45 80

1862 1941 1962 1964 1967 1971 1985 1988 1990 1991 1998 2000 2000

Upper Upscale Midscale Midscale Upper Midscale Economy Upper Midscale Upper Midscale Economy Economy Upscale Economy Independent Upper Midscale

151 88 40

1963 1990 2000

Economy Upper Midscale Independent

Source: STR Global, 2011; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2012.

145

Purple Line TOD Study—Part 2: Market Analysis

concentrated in older hotels along US 1. Though several have been renovated, these hotels are on small sites that limit expansion potentials. The auto orientation does not compete well with newer hotels on larger mixed-use sites that offer a walkable environment and access to restaurants. To better understand the potential for a hotel close to the University of Maryland, the analysis focused on the performance of five upper midscale hotels. This cluster of hotels draws clients due to its close proximity to the University of Maryland and is not reflective of the broader hotel market. Review of these five hotels offers a perspective on the existing market conditions for those College Park lodging operations. The other US 1 hotel offerings, excluded from this review, compete based on price and benefit from demand surges for University of Maryland events. Purple Line Area Hotel Inventory by Year Built 1950s or Earlier 5%

2000 to 2007 10% 1990s 18%

Hotel Performance Hotel occupancy rates fluctuate based on the economy. Most hotels require a minimum of slightly more than 60 percent annual occupancy to remain financially viable. These five hotels within the College Park cluster dropped in occupancy from a high of 68.7 percent in 2005 to a low of 56.6 percent in 2009. Fortunately, occupancy began to rise again in 2010. Recent articles in the Washington Business Journal suggest the potential for an additional hotel planned for US 1 in the near-term. The proposed 50-room Garden Suites is a Best Western suites hotel product.2 The day of the week information from STR Global for the College Park hotel cluster (shown in the Table 4.8 on page 147) suggests that business travelers during the middle of the week boost occupancy rates. A closer look at the data shows relatively high tourist-related occupancy rates on Friday and Saturday evenings, reflecting a customer base that mixes business travelers and visitors to the university and the region. The hotels in close proximity to the University of Maryland ranged from $85 per single room to a $150 per double room with limited amenities. The Marriott Inn & Conference Center, University of Maryland University College, located at 3501 University Boulevard offers single occupancy rooms starting at $179 up to $219 for double occupancy. Data from STR Global indicate that the average daily rate, which is the total room revenue divided by the number of rooms occupied, grew from 2005 to 2007 by more than $10, reaching $101. After

1980s 10%

1960s or 1970s 57%

2 Sernovitz, Daniel, Washington Business Journal “Commercial Real Estate Extra: Road Map College Park,” November 18–24, 2011, p 19.

Source: STR Global, 2011; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2012.

Figure 4.3: Purple Line Area Hotel Occupancy Annual Averages, 2005-2010 0.7

Occupancy Rate

0.65

0.6

0.55

0.5 2005

2006

2007

Source: STR Global, 2011; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2012.

146

2008

2009

2010

Commercial Market

Table 4.8: Day of Week Hotel Occupancy Day of the Week Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Total

Sep-09

Year Ending Sep-10

Nov-11

42.1% 56.5% 63.4% 64.8% 58.1% 56.4% 58.3% 57.1%

46.6% 58.6% 66.0% 66.8% 60.2% 59.4% 59.7% 59.6%

43.2% 57.3% 61.7% 64.0% 58.2% 56.2% 57.5% 56.9%

Source: STR Global, 2011; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2012.

the economic downturn, the average daily rate dropped $91 and then began to slowly climb in 2010 and 2011 reaching $94. Future Hotel Potential Though performing better than hotels in many other sections of Prince George’s County, the College Park hotel cluster is still below optimal occupancy and room rate levels, reflecting the overall economy. The expansion of activity at the M Square Research Park has benefited hotels in the College Park hotel cluster. Growth in the M Square area’s employment base and the overall economy will improve the College Park hotel submarket conditions.

The key competition for the demand would be a hotel developed as part of the East Campus mixed-use development. With economic recovery, the College Park-UMD station area could support a hotel of 100 to 150 rooms between 2015 and 2025, particularly if restaurants are developed within close proximity.

The College Park submarket is prime for the addition of a new hotel with a walkable environment within a mixed-use development. Ideally the College Park-UMD station area will offer both direct access to the university campus via the proposed Purple Line and access to Washington via the Metro. With expansion of the M Square Research Park and related activity, additional demand will be generated for visitors to the park’s institutions and businesses.

147

Purple Line TOD Study Part 3: Recommendations Existing Conditions Report February 2012 May 2013

149

Contents 1. Development Strategy 1.1 Overview 1.2 Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) 1.3 Riverdale Park 1.4 MÂ Square (River Road) 1.5 College Park-UMD 1.6 West Campus

2. Zoning Template 2.1 Overview 2.2 TOD Zoning Standards

3. Implementation Strategies

155 157 161 179 197 215 233

251 252 254

267

3.1 Business Technical Assistance 269 3.2 Business Financial Assistance 270 3.3 Mitigation of Construction-Related Impacts 271 3.4 Residential Implementation Strategies 272 3.5 Federal Affordable Housing Tools 273 3.6 Expanded State/Local Affordable 273 Housing Tools 3.7 Redevelopment Funding Alternatives 274

4. Next Step Next Steps

277 279

151

Part 3: Recommendations

List of Maps Map 1.1 Map 1.2 Map 1.3 Map 1.4 Map 1.5 Map 1.6 Map 1.7 Map 1.8 Map 1.9 Map 1.10 Map 1.11 Map 1.12 Map 1.13 Map 1.14 Map 1.15 Map 1.16 Map 1.17 Map 1.18 Map 1.19 Map 1.20 Map 1.21 Map 1.22 Map 1.23

152

Purple Line Corridor and TOD Study Area 159 Key Map 163 Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights)— Existing Conditions 163 Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) TOD Concept 167 Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Redevelopment Strategy—Short-Term 168 Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Redevelopment Strategy—Long-Term 169 Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Open Space 170 Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Street Network 171 Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Transit Recommendations 173 Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) 174 Pedestrian Recommendations Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Bicycle Recommendations 175 Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Vehicular Recommendations 176 Key Map 181 Riverdale Park—Existing Conditions 181 Riverdale Park TOD Concept 185 Riverdale Park Redevelopment Strategy—Short-Term 186 Riverdale Park Redevelopment Strategy—Long-Term 187 Riverdale Park Open Space 188 Riverdale Park Street Network 189 Riverdale Park Transit Recommendations 191 Riverdale Park Pedestrian Recommendations 192 Riverdale Park Bicycle Recommendations 193 Riverdale Park Vehicular Recommendations 194

Map 1.24 Key Map 199 Map 1.25 M Square (River Road)—Existing Conditions 199 Map 1.26 M Square (River Road) TOD Concept 203 Map 1.27 M Square (River Road) Redevelopment Strategy—Short-Term 204 Map 1.28 M Square (River Road) Redevelopment Strategy—Long-Term 205 Map 1.29 M Square (River Road) Open Space 206 Map 1.30 M Square (River Road) Street Network 207 Map 1.31 M Square (River Road) Transit Recommendations 209 Map 1.32 M Square (River Road) Pedestrian Recommendations 210 Map 1.33 M Square (River Road) Bicycle Recommendations 211 Map 1.34 M Square (River Road) Vehicular Recommendations 212 Map 1.35 Key Map 217 Map 1.36 College Park-UMD Station Area— Existing Conditions 217 221 Map 1.37 College Park-UMD TOD Concept Map 1.38 College Park-UMD Redevelopment Strategy—Short-Term 222 Map 1.39 College Park-UMD Redevelopment Strategy—Long-Term 223 224 Map 1.40 College Park-UMD Open Space Map 1.41 College Park-UMD Street Network 225 Map 1.42 College Park-UMD Transit Recommendations 227 Map 1.43 College Park-UMD Pedestrian Recommendations 228 Map 1.44 College Park-UMD Bicycle Recommendations 229 Map 1.45 College Park-UMD Vehicular Recommendations 230 Map 1.46 Key Map 235 Map 1.47 West Campus Station Area— Existing Conditions 235 Map 1.48 West Campus TOD Concept 239

Map 1.49 West Campus Redevelopment Strategy—Short-Term 240 Map 1.50 West Campus Redevelopment Strategy—Long-Term 241 Map 1.51 West Campus Open Space 242 243 Map 1.52 West Campus Street Network Map 1.53 West Campus Transit Recommendations 245 Map 1.54 West Campus Pedestrian Recommendations 246 Map 1.55 West Campus Bicycle Recommendations 247 Map 1.56 West Campus Vehicular Recommendations 248 Map 2.1 Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Zoning Template 257 259 Map 2.2 Riverdale Park Zoning Template Map 2.3 M Square (River Road) Zoning Template 261 Map 2.4 College Park-UMD Zoning Template 263 265 Map 2.5 Zoning Plan West Campus Template

List of Figures Fig. 1.2:

Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights)—Riverdale Road Proposed Street Section Looking East 172 Fig. 1.1: Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights)—Riverdale Road Existing Street Section Looking East 172 Fig. 1.3: Riverdale Park—East West Highway Existing Street Section Looking West 190 Fig. 1.4: Riverdale Park—East West Highway Proposed 190 Street Section Looking West Fig. 1.5: M Square—River Road Existing Street Section Looking West 208 M Square—River Road Proposed Street Fig. 1.6 208 Section Looking West Fig. 1.7: College Park—River Road Existing Street Section Looking North 226 Fig. 1.8: College Park—River Road Proposed Street 226 Section Looking North Fig. 1.9: West Campus—Campus Drive Existing Street 244 Section—Looking West Fig. 1.10: West Campus—Campus Drive Proposed Street 244 Section—Looking West

153

1. Development Strategy 1.1 Overview

157

1.2 Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights)

161

1.3 Riverdale Park

179

1.4 MÂ Square (River Road)

197

1.5 College Park-UMD

215

1.6 West Campus

233

Development Strategy

1.1 Overview The Development Strategy section provides recommendations for TOD and transportation improvements within the five station study areas. These recommendations are based on existing conditions analysis (see Existing Conditions, Market Analysis, and stakeholder input and feedback from the community workshops (see Section 2, Community Outreach, on Existing Conditions, page 15 and Community Workshop Summaries, on page 18).

Purpose

locations. The street network diagram indicates streetscape types and is accompanied by street sections showing typical dimension and components. To note, the street network diagram for each station study area is focused on streetscape character and street location and do not suggest replacing the roadway types (i.e., arterials, collectors, and local streets) as established in the 2009 Approved Countywide Master Plan of Transportation. Following the street network diagram, transportation recommendations address specific transit, pedestrian, bicycle, vehicular, and parking access improvements.

The purpose of this section is to provide redevelopment recommendations for each of the five proposed Purple Line Stations that maximize TOD potential and promote lively, walkable, and attractive transit-oriented communities within the five station study areas. To capitalize on the Purple Line’s potential to connect communities in Prince George’s County, these recommendations will emphasize TOD-based, market-feasible development; enhanced pedestrian/ bicycle access and safety; and revitalized neighborhoods.

Planning Objectives To achieve the overall goal of lively, walkable, and attractive transit-oriented communities for each of the five station areas, general planning objectives were established for the overall Purple Line study. A list of unique planning objectives based on each station area’s existing conditions and opportunities can be found within each station area section. The general planning objectives include: • Establish complete streets to provide safe and convenient accommodation for all potential users, including pedestrians, cyclists, motorists, and transit riders alike. • Emphasize mixed-use within a 1/8- to 1/4-mile radius of the Metro station stop to energize this core area and serve transit riders. • Locate buildings close to the street to help activate the streetscape as well as to provide vertical definition of the street. • Relegate parking (surface or structured) behind buildings, masking it from the public realm. • Establish open space to foster a range of activities as well as to provide a gathering space for the community.

Components For each station study area, there are five documented components: an overview of the study area, the planning objectives that govern the recommendations, the market conclusions that inform the recommendations, the community input summary, and the recommendations. The recommendations for each station area begin with the TOD concept plan diagram and list of primary recommendations. Following the TOD concept plan diagram, TOD redevelopment strategies for short-term and long-term periods locate potential redevelopment sites. Next, the open space diagram provides additional details on the recommended types of open spaces and

157

Part 3: Recommendations

Uni ver s

ity B

lvd

West Campus Adelphi Rd .

Map 1.1 highlights a portion of the Purple Line Corridor that includes the five station areas included in this study. The diagram shows a comprehensive view of the study area, highlighting the interrelationships of the five stations and the TOD recommendations. The following station study area sections (Sections 1.3â&#x20AC;&#x201C;1.7) give further detail regarding specific recommendations for each individual station study area.

Map 1.1 Purple Line Corridor and TOD Study Area

UMUC

Bld E.

Camp

us Dr.

Adelphi Rd

University

West Campus

LEGEND

Building Building Frontage Frontage Open OpenSpace Space Block/Edges Block / Edges Views/Axes Views / Axes Purple PurpleLine Line PA LPA Existing Street Existing Street Improvements Improvements Proposed Street Proposed Street Improvements Improvements

158

University of Maryland College Park

Development Strategy

College Park-UMD

Bran

River

Rd.

Pain t

ch Pk wy.

MÂ Square (River Road) nectio

n to U

Ave .

e con

S-1

wor th

Bridg

Kenilworth Ave.

Ken il

Riv er R d.

hway

Vet e

ran

kw y.

Ken i

lwo rth

Ave .

Riverdale Rd.

Baltimore-Washingt on Pkwy.

East W est Hig

Riverdale Rd.

Riverdale Park

Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights)

159

Development Strategy | Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights)

1.2

Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Overview 162

West Cam pus

Colle ge Pa UMD rk

Planning Objectives

162

Market Conclusions Summary

162

Community Input Summary

164

TOD Recommendations

165

M Sq

(Rive uare r Roa d)

Rive r

Rive rdale Park

(Bea dale Ro con H a eigh d ts)

161

Part 3: Recommendations

Overview The TOD study area centered on the proposed Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Purple Line Station extends outward a half-mile from the station stop as shown in Map 1.3 on the facing page. A half-mile represents an average 10-minute walk. The inner circle represents a quarter-mile radius or an average five-minute walk. Major vehicular thoroughfares, including the Baltimore-Washington Parkway and Veterans Highway, run through the study area. Area commuters use Riverdale Road to connect between and access these larger thoroughfare corridors. The Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) station area represents a stable residential community with more than 6,000 residents in approximately 1,750 households. Housing consists of mainly single-family detached houses and townhouses with only a few garden-style, multifamily buildings. Assets within the half-mile radius of the proposed station, with the potential for redevelopment, include several large parcels with close proximity to the proposed station. Two of these parcels are the 5.49 acre County and Park Police Headquarters facility directly across Riverdale Road from the proposed platform and the existing East Pines Shopping Center, on 2.62 acres, at the southeast corner of the intersection of 66th Avenue and Riverdale Road.

Planning Objectives As previously listed in Section 1.1 Overview, general planning objectives were established to help achieve the overall goal of lively, walkable, and attractive transit-oriented communities for all five station areas. Based on the Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) station area’s unique existing conditions and opportunities, a more definitive list of planning objectives was established. For Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights), the planning objectives include: • Define gateways for the study area that establish the “place” and welcome people to the Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) station area as currently the communities within the study area lack definition and identification. • Strengthen pedestrian connections to the proposed Purple Line station as currently the pedestrian routes in multiple locations consist of narrow concrete sidewalks or dirt paths providing little buffer between pedestrians and vehicles. • Provide open space near the station that will reinforce the placemaking within the study area and provide an area for formal and informal activities and community gathering.

Market Conclusions Summary Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) offers a stable neighborhood with small neighborhood-scale commercial offerings. In the station area, there is minimal demand for new office, and retail demand does not exist. The existing, established businesses can be strengthened by investing in façade upgrades as the new light rail begins operation. The housing recommendations at this eastern end of the proposed Purple Line, including the Riverdale Road

162

and Riverdale Park station areas, focus on new rental housing alternatives, representing two-thirds of the total projected new housing units or 640 units by 2025. The underutilized land parcels along Riverdale Road offer opportunities for infill development. Those sites closest to the station stop could capture up to 300 new residential units, including 170 rental apartments.

Development Strategy | Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights)

Map 1.2 Key Map Ad elp h

1/2 Mile Radius Existing Roads MARC/Metro Rail Lines Purple Line Alignment Purple Line Stations

w y.

Adelphi Rd.

shing ton Pkw y.

Good Luck Rd.

Baltimore Ave. (U S

Belcrest Rd.

Ba lti m

o re

t Bra Pain

College Park UMD

Av e. (M

University of Maryland

Kenilwo rth

West Campus

D 20 1)

East Campus

Blvd. E University

-Wa

Un ive rsit y

Blv d. E

i Rd

UMD Campus Center

M Square (River Road)

East W est

(Beacon Heights) (MD 4 10)

MA R C/ Met ro R ail

n ee

Riverdale Road

Hwy.

Ve ter an s

R iverdale Rd.

Pk w

rR Age

l pe

Rive r Rd.

D (M

Riverdale Park

0) 41

Map 1.3 Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights)—Existing Conditions 1/2 Mile Radius

1/4 Mile Radius

th 67

Baltimore-Washington P kwy

Dr.

. Pl

64th Ave.

67 67th Ave.

Eastp ine

ce ra

r Te

63rd Pl.

Powhatan St.

66th Ave.

Patterson St.

oo nw

Riverdale Rd.

r Fe

Ct .

Riverdale Rd.

Ve te

ran

Patterson St.

LEGEND

Purple Line Route Proposed by MTA Proposed Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Station 0

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

163

Part 3: Recommendations

Community Input Summary The community workshops for each of the five stations allowed stakeholders to discuss how their communities and businesses could build on the opportunities created by the proposed light-rail system. In small groups, the stakeholders crafted a shared vision for each station and identified desirable uses and amenities, streetscape enhancements, access improvements, and preferred station character. Below is a summary of input received by topic for the Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) station area:

Use Type and Architectural Character The County and Park Police Headquarters site was identified by stakeholders as a potential location for recreation/fitness center or other uses. Small-scale development with ground level shops and twoâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;three stories of residential or office above was preferred. The stakeholders wanted to retain and relocate the tenants of the East Pines Shopping Center.

Community workshop opening presentation

Amenities and Open Spaces The stakeholders noted the need for open space for children such as a park or playground. A farmersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; market was desired as another amenity for the area. Stakeholders preferred gathering spaces buffered from roads.

Streetscape Character Stakeholders preferred wider sidewalks with a vegetated planting strip along the street particularly along Riverdale Road. Parallel parking was also desired to provide spaces and shield pedestrians from traffic. At the intersection of MDÂ 410 (East West Highway) and Riverdale Road, the stakeholders wanted to establish a gateway or landmark with lighting.

Community workshop open house discussions

Mobility Choices Connectivity and Access Bicycle lanes along Veterans Parkway and Riverdale Road were desired along with bike storage and possibly a bike-share program. Stakeholders wanted sidewalks leading to the Purple Line Station and curb cuts at the pedestrian crossings. With access from 67th Place to Riverdale Road proposed to be closed to accommodate steep grades and the rail line, stakeholders noted concern for vehicular access through the neighborhood. They would also like shuttle service to extend to Route 450, Capital Plaza, and Furman Parkway.

Community workshop small group discussions

Station Character/Identity Stakeholders identified lighting and shelters as important concerns. They also noted the importance of maintaining the area and keeping it clean.

Community workshop stakeholder presentation

164

Development Strategy | Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights)

TOD Recommendations The TOD recommendations for the Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) station area focus on properties (excluding the existing residential single-family lots and parkland) within a half-mile of the proposed station. Properties for redevelopment were selected based on proximity to the proposed station, ownership, size, and the condition of the buildingsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; property. For these properties, the recommendations address land use, phasing, open space, street network, streetscape, and transportation. Transportation recommendations are separated into five components, including transit, pedestrian, bicycle, vehicular, and parking. The redevelopment strategy is divided into two phases, short-term (before Purple Line completion) and long-term (after Purple Line completion). Below, Riverdale Road is envisioned as a livable street, transformed from its existing auto-oriented condition. The rendering below illustrates some of the primary planning objectives for this study area, including complete streets and mixed-use buildings that front along Riverdale Road, activating the streetscape.

credit: www.google.maps.com

Existing view of Riverdale Road at Baltimore-Washington Parkway

Perspective of Riverdale Road at Baltimore-Washington Parkway

165

Part 3: Recommendations

TOD Concept

Map 1.4 Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) TOD Concept

63rd Pl.

The final route and station locations will be determined through MTA’s Purple Line engineering effort.

64th Ave.

• An at-grade station that is accessible, well-lit and maintained, provides adequate shelter, and connects to local bus and shuttle services. • Redevelopment opportunities that include pedestrian-friendly mixeduse development featuring two- to four-story multifamily residential over targeted ground-floor retail and townhouses, open space, and limited neighborhood serving office. • A station plaza located at the intersection of Riverdale Road and 67th Avenue and a square located on the County and Park Police Headquarters site (see Map 1.7 on page 170). • Concentrated new commercial uses along Riverdale Road between 67th Court and Fernwood Terrace and between 66th Avenue and 67th Avenue. • Widen and redesign Riverdale Road to accommodate reconstructed, buffered sidewalks, improved crosswalks, pedestrian-scaled lighting, new left-turn lane at 67th Avenue, and wide lanes to accommodate bicycles along both sides of Riverdale Road.

Riverdale R Patterson St.

Powhatan St.

166

Development Strategy | Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights)

1/2-Mile Radius

Ct . th 67

Baltimore-Washington P kwy.

67t

h P l.

ran

LEGEND

t e rson St.

Building Building Frontage Frontage Open OpenSpace Space

67th Ave.

66th Ave .

Dr.

r. Te

Ve te

Eastp ine

Rd.

oo nw

r Fe

Riverdale Rd.

Block/Edges Block / Edges Views/Axes Views / Axes Purple PurpleLine Line PA LPA Existing Street Existing Street Improvements Improvements Proposed Street Proposed Street Improvements Improvements

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

167

Part 3: Recommendations

Redevelopment Strategy—Short Term The short-term strategy governs development for the time period between the completion of this study and the completion of the Purple Line when the rail line begins service.

pedestrians. Also, Eastpine Drive will be realigned to provide connections/ access to Riverdale Road at 64th Avenue (see Transit Recommendations on page 173).

Within the short-term period for the Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) study area, there are no anticipated building redevelopment projects. However, it is important to complete infrastructure improvements to existing streets prior to the opening of the Purple Line to ensure that pedestrian and bicycle connectivity is improved and vehicular access is maintained. The improvements of Riverdale Road will coincide with the construction of the Purple Line route and station. The road reconstruction will include intersection improvements as well as improved pedestrian and bicycle connections along and across Riverdale Road. As part of the reconstruction, 67th Place will become a culde-sac, disconnecting the street from Riverdale Road. A pedestrian walkway and ramp will provide access from the end of 67th Place to the station for

Map 1.5 Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Redevelopment Strategy—Short-Term 1/2-Mile Radius

Ct . 67 th

67t

h P l.

ran

LEGEND

Purple Line PA

t e rson St.

Existing Street Improvements Proposed Street Improvements

Ave.

67th

66th Ave.

Dr.

Eastp ine

Baltimore-Washington P kwy.

64th Ave. 63rd Pl.

Ve te

Powhatan St.

r. Te

Patterson St.

Riverdale Rd.

oo nw

r Fe

Riverdale Rd.

Park Land/ Open Space Office Retail Residential

100

200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

168

400

600

Development Strategy | Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights)

Redevelopment Strategy—Long Term The long-term strategy governs development for the time period after the completion of the Purple Line once rail service begins.

Two residential parcels are proposed as redevelopment sites for residential multifamily apartments or townhouses once the life spans of the existing buildings are reached and/or market demand builds. While the market analysis shows a limited demand for new retail, any proposed retail should line Riverdale Road at key points.

Within the long-term period for the Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) study area, the major parcels along Riverdale Road are envisioned to be redeveloped as two- to five-story mixed-use projects, including the 5.49-acre County and Park Police Headquarters directly across Riverdale Road from the proposed platform and the existing East Pines Shopping Center, on 2.62 acres, at the southeast corner of the intersection of 66th Avenue and Riverdale Road.

To note, although just outside of this station area, an intergenerational community learning center is proposed to the south along Annapolis Road, near the proposed Glenridge Metro station stop.

For the County and Park Police Headquarters site to fully redevelop as envisioned, both police operations (county and park) would need to be relocated; at this time, only the park police are planning to relocate. In the long-term, these two primary properties are anticipated as mixeduse projects with ground-level retail fronting along Riverdale Road and residential above. Additionally, the two parcels on which the gas stations are currently located are planned for ground level retail with office uses above.

Map 1.6 Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Redevelopment Strategy—Long-Term 1/2-Mile Radius

Redevelopment Residential MF or TH Units

667 7tth hC Ctt. .

B altimore -Wash Baltim ington Pkw ore-W ashin y.

ran

67t

h P l. 67th Ave.

66th Ave.

64th Ave. 64th Ave.

Ve te

. Pl

EEaasstp tpiinne eD Drr..

th 67

Redevelopment Ground-Level Retail along Riverdale Rd. Office above

a t Patterson St. t e rson St.

St. PowhatanSt. Powhatan

66th Ave.

St. PattersonSt. Patterson

67th Ave.

Riverdale Riverdale Rd. Rd.

Riverdale Rd. Riverdale Rd.

e ac r.err TeT dod ooo ww rnern FeF

63r 63rd d Pl. Pl.

Full Redevelopment Ground-Level Retail along Riverdale Rd. Residential (MF or TH units)

kw Vye. te

ran

Redevelopment Ground-Level Retail along Riverdale Rd. Office above

LEGEND

Purple Line PA Existing Street Improvements Proposed Street Improvements

Redevelopment Residential MF or TH Units

Full Redevelopment Ground-Level Retail along Riverdale Rd. Residential (MF or TH units)

Park Land/ Open Space Office Retail Residential

200 100 200 100

400 400

600 NN 600

SCALE:1”1”= =200’ 200’ SCALE:

169

Part 3: Recommendations

Open Space For the Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) station area, a plaza is proposed adjacent to the station platform area at the intersection of 67th Avenue and Riverdale Road. The plaza design should contribute to the overall station character, integrated into its design, with seating for people waiting for the train. Opposite the station, across Riverdale Road, a green is planned on the County and Park Police Headquarters site. The green is recommended to be adjacent to mixed-use buildings with ground-level retail to energize the space. The green should accommodate various community activities such as a farmers’ market or movie night events and provide a needed safe, ‘watched’ space for children to play within the community’s core. Proper design of these open spaces is critical to their function. Usability, sustainability, and accessibility should be considered. Landscape plantings, walls, grade changes, and similar enhancements should be used to buffer these open spaces from the street traffic for safety and enjoyment of the spaces. Shaded seating areas should be incorporated. Accessibility for those with limited mobility should be considered in the design and material selections. Plant materials should be selected from native species.

View looking at proposed plaza and station from 67th Avenue

Map 1.7 Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Open Space 1/2-Mile Radius

Madison Hill Community Park

Wildercroft Neighborhood Park

Riverdale Hills Neighborhood Playground

Riverdale Rd. Ct . th 67

h P l. 67t

LEGEND

Existing— Park/Open Space

t e rson St.

East Pines Neighborhood Rec. Center

Proposed— Park/Open Space

Ave.

67th

66th Ave.

Dr.

Eastp ine

Baltimore-Washington P kwy.

64th Ave. 63rd Pl.

r. Te

Browning’s Grove Neighborhood Park

ran

Powhatan St.

Patterson St.

oo nw

r Fe

Riverdale Rd.

Ve te

Wetland/Stream/ Water Bodies Existing—Trail

Cherry Hill Cemetery Historic Site

Glenridge Community Park

100

200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

170

400

600

Development Strategy | Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights)

Street Network For the Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) station area, Riverdale Road is the primary commercial street. Components of a successful commercial street in this study area include wide sidewalks to accommodate pedestrian movement and ground-level commercial activity such as outdoor dining; curb-to-building widths ranging between 15–24 feet with a minimum 6-foot clear pedestrian passage; building front setbacks between 0–10 feet; and tree pits or rainwater planters lining the street edge to provide shade and a buffer between the pedestrian zone and vehicular travel lanes. Neighborhood streets within the study area, including 66th Avenue, 67th Avenue, 67th Court, and Fernwood Terrace, connect the surrounding neighborhoods to Riverdale Road and the Purple Line Station. Neighborhood streets are characterized by narrower curb-to-building widths, generally 13-feet wide from curb to building with a 5-foot minimum sidewalk; building setbacks of 5–20 feet allowing front yards for residential properties; and planting strips to provide a continuous buffer between the pedestrian zone and the travel lanes.

Proposed streetscape for 67th Avenue

Map 1.8 Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Street Network 1/2-Mile Radius

th 67

67t

h P l.

ran

LEGEND

Existing Street— Commercial Street Type

t e rson St.

Existing Street— Neighborhood Street Type

67th Ave.

66th Ave.

Dr. Eastp ine

Baltimore -Washington P kwy.

64th Ave. 63rd Pl.

r. Te

Ve te

Powhatan St.

Patterson St.

oo nw

Riverdale Rd.

r Fe

Ct .

Riverdale Rd.

Proposed Street— Commercial Street Type Proposed Street— Neighborhood Street Type

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

171

February 21, 2012

Part 3: Recommendations

Street Sections

East Pines Shipping Center

5’

11’

10’

11’

10’

60’

2’

Riverdale Road Right-of-Way

Fig. 1.1: Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights)—Riverdale Road Existing Street Section Looking East

6’

7’

16’

11’

16’

2’ 6’

27’

7’

PZ SF

6’+ 2’

Riverdale Road Right-of-Way

Fig. 1.2: Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights)—Riverdale Road Proposed Street Section Looking East KEY L

11’ Travel Lane

SL 16’ Shared Travel Lane PL Purple Line * C

2’ Curb Step-Off Zone

7’ Planting Zone

PZ 6-15’ Pedestrian Zone SF 2’ Storefront Zone

*Notes: Final dimensions and configuration to be coordinated with MTA, SHA, and DPW&T.

172

Development Strategy | Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights)

Transit Recommendations The key transit improvements recommended for the Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) station area are the relocation and improvement of bus stops along Riverdale Road. The proposed locations are at 63rd Place and 64th Avenue; 67th Court/67th Avenue at the rail station; and Auburn Avenue as illustrated in Map 1.9. Bus stop improvements include the addition of shelters and benches as well as real-time transit information displays. Existing bus stops and bus routes, also shown in the vicinity of the proposed station, may be consolidated to the proposed locations so as to ensure pedestrian access to transit is accessible (Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant) and occurs in the most feasible and desirable location available for both operational needs and comfort. Note: Bus stop locations need to be further studied and coordinated with DPW&T.

urn Aub

u di

Ct .

Baltimore-Washington P kwy

Dr.

Eastp ine

ile 1/4-M 64th Ave.

63rd Pl.

. Pl

DAL

th 67

67th Ave.

ER RIV

ce ra

Powhatan St.

r Te

Patterson St.

Purple Line PA Alignment

Riverdale Rd.

oo nw

Legend

Riverdale Rd.

66th Ave.

RECOMMENDATIONS Transit

s r Fe

E ROAD (Beacon He igh ts

)—

Ave n

ile

Map 1.9 Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Transit Recommendations

Ve te

ran

Patterson St.

Proposed Purple Line Station Existing WMATA Bus Routes Existing Bus Stop Proposed Bus Stop (Bench, Shelter, Real-Time Systems) Data Source: M-NCPPC/ Sabra-Wang & Associates

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

173

Part 3: Recommendations

Pedestrian Recommendations The recommended pedestrian improvements for the Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) station area are illustrated in Map 1.10 below. To complete a continuous network for pedestrians to access the proposed station by foot within the study area, the recommendations include new sidewalks along 66th Avenue, 67th Avenue, 67th Court, and Patterson Street. Along Riverdale Road, sidewalks with planting strips and tree pits are recommended for both sides of the roadway along with pedestrian lighting. At crosswalk locations, hatched, reflective crosswalks are recommended along with pedestrian push buttons and priority phasing.

u di

h 67 t

Baltimore-Washington P kwy

Dr.

Ct .

ile 1/4-M 64th Ave.

Ve te

ran

Patterson St.

Eastp ine

. Pl

63rd Pl.

ALE

67th Ave.

RD IVE

ce ra

Powhatan St.

r Te

Patterson St.

Purple Line PA Alignment

Riverdale Rd.

oo nw

Legend

Riverdale Rd.

66th Ave.

RECOMMENDATIONS Pedestrian

s r Fe

ROAD (Beacon H eig

hts

)—

ile

Map 1.10 Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Pedestrian Recommendations

Proposed Purple Line Station Proposed Sidewalk Sidewalk with Planting Strip Pedestrian Lighting Existing Sidewalk

Data Source: M-NCPPC/ Sabra-Wang & Associates

100

200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

174

400

600

Development Strategy | Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights)

Bicycle Recommendations Bicyclists can choose many streets to access the station; however, the recommended bicycle improvements selected for the Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) station area include a combination of shared lanes, side paths, and bike sharing as illustrated in Map 1.11 below. This combination provides bicyclists clear and direct access along the most desired paths in the adjacent neighborhood, which has many streets with steep grades. Eastpine Drive, 66th Avenue, 67th Avenue, 67th Court, and Fernwood Terrace are proposed to be designated bike routes. A bike route is a street that is anticipated to carry bicycle traffic to and from the transit station through the neighborhood; drivers are alerted to the presence of bicyclists via signage (refer to Appendix A.2 on page 333 for additional information). A bike lane is proposed along Veterans Parkway in the southbound direction adjacent to the southbound travel lanes. A shared lane (a wide outside lane accommodating both vehicles and bicycles) is recommended along Riverdale Road. Bike parking and bike sharing is recommended in the vicinity of the proposed Purple Line Station.

u di

th 67

Baltimore -Washington P kwy

Dr.

Ct .

ile

1/4-M 63rd Pl.

64th Ave.

Eastp ine

RDA

. Pl

E RIV

67 67th Ave.

Powhatan St.

e ac rr Te

Patterson St.

Riverdale Rd.

oo nw

Legend

Riverdale Rd. r Fe

RECOMMENDATIONS Bike

66th Ave.

D (Beacon LE ROA Heig h

ts)—

ile

Map 1.11 Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Bicycle Recommendations

Bike Parking Rentals

Ve te

ran

Patterson St.

Purple Line PA Alignment Proposed Purple Line Station Proposed Bike Route Proposed Bike Lane Proposed Shared Lane Data Source: M-NCPPC/ Sabra-Wang & Associates

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

175

Part 3: Recommendations

Vehicular Recommendations

Parking Recommendations

Intersection improvements for the Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) station area are recommended at Riverdale Road at 66th and 67th Avenues. Additionally, intersection improvements are recommended for the BaltimoreWashington Parkway ramps connecting to Riverdale Road. Improvements include turn lanes for the improved traffic flow at these key neighborhood entrances and new or modified signals to minimize vehicular congestion and maintain good vehicular access in and out of the neighborhood. The intersection improvements will also better accommodate pedestrians through crosswalks, ramps, and signals. Additionally, car sharing is recommended in the vicinity of the station. Additional intersection improvements include access modifications to locations where crossing roadways intersect with the Purple Line alignment.

A parking management program is recommended for the neighborhood and future development. This may include a Kiss & Ride area to allow loading and unloading of passengers in the station vicinity. For recommended TOD parking ratios, see Section 4.2 Zoning Template, page 256.

u di

h 67 t

Baltimore -Washington P kwy

Dr. Eastp ine

Ct .

ile

1/4-M 64th Ave.

63rd Pl.

. Pl

ALE

Proposed Cul-de-Sac

67 67th Ave.

Powhatan St.

e ac rr Te

Patterson St.

Riverdale Rd.

oo nw

RD IVE

Riverdale Rd.

66th Ave.

RECOMMENDATIONS Vehicular

s r Fe

ROAD (Beacon H eig

hts

)—

ile

Map 1.12 Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Vehicular Recommendations

Ve te

ran

Patterson St.

Legend

Purple Line PA Alignment Proposed Purple Line Station Intersection Improvement Proposed Street Data Source: M-NCPPC/ Sabra-Wang & Associates

100

200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

176

400

600

Development Strategy | Riverdale Park

1.3

Riverdale Park Overview 180

West Cam pus

Colle ge Pa UMD rk

Planning Objectives

180

Market Conclusions Summary

180

Community Input Summary

182

TOD Recommendations

183

M Sq

(Rive uare r Roa d)

Rive r

Rive rdale Park

(Bea dale Ro con H a eigh d ts)

179

Part 3: Recommendations

Overview The TOD study area centered on the proposed Riverdale Park Purple Line Station extends outward a half-mile from the station stop, as shown in Map. 1.14 on page 181. A half-mile represents an average 10-minute walk. The inner circle represents a quarter-mile radius or an average 5-minute walk. Major vehicular thoroughfares, including East West Highway, Kenilworth Avenue, and Riverdale Road, travel through the study area. Area commuters use these roads to access other larger thoroughfare corridors such as the Baltimore-Washington Parkway to the east. Pedestrian and bicycle connectivity throughout the area is heavily divided by East West Highway and to a lesser extent Kenilworth Avenue; pedestrian-vehicle conflicts occur often at the intersection of these roadways. Pedestrian infrastructure along East West Highway and Kenilworth Avenue is minimal and in need of improvement. Within the study area, Riverdale Park is a small community of 2,400 households and 9,000 residents. Existing area development includes a mix of single-family homes, commercial properties, and large portions of open space. Single-family detached residential properties make up approximately 40 percent of the existing residential units in the Riverdale Park station area and almost 60 percent of housing units in multifamily structures. Along Kenilworth to the north and south of the proposed station lies the Central Kenilworth Avenue commercial area with three shopping centers. The Riverdale Plaza Shopping Center and other adjacent commercial buildings (located within the quartermile radius of the proposed station) are in prime locations at the intersection of three major thoroughfares, but have vacancies and are of older building stock. Generally the existing commercial uses are one- and two-story, neighborhoodserving retail and storefront office uses. Property assets within the half-mile radius of the proposed station, with the potential for redevelopment, include Riverdale Plaza Shopping Center, Kenilfair Plaza, and other large, commercial properties along Riverdale Road and Kenilworth Avenue and some multifamily residential properties. Other assets include large areas of open space with passive and active recreation facilities west of the proposed station area as well as historic sites such as Browning-Baines House and Riverdale Baptist Church (Refreshing Spring Church of God).

180

parking lots that are not conducive to clear and safe vehicular and pedestrian movements. • Reclaim natural amenities to provide pedestrian and bicycle connections to surrounding open spaces and act as an anchor and amenities for future development as currently the stormwater ditch divides the primary redevelopment area and creates an unattractive environment.

Market Conclusions Summary As an established inner-Beltway neighborhood, Riverdale Park’s existing residential neighborhoods occupy much of the land area; however, older shopping centers offer redevelopment opportunities. The current configuration of older shopping centers should be adapted to incorporate mixed-use alternatives that include new housing and contract retail space. The redevelopment of the shopping centers within Riverdale Park would make room for the addition of a small amount of office development on the second story and some ground-floor, neighborhood-serving retail. This space may total approximately 40,000 square feet after the construction of the proposed Purple Line. The Town of Riverdale Park may be able to assist existing retail developments with loans or grants for façade upgrades. Efforts should be made along the Kenilworth Avenue Corridor to keep key destination retail anchors such as Rinaldi’s Riverdale Bowl, which attracts customers from outside the immediate neighborhood. Prior to the construction of the proposed Purple Line, the demand for commercial and residential space will not support new construction. However, with the construction and operation of the new light rail, approximately 600 new residential units are expected in the Riverdale Park area. A large share of these new units will consist of townhouses with more than half, roughly 55 percent, offered as for-sale units.

Development Strategy | Riverdale Park

Map 1.13 Key Map Ad elp h

1/2 Mile Radius Existing Roads MARC/Metro Rail Lines Purple Line Alignment Purple Line Stations

rsit y

D 20 1) w y.

o re

Ba lti m

Kenilwo rth

t Bra Pain

College Park UMD

Av e. (M

University of Maryland

West Campus

shing ton Pkw y.

Un ive

East Campus

y Blvd. E Universit

-Wa

Blv d. E

i Rd

UMD Campus Center

Baltimore Ave. (U S

Belcrest Rd.

Adelphi Rd.

Good Luck Rd.

M Square (River Road)

East W est

Ve ter an s

R iverdale Rd.

Pk w y.

Rd.

MA R C/ Met ro R ail

r Age

(Beacon Heights) (MD 4 10)

e ap

Riverdale Road

Hwy.

d lR

e ue

Rive r Rd.

D (M

Riverdale Park

0) 41

Map 1.14 Riverdale Park—Existing Conditions

a St.

Patterson St.

St.

62nd Pl.

Quintan

Riverdale Rd.

n St.

ale

Av e.

erd Riv

Mustang Dr.

Ke ni

Nic

hol

son

nv ale

St.

tA ve .

Gr ee

lw or

Ave . 54t h

Rd.

63rd Ave.

Powh ata Rd .

61 s

ale

Jeff erso

Ave . 56th

n St .

55t

Riv erd

Patte rson

St.

Ave.

58th Ave.

ighw ay

e. Av

West H

East

oke

Roan

Quin tana

e. Av

60th Pl.

An a

stia

1/4 Mile Radi us

61st Pl.

Tri b

uta

Tra il

Sy ste m

Kenilworth Ave.

1/2 Mile Radius

LEGEND

Purple Line Route Proposed by MTA Proposed Riverdale Park Station 0

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

181

Part 3: Recommendations

Use Type and Architectural Character Commercial development should focus around anchor businesses. Redevelopment strategy plans should include retaining and renovating existing business (i.e., Bowling Center) where possible as well as encourage adding new businesses to the area. Stakeholders preferred four-story average building heights within the study area and mixed-use development with residential or office over ground-level retail. Additional single-family homes were desired as well.

Community workshop opening presentation

Amenities and Open Spaces Stakeholders wanted a central civic square with lawn space that identified with the proposed station. Parks with seating areas that allow for family and youth activities were also desired by the stakeholders.

Streetscape Character

Community workshop open house discussions

Stakeholders noted the need for a walkable environment, including safe, walkable sidewalks buffered from traffic and shaded with trees and pedestrian amenities such as benches and lighting.

Mobility Choices Connectivity and Access Stakeholders wanted to close a section of Riverdale Road, between Kenilworth Avenue and East West Highway. They also noted the need for safe, pedestrianfriendly connections through Riverdale Plaza as well as improved sidewalks and pedestrian access throughout the study area, accommodating ADA requirements and promoting additional accessibility.

Station Character/Identity

Community workshop small group discussions

A gateway element that is well lit and possibly includes a water feature was suggested by the stakeholders. There was also a strong desire to retain the communityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s character, building on the diversity of people and architectural style within the study area.

Community workshop stakeholder presentation

182

Development Strategy | Riverdale Park

TOD Recommendations The TOD Recommendations for the Riverdale Park station area focus on properties (excluding the existing residential single-family lots and parkland) within a half-mile of the proposed station. Properties for redevelopment were selected based on proximity to the proposed station, ownership, size, and the condition of the buildings. For these properties, the recommendations address land use, phasing, open space, street network, streetscape, and transportation. Transportation recommendations are separated into five components, including transit, pedestrian, bicycle, vehicular, and parking. The redevelopment strategy is divided into two phases, short-term (before Purple Line completion) and long-term (after Purple Line completion). Below, the canal between the reconfigured Riverdale Road and the proposed Riverdale Plaza is envisioned as a natural greenway with trails and a promenade, transformed from its current concrete stormwater channel condition. The rendering below illustrates some of the primary planning objectives for this study area, including reclaimed natural amenities, complete streets, and mixed-use buildings fronting a new street network.

Existing view of stormwater channel from Riverdale Road

Perspective of proposed canal

183

Part 3: Recommendations

TOD Concept

Map 1.15 Riverdale Park TOD Concept

East

ighw ay

Po wh

ata n

Riv erd

ale

LEGEND

Building Frontage Open Space Block/Edges Views/Axes Purple Line PA

The final route and station locations will be determined through MTA’s Purple Line engineering effort.

Proposed— Sidepath Existing Street Improvements Proposed Street Improvements Potential Future Connections 0

100

200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

184

West H

400

600

Rd .

54t hA ve.

• New two- to five-story mixed-use development is integrated with the elevated station in the four-block core area. Efforts should be made to target significantly more intensive redevelopment here with other parcels infilling later. • Ground-floor retail lining Kenilworth Avenue, Riverdale Road Extended, and the proposed extension of 56th Avenue. • Neighborhood-serving office populating the upper floors of new development along Kenilworth Avenue. • A mix of housing types, including new multigenerational units. • Riverdale Road Extended to Greenvale Parkway is transformed into an east-west greenway and public amenity, connecting the area to the Anacostia Tributary Trail System. • A plaza and pocket park are planned for the block directly adjacent to the proposed elevated station. • A community green is planned opposite St. Bernard’s Roman Catholic Church for youth and family activities. • Existing businesses should be retained in place or relocated within the community through coordinated planning, technical and financial assistance, and marking programs to the maximum extent possible. • Kenilworth Avenue, in the short-term, is transformed into a shareduse street with wide outside travel lanes for shared vehicular and bicycle use and widened sidewalks (to note, widened sidewalks along the east side of Kenilworth Avenue may be limited in some locations due to steep topography and existing front driveways), improved lighting, landscaping, bus stops, and a redesigned intersection at Rittenhouse Street. • In the longer-term, Kenilworth Avenue, East West Highway, and Riverdale Road incorporate designated bike lanes. • East West Highway and Riverdale Road east of Kenilworth Avenue, in the short-term, are transformed to accommodate bicycles with wide outside travel lanes for shared use with an improved intersection at 56th Avenue Extended and an enhanced bus stop at 61st Place.

Jeff erso

Development Strategy | Riverdale Park

Kenilworth Ave.

1/2-Mile Radius

aT rib

u t ar y T rai lS ys t

Rittenhouse St.

Patte rso

62nd Pl.

61st Pl.

60th Pl.

e. Av Quintan

Quinta

a St.

na St.

Riverdale Rd.

63rd Ave.

Patterson St.

n St.

nS t.

P P

61 s

tA ve .

Mustang Dr.

Nichols

on St.

55t

Ave .

Av e.

Ken ilw ort h

on S t.

St.

Quin tana

e. Av

ve. ke A

o Roan

Gr ee

nv ale

wy .

56th

t cos Ana

185

Part 3: Recommendations

block core area is envisioned as two- to five-story, mixed-use and residential buildings redevelopment occurring in the long-term period (see Map 1.17 on page 187). The block reconfiguration and street infrastructure could start in the short-term without displacing existing businesses, save one, and paired with arrival of the Purple Line would be a catalyst for new development and private investment. Establishing the four-block core is critical to achieving a transition from the current autodominated environment with conflicted vehicular movements to a vibrant walkable, transit-oriented center for the community.

Within the short-term period for the Riverdale Park study area, there are no anticipated building projects. However, it is important to complete infrastructure improvements to existing streets prior to the opening of the Purple Line to ensure that pedestrian and bicycle connectivity is improved and vehicular access is maintained and clarified. The improvements of East West Highway, Riverdale Road, and Kenilworth Avenue will coincide with the construction of the Purple Line route and station. The road reconstruction will include intersection improvements as well as improved pedestrian and bicycle connections. Additionally, Riverdale Road Extended between Kenilworth Avenue and East West Highway is realigned south of the existing stormwater channel and connected to the new extension of 56th Avenue. The resulting four

The stormwater channel is reconstructed as a naturalized stream with a greenway trail connecting Riverdale Road Extended and Greenvale Parkway and providing a central amenity for the community.

Map 1.16 Riverdale Park Redevelopment Strategy—Short-Term

Kenilworth Ave.

1/2-Mile Radius

ale

Patterson St.

St.

62nd Pl.

61st Pl.

60th Pl. Quintan

Quintan

a St.

Riverdale Rd.

63rd Ave.

ata n

Ave.

58th Ave.

Patte rson

Po wh

Riv erd

St.

a St.

ighw ay

e. Av

West H

East

oke

Roan

57 Quin tana

e. Av

Rd .

Retail Residential Institutional

100

200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

186

400

600

Av e. st 61

Av e.

Gr ee Ave .

hP l.

Nichols

56th

Office

n St .

55t

Park/Open Space

Jeff erso

Ken ilw ort h

Purple Line PA Existing Street Improvements Proposed Street Improvements

54t

LEGEND

hA ve.

Mustang Dr.

on St.

nv ale

wy .

Development Strategy | Riverdale Park

Redevelopment Strategy—Long Term The long-term strategy governs development for the time period after the completion of the Purple Line once rail service begins.

Additional mixed-use, infill redevelopment may occur in the longer term on the western side of Kenilworth Avenue, between Quintana Street and River Road, once the four-block core is established and market demand exists. Existing low-rise surrounding apartment properties offer further potential for redevelopment and increased density near transit.

Within the long-term period for the Riverdale Park study area, the major redevelopment parcels are bounded by East West Highway/Riverdale Road, Nicholson Street, Saint Bernards Drive, and Kenilworth Avenue and form a four-block core area envisioned as two- to five-story, mixed-use and residential buildings. A new plaza fronts a greenway running east-west through the core and a new green is planned across from St. Bernard’s Church.

Recommendations for the Riverdale Park study area were informed by the 2009 Central Kenilworth Avenue Revitalization Study (CKAR). This TOD study’s recommendations include converting the stormwater management ditch into a more natural stream/community amenity; developing plans for the rehabilitation and/or redevelopment of Kenilfair Plaza; implementing comprehensive streetscape improvements to the Kenilworth Avenue Corridor from River Road to Edmonston Road; and developing plans for the rehabilitation and/or redevelopment of Riverdale Plaza Shopping Center, which are consistent with the CKAR study. While both plans recommend mixed-use development, the form may vary from the specific design concepts developed in the CKAR study.

These primary properties are anticipated as mixed-use projects with groundlevel retail fronting Kenilworth Avenue, Riverdale Road Extended, and 56th Avenue Extended and multifamily apartments or office above. The properties south of East West Highway along Kenilworth Avenue are planned for groundlevel retail with office uses above. Other properties within this core area may include single-family attached residential units (townhouses) depending on market demand.

Map 1.17 Riverdale Park Redevelopment Strategy—Long-Term

Kenilworth Ave.

1/2-Mile Radius

62nd Pl.

61st Pl.

Mixed-Use Redevelopment Ground level retail Office above along Kenilworth Ave. Residential above elsewhere

Riverdale Rd.

Commercial

63rd Ave.

ale

Patterson St.

St.

a St.

58th Ave.

ata n

Ave.

Quintan

a St.

Patte rson

Po wh

Riv erd

St.

Residential

ighw ay

e. Av

West H

East

Quin tana

oke

Roan

Mixed-Use Retail/Office

e. Av

60th Pl.

Mixed-Use Redevelopment Ground level retail along Kenilworth Ave Residential above (MF Units)

Rd .

Mustang Dr.

Education, Recreation, Health & Human Services, Cultural Arts & Housing Campus

Retail

Av e.

Ave .

Nichols

on St.

nv ale

wy .

56th

Office

n St .

55t hP

Park/Open Space

Jeff erso

Ken ilw ort h

Existing Street Improvements Proposed Street Improvements

Mixed-Use Redevelopment Ground level retail along 58th Ave. Ext. Residential above (MF Units) Gr ee

54t

Purple Line PA

hA ve.

Mixed-Use Retail/Office LEGEND

Residential Institutional

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

187

Part 3: Recommendations

Open Space For the Riverdale Park station study area, a pocket park is proposed adjacent to the station platform area at the intersection of 56th Avenue Extended and East West Highway. The pocket park design should contribute to the overall station character integrated into its design as well as provide seating for pedestrians waiting for buses. A plaza facing the new greenway, parallel to Riverdale Road Extended, is proposed lined with mixed-use buildings with ground-level retail to energize the space. This plaza is envisioned to be the central civic space for the Riverdale Park community. A green across from St. Bernards Roman Catholic Church is proposed flanked by residential buildings to accommodate various youth and family activities such as a festivals, movie night events, and passive recreation. Proper design of these open spaces is critical to their function. Usability, sustainability, and accessibility should be considered. Landscape plantings, walls, grade changes, and similar enhancements should be used to buffer open spaces from street traffic for safety and enjoyment of the spaces. Shaded seating areas should be incorporated. Accessibility for those with limited mobility should be considered in the design and material selections. Plant materials should be selected from native species.

View looking east at proposed promenade and canal

Map 1.18 Riverdale Park Open Space Madison Hill Comm. Park Riverdale Hills Neighborhood Playground

m aT rib

u t ar y T rai lS ys t

Anacostia River Stream Valley Park

Northea st Branch Ana

Riverdale Comm. Rec. Center

Kenilworth Ave.

costia R iver

1/2-Mile Radius

Riverdale Historic Site

Riv erd

ale

ighw ay

Quintan

St.

62nd Pl.

61st Pl.

60th Pl.

Quintan

a St.

Patterson St.

Ave.

a St.

Riverdale Rd.

63rd Ave.

ata n

e. Av

Po wh

Patte rson

St.

East W est H

oke

Roan

Quin tana

e. Av

58th Ave.

t cos Ana

Rd .

61 s

54t

Riverside Drive Neighborhood Park

Wetland/Stream/ Water Bodies

Ave . 56th

Proposed— Park/Open Space

on St.

Ken ilw ort h

Existing— Park/Open Space

Nichols

55t hP

n St .

Av e.

Jeff erso

LEGEND

East Pines Neighborhood Rec. Center

tA ve .

hA ve.

Mustang Dr.

Gr ee

nv ale

wy .

Browning’s Grove Neigborhood Park

Existing—Trail Proposed— Sidepath

100

200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

188

400

600

Fletcher’s Field Community Park

Templeton Knolls Neighborhood Park

Development Strategy | Riverdale Park

Street Network For the Riverdale Park station study area, East West Highway/Riverdale Road and Kenilworth Avenue are the primary commercial streets, and Riverdale Road Extended and 56th Avenue Extended are the secondary commercial streets. Components of a successful commercial street in this study area include wide sidewalks to accommodate pedestrian movement and groundlevel commercial activity such as outdoor dining; curb-to-building widths ranging between 15–24 feet with a minimum 6-foot clear pedestrian passage; building front setbacks between 0–10 feet; tree pits or rainwater planters lining the street edge to provide shade; and a buffer between the pedestrian zone and vehicular travel lanes. Neighborhood streets throughout the study area are characterized by narrower curb-to-building widths, generally 13 feet wide from curb to building with a 5-foot minimum sidewalk; building setbacks of 5–20 feet, allowing front yards for residential properties; and planting strips to provide a continuous buffer between the pedestrian zone and the travel lanes.

View looking west at proposed elevated station from East West Highway

Map 1.19 Riverdale Park Street Network

Kenilworth Ave.

1/2-Mile Radius

ale

ighw ay

Patterson St.

St.

Rd .

62nd Pl.

61st Pl.

60th Pl.

a St.

Riverdale Rd.

63rd Ave.

Riv erd

Quintan

a St.

Patte rson

Ave.

58th Ave.

ata n

e. Av

Po wh

St.

East W est H

oke

Roan

Quin tana

e. Av

P P

54t

Av e.

hA ve.

Mustang Dr.

LEGEND

Proposed Street— Commercial Street Type

Nichols

on St.

Ave .

Gr ee

nv ale

wy .

56th

Av e.

n St .

55t

Existing Street— Neighborhood Street Type

Jeff erso

Ken ilw ort h

Existing Street— Commercial Street Type

Proposed Street— Neighborhood Street Type

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

189

Part 3: Recommendations

Street Sections

5’

11’

5’

11’

5’

East West Highway Right-of-Way

Fig. 1.3: Riverdale Park—East West Highway Existing Street Section Looking West

45’

7’

16’

11’

5’

11’

16’

7’

6’

East West Highway Right-of-Way

Fig. 1.4: Riverdale Park—East West Highway Proposed Street Section Looking West KEY L

11’ Travel Lane

SL 16’ Shared Travel Lane PL Purple Line T

7’ Planting Zone

PZ 6-15’ Pedestrian Zone

Notes: Final dimensions and configuration to be coordinated with MTA, SHA, and DPW&T.

190

Development Strategy | Riverdale Park

Transit Recommendations The key transit improvements recommended for the Riverdale Park Station area are the proposed placement and improvement of bus stops along MD 410 (East West Highway) and MD 201(Kenilworth Avenue) for optimal access to and from the proposed Purple Line Station. The proposed locations are on MD 201 (Kenilworth Avenue) at Nicholson and Rittenhouse Streets and on MD 410 (East West Highway) at 61st Place and 58th Avenue as illustrated in Map 1.20 below. Bus stop improvements include the addition of shelters, benches, and lighting as well as real-time transit information displays. The existing bus route along Riverdale Road between Kenilworth Avenue and East West Highway is recommended to be relocated pending the completion of the proposed street network in the area bordered by Kenilworth Avenue to the west, East West Highway to the north, Nicholson Street to the south, and Saint Bernards Drive to the east. Existing bus stops and bus routes also shown in the vicinity of the proposed station may be consolidated to the proposed locations so as to ensure pedestrian access to transit is accessible (ADA compliant) and occurs in the most feasible and desirable location available

for both operational needs and comfort. In order to have bus routes where patrons transfer to a station that is in close proximity to the station, the turning movements and merging requirements for buses to continue on their route will require further analysis. Note: Bus stop locations need to be further studied and coordinated with DPW&T. DPW&T also plans to discuss with MTA the possibility of consolidating bus transfers and connections at the Purple Line station within a future transit center structure similar in concept to the transit center currently being planned for the Takoma-Langley Park area at the intersection of MD 650 (New Hampshire Avenue) and MD 193 (University Boulevard). This option is being considered because of the current high and even higher expected (post-completion and beginning of Purple Line service) transit use volumes within the Riverdale Park community.

Map 1.20 Riverdale Park Transit Recommendations

Patterson St.

62nd Pl.

Rd. Mustang Dr.

Existing Stop to be Removed

hol

son

nv ale

St.

Av e.

Gr ee

54t

Ke n

Nic

th Av e. ilw or

hA ve.

Bus Route to be Re-routed

Jeff erso

Ave . 56th

n St .

55t

Existing WMATA Bus Routes

61st Pl.

n St.

RECOMMENDATIONS Transit

Proposed Purple Line Station

Riverdale Rd.

Powh ata Rd .

ale

Purple Line PA Alignment

a St.

erd Riv

Legend

Quintan

St.

Ave.

58th Ave.

Patte rson

St.

oke

Roan

60th Pl.

e. Av

63rd Ave.

ale

Kenilworth Ave.

Sy ste m ry uta Tri b stia

E PA RK— 1

Riv erd

Rittenhouse St

a Rd

Quin tana

ighw ay

dius

esad

e. Av

West H

RQua

East

-M

ile

Kenilworth Avenue

RIVERDAL

Tra il

Anacostia Tributary Trail System An a

ile

Existing Bus Stop Proposed Bus Stop (Bench, Shelter, Real-time Systems) Data Source: M-NCPPC/ Sabra-Wang & Associates

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

191

Part 3: Recommendations

Pedestrian Recommendations The recommended pedestrian improvements for the Riverdale Park station area are illustrated in Map 1.21 below. To complete a continuous network for pedestrians to access the proposed station by foot in the one-quarter to a half-mile radius, the recommendations include new sidewalks along Roanoke Avenue, Quintana Street, Rittenhouse Street, 56th Avenue, 57th Avenue, and along the north side of Greenvale Parkway. New sidewalks, implementing complete streets components (see Appendix A.2 on page 333), are recommended for areas with proposed new street networks and development such as the area bordered by Kenilworth Avenue to the west, East West Highway to the north, Nicholson Street to the south, and Saint Bernards Drive to the east, as well as the area north of Quesada Road and west of Kenilworth Avenue. Along Kenilworth Avenue, sidewalks with planting strips and tree pits are recommended for both sides of the roadway along with pedestrian lighting. In some cases existing sidewalks would be replaced with lighted paths and buffered areas. Sidepaths are recommended for the south side of East West Highway west of Kenilworth Avenue, the south side

of Greenvale Parkway, and the north side of Quesada Street to connect to the Anacostia Tributary Trail System. Sidepaths are included to offer the highest quality of comfort and convenience to both pedestrians and bicyclists.

Map 1.21 Riverdale Park Pedestrian Recommendations

St.

Av e.

62nd Pl.

61st Pl.

th Ke n

Nic

hol

son

nv ale

St.

63rd Ave.

Mustang Dr.

Gr ee

ilw or

hA ve. 54t

Rd.

st Av e.

ale

erd Riv

Jeff erso

Ave .

n St .

56th

Side Path

60th Pl.

n St.

55t

Sidewalk with Planting Strip

Riverdale Rd.

Powh ata Rd .

Purple Line PA Alignment

Proposed Sidewalk

a St.

Legend

Proposed Purple Line Station

Quintan

Patterson St.

Ave.

ale

Patte rson

St.

oke

Roan

58th Ave.

K—

E PA R RIVERDAL

e. Av

Riv erd

Rittenhouse St

a Rd

57 Quin tana

ighw ay

dius

esad

West H

RQua

RECOMMENDATIONS Pedestrian

East

-M

ile

Kenilworth Avenue

Kenilworth Ave.

Sy ste m

An a

stia

Tri b

uta

Tra il

Anacostia Tributary Trail System

ile

Pedestrian Lighting Existing Sidewalk Data Source: M-NCPPC / Sabra-Wang & Associates

100

200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

192

400

600

Development Strategy | Riverdale Park

Bicycle Recommendations Bicyclists can choose many streets to access the station; however, the recommended bicycle improvements selected for the Riverdale Park station area include a combination of bike lanes, bike routes, shared lanes, and bike sharing as illustrated in Map 1.22. Roanoke Avenue, 58th Avenue, and Quesada Road are proposed to be designated as bike routes. A bike route is a street that is anticipated to carry bicycle traffic to and from the transit station through the neighborhood; drivers are alerted to the presence of cyclist via signage (refer to Appendix A.2 on page 333 for additional information). Shared lanes (wide outside lanes accommodating both vehicles and bicycles) are recommended along Riverdale Road, MD 410 (East West Highway), and MD 201 (Kenilworth Avenue). In the long-term, MD 201 (Kenilworth Avenue) should incorporate designated bike lanes. A connection between the Anacostia Tributary Trails System and MD 410 (East West Highway) is recommended. Bike parking

and bike sharing are recommended at the proposed Purple Line Station. This combination provides bicyclists safe and direct access along the most desired paths in the adjacent neighborhood, trail system, and land uses to access the station.

Map 1.22 Riverdale Park Bicycle Recommendations

ale

RECOMMENDATIONS Bike

Patte rson

St.

62nd Pl.

a St.

Patterson St.

61st Pl.

Quintan

St.

Ave.

60th Pl.

Quin tana

oke

Roan

Riverdale Rd.

Powh ata

n St.

Rd . ale

erd Riv

Rd.

Bike Parking / Rentals

Mustang Dr.

63rd Ave.

Riv erd

e. Av

58th Ave.

E PA RK— RIVERDAL

ighw ay

Rittenhouse St

a Rd

e. Av

West H

dius

esad

East

RQua

Trail Connection

-M

ile

Kenilworth Avenue

Kenilworth Ave.

Sy ste m

An a

stia

Tri b

uta

Tra il

Anacostia Tributary Trail System

ile

Proposed Shared Lane

St.

nv ale

st Av e.

son

Ave .

Ke ni lw or th

hol

Gr ee

Ave .

n St .

56th

Proposed Bike Lane

Pl.

Proposed Bike Route

Streamside Trail Nic

Jeff erso

55t h

Proposed Purple Line Station

54t h

Purple Line PA Alignment

Av e.

Legend

Proposed Side Path Existing Bike Facility Data Source: M-NCPPC/ Sabra-Wang & Associates

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

193

Part 3: Recommendations

Vehicular Recommendations Intersection improvements for the Riverdale Park station area are recommended at MD 201 (Kenilworth Avenue) and Nicholson Street, MD 201 (Kenilworth Avenue) and Rittenhouse Street, and MD 410 (East West Highway) and 58th Avenue. New street connections are recommended to connect 58th Avenue south to Nicholson Street; extend Madison Street and Nicholson Street between MD 201 (Kenilworth Avenue) and 54th Avenue; extend Riverdale Road east of MD 201 (Kenilworth Avenue) toward Greenvale Parkway; and connect Quesada Road through the new commercial areas to the north. The new street connections also aim to minimize vehicular congestion and maintain good vehicular access in and out of the neighborhood. The intersection improvements offer opportunities to better accommodate pedestrians through crosswalks, ramps, and possibly signals. Additionally, car sharing is recommended in the vicinity of the station as reserved onstreet parallel parking spaces or reserved spaces in the adjoining garage.

Additional intersection improvements include access modifications to locations where crossing roadways intersect with the Purple Line alignment. These improvements create a true street grid that efficiently distributes traffic flow and allows for more convenient access to planned land uses.

Parking Recommendations A parking management program is recommended for the neighborhood and future development. This may include a Kiss & Ride area to allow loading and unloading of passengers in the station vicinity along with access management guidelines for new development in the area. For recommended TOD parking ratios, see Section 4.2 Zoning Template on page 258.

Map 1.23 Riverdale Park Vehicular Recommendations

Patterson St.

St.

hol

son

nv ale

St.

Av e.

Ke n

Nic

Av e. th

Gr ee

ilw or

54t hA ve.

Mustang Dr.

63rd Ave.

Jeff erso

56th

Ave .

n St .

55t

Intersection Improvement

62nd Pl.

n St.

Proposed Purple Line Station

Riverdale Rd.

Powh ata

Rd .

RECOMMENDATIONS Vehicular Purple Line PA Alignment

a St.

al erd Riv

Legend

Quintan

58th Ave.

Patte rson

St.

Ave. oke

Roan

61st Pl.

e. Av

60th Pl.

a Rd

ale

Kenilworth Ave.

Sy ste m ry uta Tri b stia co

E PA RK— 1

Riv erd

Rittenhouse St

esad

Quin tana

ighw ay

dius

e. Av

West H

RQua

East

M 4-

ile

RIVERDAL

Tra il

Anacostia Tributary Trail System An a

ile

Kenilworth Avenue

Proposed Street Potential Future Connections Data Source: M-NCPPC/ Sabra-Wang & Associates

100

200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

194

400

600

Development Strategy | M Square (River Road)

1.4

MÂ Square (River Road) Overview 198

West Cam pus

Colle ge Pa UMD rk

Planning Objectives

198

Market Conclusions Summary

198

Community Input Summary

200

TOD Recommendations

201

M Sq

(Rive uare r Roa d)

Rive r

Rive rdale Park

(Bea dale Ro con H a eigh d ts)

197

Part 3: Recommendations

Overview The TOD study area centered on the proposed M Square (River Road) Purple Line Station extends outward a half-mile from the station stop as shown on Map 1.25 on page 199. A half-mile represents an average 10-minute walk. The inner circle represents a quarter-mile radius or an average 5-minute walk. A major vehicular thoroughfare, Kenilworth Avenue, travels through the study area to the east. Area commuters use this road to access larger transportation corridors such as Baltimore-Washington Parkway to the east, I-495 to the north, and East West Highway to the south. Beyond Kenilworth, River Road is the only connecting road through the study area. Additionally, the MARC Camden Line and the Metro Green Line run north-south to the west. Connections between River Road and the residential neighborhood to the south of the proposed station location are made through Rivertech Court. Vehicles use Rivertech Court and travel through a parking lot to connect to Lafayette Avenue. Pedestrians use a paved trail to connect from Rivertech Court to Taylor Road. At the MARC/Metro station, pedestrians use the tunnel to connect west to downtown College Park and the University of Maryland. The Anacostia Tributary Trail System runs to the east, connecting to larger greenway networks north and south. The Trolley Trail also runs north-south, paralleling the rail line just west of the study area. The M Square station area falls within the College Park and Riverdale municipality boundaries. Within a half-mile of the proposed station, land uses include residential, commercial (both office and retail), and industrial as well as parkland. No vertical mixed-use currently exists in the study area. The majority of properties are within the Aviation Policy Area (APA-6) and are subject to certain height and notification requirements. Within APA-6, no building permit may be approved for a structure higher than 50 feet unless the applicant demonstrates compliance with Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77. Additionally, the districtwide development and guidelines of the Approved Transit District Development Plan for College Park-Riverdale Transit District Overlay Zone have specific maximum heights for the entire transit district, which vary per parcel. Publicly owned land predominates in the station area with more than 90 percent of the land area owned by the State of Maryland, M-NCPPC, WMATA, or the federal government. Office buildings within the M Square Research Park include federal tenants that require secure facilities, including FDA, NOAA, and the Center for Advanced Language Studies. Existing development at M Square is based on a suburban office park model and is not currently transit-oriented or pedestrian-friendly. However, the University of Maryland has expressed interest in helping M-NCPPC to put development standards in place to promote future TOD at this station site. The existing declaration of covenants with Riverdale Park, requiring large front setbacks and limitation on certain uses as well as the current security requirements and methods of federal tenants, are hurdles to shifting the development pattern of the M Square Research Park from suburban and autocentric to more urban and transit-oriented. Retail is focused along Kenilworth Avenue and is largely one-story strip commercial.

198

The existing residential is located to the south and includes the Riverdale Park Historic District. The Calvert Hills Historic District to the west of the rail line lies just outside the half-mile study area. One in five residents within the M Square station area is under 20 and the median age is 22.9 according to census 2000 data. A large share of residents in the study area own their homes, estimated at 73 percent in 2010. The half-mile study area captures most of the 300 residential units in the Town of Riverdale with 85 percent of housing units in single-family homes. The M Square (River Road) station area consists of moderate-income households with a median household income of $60,921 and 45.4 percent of households earning between $30,000 and $74,999. This income distribution highlights the presence of University of Maryland students who receive minimal income.

Planning Objectives As previously listed in Section 1.1 Overview, general planning objectives were established to help achieve the overall goal of lively, walkable, and attractive transit-oriented communities for all five station areas. Based on M Square (River Road) station area’s unique existing conditions and opportunities, a more definitive list of planning objectives was established. For M Square (River Road), the planning objectives include: • Establish additional street connections through large development areas, including M Square Research Park, providing alternative vehicular and pedestrian routes and relieving congestion on larger thoroughfares as future development is built; currently River Road provides the only connection through the study area connecting Kenilworth Avenue and Paint Branch Parkway. • Strengthen trail connections from the proposed Purple Line station area and current office development to the Anacostia Tributary Trail System throughout the study area as currently only limited connections to the existing trail system exist. • Target the 1/8-mile core area around the M Square station for new mixed-use development, including residential and retail, while single-use, secure office buildings will continue to infill the M Square Research Park.

Market Conclusions Summary The majority of the current opportunities for new development within the M Square station area are for commercial buildings. The station area, with easy access to Metro, remains one of the key office locations within the proposed Purple Line submarket. The M Square Research Park could enhance its ability to compete in the regional office market by creating an attractive place for workers and residents. Creating a mixed-use environment with access to transit and amenities, including restaurants, public open spaces, and some residential to enliven the space after the business day, could improve the research park’s draw. Projected growth could increase by 40 percent in the M Square area, totaling 230,000 square feet of new development prior to the Purple Line construction and an additional 160,000 square feet after

Development Strategy | M Square (River Road)

Map 1.24 Key Map 1/2 Mile Radius Existing Roads MARC/Metro Rail Lines Purple Line Alignment Purple Line Stations

Ad elp h

UMD Campus Center

w y.

shing ton Pkw y.

Ba lti m

Good Luck Rd.

Baltimore Ave. (U S

Belcrest Rd.

Adelphi Rd.

M Square

Ve ter an s

Riverdale Park

Pk w

0) 41

Ave.

R iverdale Rd.

D (M

51st

(Beacon Heights) (MD 4 10)

Rd.

e ue

Riverdale Road

Hwy.

MA R C/ Met ro R ail

r Age

p ha

Rive r Rd.

(River Road)

East W est

Map 1.25 M Square (River Road)—Existing Conditions

o re

t Bra Pain

College Park UMD

Av e. (M

University of Maryland

Kenilwo rth

West Campus

D 20 1)

East Campus

y Blvd. E Universit

-Wa

Un ive

rsit y

Blv d. E

i Rd

completion. In addition to the office development, the M Square area may support up to 9,000 square feet of retail and approximately 90,000 square feet of flex/industrial space. A small portion of infill residential development is already planned for nearby communities, and available development sites will capture much of the residential demand. With the research park adapted as a mixed-use environment with an additional 630 residential units, approximately 70 percent of the new housing will be provided in multifamily buildings. The residential build-out for this area relies heavily on changes to existing development patterns and starts with less than one-third of these new residential units being developed prior to the construction of the proposed Purple Line.

Pain t Bra nch Pkw y.

1/2 Mile Radius

Ken i

lwo

rth

Ave .

Univ ersity Research Ct. Dr. Haig

Lafa yett e

Ave.

Riv ert e

ch Ct .

MAR C

/ Me

tro R

ail

1/4 Mile Radius

River

Rd.

Taylor Rd .

Tuckerman St.

LEGEND

EastWest

Purple Line Route Proposed by MTA

Hwy.

(MD 41

Proposed M Square (River Road) Station 0

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

199

Part 3: Recommendations

Use Type and Architectural Character Stakeholders preferred mixed-use development, including retail, restaurants, and residential, located near the transit stations.

Community workshop opening presentation

Amenities and Open Spaces Stakeholders noted the need for more usable open spaces with seating, picnic tables, lighting, and trash cans.

Streetscape Character Stakeholders noted the need for pedestrian amenities such as shade trees along streets and continuous sidewalks along Kenilworth Avenue.

Mobility Choices Connectivity and Access Stakeholders noted the need for bike paths along River Road and additional connections to the trail systems. Additionally, they desired strong connections to surrounding neighborhoods, including the proposed Cafritz development. Stakeholders preferred multimodal access with bus stops near the rail stops and coordinated service.

Community workshop open house discussions

Station Character/Identity Stakeholders noted the need for directional signage at the station and the desire to identify areas that are unique and historical. Stakeholders identified lighting and safety as important concerns. They also noted the importance of establishing a unique identity for the station, highlighting technology and research and including a tower or gateway element to signify arrival. Community workshop small group discussions

Community workshop stakeholder presentation

200

Development Strategy | M Square (River Road)

TOD Recommendations The TOD Recommendations for the MÂ Square (River Road) station area focus on properties (excluding the existing residential single-family lots and parkland) within a half-mile of the proposed station. Properties for redevelopment were selected based on proximity to the proposed station, ownership, size, and the conditions of the building. For these properties, the recommendations address land use, phasing, open space, street network, streetscape, and transportation. Transportation recommendations are separated into five components, including transit, pedestrian, bicycle, vehicular, and parking. The redevelopment strategy is divided into two phases, short-term (before Purple Line completion) and long-term (after Purple Line completion). Below, River Road is envisioned as a mixed-use street with accommodations for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists transformed from its existing autooriented condition. The rendering below illustrates some of the primary planning objectives for this study area, including complete streets and mixeduse buildings fronting and defining streetscape.

Existing view at River Road and University Research Court

Perspective of station at River Road and University Research Court

201

Part 3: Recommendations

TOD Concept

Map 1.26 M Square (River Road) TOD Concept

nd Ave.

For the M Square (River Road) station study area, the primary planning recommendations are:

MAR C

• New four- to eight-story mixed-use development. • Limited ground-floor retail focused at the intersection of River Road and Haig Drive. • Mixed-use development primarily focused on office with limited pedestrian-friendly retail, restaurants, and residential uses concentrated around the station. • Integrated pocket parks and greens to address office workers’ desires for outdoor seating and eating areas as well as to accommodate community activities for future residents. • River Road features a new multipurpose sidepath, pedestrian-scaled lighting, and improved intersections at University Research Court and Rivertech Court. • New and enhanced trail connections integrated into the station area and the Anacostia Tributary Trail System.

Brid

ge c onne

ction

to U S

-1

The final route and station locations will be determined through MTA’s Purple Line engineering effort.

LEGEND

Building Frontage Open Space

Lafa yett e

Ave.

Tuc

Block / Edges Views / Axes Purple Line PA Sidepath Existing Street Improvements Proposed Street Improvements Potential Future Connections 0

100

200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

202

400

600

East W est H

wy. (M

D 410

Development Strategy | M Square (River Road)

Pain t Bra nch Pkw y.

1/2-Mile R adius

Ave . rth lwo

Rd .

Ken i

Univ . Research Ct.

Riv er

Riv ert e

ch Ct .

Met

ro R a

Haig Dr.

Taylor R d.

ckerman St.

203

Part 3: Recommendations

Metro rail line, and US 1, a potential bridge over the MARC/Metro rail line is planned south of the American Association of Physics Teachers building and north of Tuckerman Street.

Within the short-term period for the M Square (River Road) station area, there is currently a development plan for M Square Research Park Lots 15–17, including three 5-story office buildings, one 4-level garage, surface parking, and a pocket park. Infrastructure improvements to existing streets prior to the opening of the Purple Line is critical in the short-term period to ensure that pedestrian and bicycle connectivity is improved and vehicular access is maintained. For example, improvements to River Road should coincide with the construction of the Purple Line route and station and be complete when rail service begins. Additionally, to provide connection to the residential neighborhood to the south of the Riverdale Park Historic District, Rivertech Court should be extended to Lafayette Avenue. Also, to provide a connection to the future Cafritz development, existing neighborhoods west of the MARC/

Map 1.27 M Square (River Road) Redevelopment Strategy—Short-Term P

1/2-Mile R adius

Redevelopment Office

Rhode Islan

d Ave.

Pain t Bra nch Pkw y.

Redevelopment Office Parking Garage

ail

Redevelopment Residential Parking Garage

Purple Line PA Existing Street Improvements Proposed Street Improvements Park Land/ Open Space Office

Lafa yett e

Ave.

Taylor Rd .

Tuckerman St.

LEGEND

East W est H

wy. (M

Retail

Redevelopment Ground-Level Retail Residential Parking Garage

r th lwo

Redevelopment Office Parking Garage

Ave .

Redevelopment Ground-Level Retail Office

Ken i

Rd .

Univ . Research Ct.

Riv er

Riv ert e

Redevelopment Office Parking Garage

ch Ct .

MAR C

/Me

tro R

Haig Dr.

D 410

)

Residential

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

204

April 4, 2012 Prince George’s County Planning Department

THE MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION

PRR, Inc. Sabra, Wang, & Associates, Inc. Partners for Economic Solutions, LLC

Redevelopment Strategy - Long Term M Square (River Road) - Purple Line TOD Study

connecting

Development Strategy | M Square (River Road)

Redevelopment Strategy—Long Term The long-term strategy governs development for the time period after the completion of the Purple Line once rail service begins.

station area into a vibrant transit hub and destination. The majority of the planned commercial and residential will require structured parking within the individual development parcels in order to meet density goals. Abovegrade structured parking should be concealed behind either residential units or commercial spaces to keep the parking garage from public view while residential units/commercial spaces face the street.

Within the long-term period for the M Square (River Road) station area, the vacant parcels along River Road, Rivertech Court, and within M Square Research Park are envisioned to be redeveloped as a mix of office and residential development with limited amounts of retail. The majority of office is planned within the M Square Research Park and comprises general office as well as research facilities. Additional office is planned directly north of the extended Rivertech Court. Residential development, primarily as multifamily apartments, is planned between Rivertech Court and Haig Drive, south of River Road as well as between the MARC/Metro rail line and River Road. Limited retail is planned at the groundlevel of the residential buildings focused around the Purple Line Station. Locating new residential development along with retail and restaurants adjacent to the station, where none exists currently, will help transform the

Map 1.28 M Square (River Road) Redevelopment Strategy—Long-Term P

Rhode Islan

d Ave.

Redevelopment Office

Pain t Bra nch Pkw y.

1/2-Mile R adius

P P

ail

Redevelopment Residential Parking Garage

Redevelopment Office Parking Garage

Purple Line PA Existing Street Improvements Proposed Street Improvements Park Land/ Open Space

Lafa yett e

Ave.

Taylor Rd .

Tuckerman St.

LEGEND

East W est H

wy. (M

Office

Redevelopment Ground-Level Retail Residential Parking Garage

Redevelopment Office Parking Garage

hA ve. lwo rt

Rd .

Redevelopment Ground-Level Retail Office

Ken i

Riv er

Riv ert e

Redevelopment Office Parking Garage

ch Ct .

Univ . Research Ct.

MAR C

/Me

tro R

Haig Dr.

D 410

)

Retail Residential 0

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

205

Part 3: Recommendations

Open Space For the M Square (River Road) station area, a pocket park is proposed as a part of the new development planned for M Square Research Park Lots 15–17. The pocket park design should integrate seating and eating areas for employees as well as secondary gateway elements at the entrance off River Road. A green, fronting River Road between Rivertech Court and Haig Drive, is recommended to be adjacent to the residential buildings to accommodate passive recreation activities. Additionally, the north portion of the study area includes a reconfigured and enhanced greenway connecting the College ParkUMD Metro Station to the Anacostia Tributary Trail System. Proper design of these open spaces is critical to their function. Usability, sustainability, and accessibility should be considered. Landscape plantings, walls, grade changes, and similar enhancements should be used to buffer open spaces from the street traffic for safety and enjoyment of the spaces. Shaded seating areas should be incorporated. Accessibility for those with limited mobility should be considered in the design and material selections. Plant materials should be selected from native species.

Map 1.29 M Square (River Road) Open Space d Ave.

Pain t Bra nch Pkw y.

Rhode Islan

1/2-Mile R adius

Paint Branch Parkway Comm. Park

Riverdale Neighborhood Playground

Haig Dr.

Taylor Rd .

Tuckerman St.

Wetland/Stream/ Water Bodies Existing—Trail Proposed— Sidepath 0

100

200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

206

400

600

Lafa yett e

Existing— Park/Open Space Proposed— Park/Open Space

Ave.

LEGEND

East W est H

wy. (M

D 410

)

Riverdale Comm. Rec. Center

lwo rth Ave .

Ken i

Ri ve Northea st

Bran ch A nac ost ia

Rd .

Anacostia River Stream Valley Park

Univ . Research Ct.

Riv er

Riv ert e

ch Ct .

MAR C

/Me

tro R

ail

Calvert Neighborhood Park

Development Strategy | M Square (River Road)

Street Network For the M Square (River Road) station area, River Road is the primary commercial street; the majority of other streets within the M Square Research Park boundary are the secondary commercial streets. Components of a successful commercial street in this study area include wide sidewalks to accommodate pedestrian movement and ground-level commercial activity,such as outdoor dining; curb-to-building widths ranging between 15–24 feet with a minimum 6-foot clear pedestrian passage; building front setbacks between 0–10 feet; tree pits or rainwater planters lining the street edge to provide shade; and a buffer between the pedestrian zone and vehicular travel lanes. Neighborhood streets throughout the study area are characterized by narrower curb-to-building widths, generally 13 feet wide from curb to building with a 5-foot minimum sidewalk; building setbacks of 5–20 feet, allowing front yards for residential properties; and planting strips to provide a continuous buffer between the pedestrian zone and the travel lanes. View of proposed sidepath along River Road at University Research Ct.

Map 1.30 M Square (River Road) Street Network P

d Ave.

1/2-Mile R adius

Rhode Islan

Pain t Bra nch Pkw y.

ail

Rd .

Riv ert e

Riv er

Ave .

-1

rth

to U S

lwo

ction

ch Ct .

ge c onne

Ken i

Brid

Univ . Research Ct.

MAR C

/Me

tro R

Haig Dr.

Taylor Rd .

Tuckerman St.

100

200

400

600

Lafa yett e

ExistingStreet— Street— Existing Commercial Commercial Street Type Street Type ExistingStreet— Street— Existing Neighborhood Neighborhood Street Type Street Type Proposed Street— Street— Proposed Commercial Commercial Street Type Street Type ProposedStreet— Street— Proposed Neighborhood Neighborhood Street Type Street Type

Ave.

LEGEND

East W est H

wy. (M

D 410

)

SCALE: 1” = 200’

207

Part 3: Recommendations

Street Sections

8’

12’

5’

12’

4’

25’

River Road Right-of-Way

Fig. 1.5: M Square—River Road Existing Street Section Looking West

SF PZ

2’ 6’

7’

KEY L

11’ Travel Lane

38’

PZ SF

10’

7’

11’

5’

11’

7’

10’

6’ 2’

River Road Right-of-Way

Fig. 1.6: M Square—River Road Proposed Street Section Looking West

PL Purple Line CP 10’ min. Cycle Path Zone T

7’ Planting Zone

PZ 6-15’ Pedestrian Zone SF 2’ Storefront Zone

Notes: Final dimensions and configuration to be coordinated with MTA, SHA, and DPW&T.

208

Development Strategy | M Square (River Road)

Transit Recommendations The key transit improvements recommended for the M Square (River Road) station area are the placement and improvement of bus stops along River Road and MD 201 (Kenilworth Avenue). The bus stop locations are on River Road at MD 201 (Kenilworth Avenue), University Research Court, Rivertech Court, and on MD 201 (Kenilworth Avenue) at Tennyson Street, as illustrated in Map 1.31. Bus stop improvements include the addition of shelters, lighting, and benches as well as real-time transit information displays. Existing bus stops and bus routes also shown in the vicinity of the proposed station may be consolidated to the proposed locations so as to ensure pedestrian access to transit is accessible (ADA compliant) and occurs in the most feasible and desirable location available for both operational needs and comfort. Note: Bus stop locations need to be further studied and coordinated with DPW&T.

d Ra

Pain t Bra nch Pkw y.

Legend

Purple Line PA Alignment

Ave . lwo rth Ken i

N Br orth an ea ch st

ius ch Ct .

Univ ersity Research Ct. Dr. Haig

Ave.

Riv ert e

MAR C

1/4-Mile R ad

/ Me

tro R

ail

Anacostia Tributary Trail System

Lafa yett e

RECOMMENDATIONS Transit

M SQUARE (R ive

r Ro ad

)—

ile

51st

Ave.

Map 1.31 M Square (River Road) Transit Recommendations

River

Rd.

Taylor Rd .

Tuckerman St.

Proposed Purple Line Station Existing WMATA Bus Routes Existing Bus Stop Proposed Bus Stop (Bench, Shelter, Real-time Systems)

EastWest

Hwy.

(MD 41

Data Source: M-NCPPC/ Sabra-Wang & Associates 0

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

209

Part 3: Recommendations

Pedestrian Recommendations The recommended pedestrian improvements are illustrated in Map 1.32 below for the M Square (River Road) station area. To complete a continuous network for pedestrians to access the proposed station by foot in the ¼ to a ½-mile radius, the recommendations include new sidewalks along Taylor Road and the north side of Rivertech Road Extended. Along River Road, sidepaths are recommended for both sides of the roadway along with pedestrian lighting. Sidepaths are also recommended for the south side of Rivertech Road Extended to connect to Lafayette Avenue. Sidepaths are recommended to connect the Anacostia Tributary Trail System at Haig Drive to Rivertech Court and University Research Court to northwest towards River Road. Sidepaths are included to offer the highest quality of comfort and convenience to both pedestrians and bicyclists.

d Ra

Pain t Bra nch Pkw y.

—

ile

51st

Ave.

Map 1.32 M Square (River Road) Pedestrian Recommendations

River

hA ve. Ken ilw ort

N Br orth an ea ch st

Univ ersity Research Ct. Dr. Haig

ch Ct .

1/4-Mile R ad ius

ail / Me tro R MAR C Ave.

Riv ert e

RECOMMENDATIONS Pedestrian

Lafa yett e

M SQUARE (R iver

Roa

Anacostia Tributary Trail System

Rd.

Legend Tuckerman St. Taylor Rd .

Purple Line PA Alignment Proposed Purple Line Station Proposed Sidewalk Proposed Sidepath Pedestrian Lighting EastWest

Existing Sidewalk

Hwy.

(MD 41

Data Source: M-NCPPC/ Sabra-Wang & Associates 0

100

200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

210

400

600

Development Strategy | M Square (River Road)

Bicycle Recommendations Bicyclists can choose many streets to access the station; however, the recommended bicycle improvements selected for the M Square (River Road) station area include a combination of bike routes and bike sharing as illustrated in Map 1.31. A sidepath for shared-use by cyclists and pedestrians is proposed along River Road through the station area. Bicycle connections through the University Research Court area and between the Anacostia Tributary Trails System and 52nd Avenue (south of Paint Branch Avenue) are recommended via sidepaths as well. Bike parking and bike sharing are recommended at the proposed Purple Line Station. This combination provides bicyclists safe and direct access along the most desired paths from the adjacent neighborhood, trail system, campus, and employment centers to access the station.

d Ra

Pain t Bra nch Pkw y.

RECOMMENDATIONS Bike

Ave . rth Ken i

lwo

N Br orth an ea ch st

Univ ersity Research Ct. Dr. Haig

ch Ct .

1/4-Mile R ad

Lafa yett e Av e.

Riv ert e

MAR C

ius

ail

Anacostia Tributary Trail System

/ Me tro R

M SQUARE (R ive

r Ro ad

)—

ile

51st

Ave.

Map 1.33 M Square (River Road) Bicycle Recommendations

River

Rd.

Tuckerman St.

Taylor Rd .

Legend

Purple Line PA Alignment Proposed Purple Line Station Proposed Bike Route Existing Bike Facility EastWest

Hwy.

(MD 41

Proposed Sidepath Data Source: M-NCPPC/ Sabra-Wang & Associates 0

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

211

Part 3: Recommendations

Vehicular Recommendations Intersection improvements for the M Square (River Road) station area are illustrated in Map 1.34 below. Improvements are recommended for River Road at University Research Court and at Rivertech Court as well as at any proposed streets. A new east-west street is recommended along the greenway to improve grid connections with extensions running south of 51st, 52nd Avenues, and University Research Court. A northern extension of University Research Court, connecting from the new east-west street to Paint Branch Parkway, would provide better connectivity but is not planned at this time due to Linson Pool-Wells Ice Rink expansion plans (this may be further evaluated during the College Park-Riverdale TDDP-TDOZ update). Additionally, a street extension is proposed to connect development on Rivertech Court to Lafayette Avenue to the west. The access road to the American Association of Physics Teachers site is proposed to be realigned opposite the entrance to lots 15–17 of the M Square Research Park when future development occurs.

New street connections also aim to minimize vehicular congestion and maintain good vehicular access in and out of the adjacent employment centers. The intersection improvements will better accommodate pedestrians through crosswalks, ramps, and possibly signals. Additional intersection improvements include access modifications to locations where crossing roadways intersect with the Purple Line alignment. Car sharing is recommended in the vicinity of the station. The intersection of River Road and Haig Drive will be modified prior to the station opening. The intersection’s proposed configuration, a roundabout, will return to a traditional intersection, aligning with the roadway network surrounding the station. These improvements create a true street grid that efficiently distributes traffic flow and allows for more convenient access to planned land uses.

d Ra

Pain t Bra nch Pkw y.

—

ile

51st

Ave.

Map 1.34 M Square (River Road) Vehicular Recommendations

Ave . r th Ken i

lwo

N Br orth an ea c h st

Univ ersity Research Ct. Dr.

1/4 Mile R ad

ch Ct .

ius

Rail etro MAR C/M

Ave.

Riv ert e

Haig

RECOMMENDATIONS Vehicular

Lafa yett e

Potential bridge connection to US-1

M SQUARE (Ri ve

r Ro a

Anacostia Tributary Trail System

River

Rd.

Tuckerman St.

Legend

Taylor Rd .

Purple Line PA Alignment Proposed Purple Line Station Intersection Improvement Proposed Street EastWest

Potential Future Connections

Hwy.

(MD 41

Data Source: M-NCPPC/ Sabra-Wang & Associates 0

100

200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

212

400

600

Development Strategy | M Square (River Road)

Parking Recommendations A Kiss & Ride area is recommended to allow loading and unloading of passengers in the station vicinity. Additionally, a parking management plan is recommended for neighborhood residents as well as office workers. For recommended TOD parking ratios, see Section 4.2 Zoning Template on page 260.

213

Development Strategy | College Park-UMD

1.5

College Park-UMD Overview 216

West Cam pus

Colle ge Pa UMD rk

Planning Objectives

216

Market Conclusions Summary

216

Community Input Summary

218

TOD Recommendations

219

M Sq

(Rive uare r Roa d)

Rive r

Rive rdale Park

(Bea dale Ro con H a eigh d ts)

215

Part 3: Recommendations

Overview The TOD study area centered on the proposed College Park-UMD Purple Line station extends outward a half-mile from the station stop, as shown on Map 1.36 on page 217. A half-mile represents an average 10-minute walk. The inner circle represents a quarter-mile radius or an average 5-minute walk.

in four households in the station area are one-person households. This area’s student population impacts household formation. Household size averages only 2.2 persons. In comparison, Prince George’s County and Suburban Maryland have average household sizes of 2.78 and 2.73 persons, respectively.

The proposed Purple Line College Park-UMD station location is set back from River Road located just south of the existing MARC/Metro station on the east side of the WMATA rail lines. Gateway roads to the University of Maryland, such as Paint Branch Parkway, travel through the study area as do existing public transportation routes, including Metro’s Green Line Station, MARC’s Camden line, and numerous bus routes, including WMATA, University of Maryland Shuttle-UM, and CMRT bus routes. Commuters arrive at the MARC/Metro station from the east and west side of the rail lines, utilizing pedestrian tunnels under the tracks, surface parking, structured parking, Kiss & Ride drop-off zones, bus drop-off zones, and bike storage areas.

Planning Objectives

The College Park-UMD half-mile station area falls within the College Park and Riverdale municipality boundaries. The study area is divided into two distinctly different development patterns to the west and east of the rail line. To the west lay the Old Town College Park Historic District and the Calvert Hills Historic District. These two districts within the City of College Park are mixeduse, predominantly residential with commercial and institutional properties concentrated closer to MD 1 (Baltimore Avenue) and Paint Branch Parkway. Within the study area, approximately 620 households are located, of which about half are single-family units. Due to the proximity to the University of Maryland, many of the single-family houses are rented to students. Small blocks and a girded network of streets compose the neighborhoods to the west. To the east of the MARC/Metro rail line, the small block and street pattern gives way to an office/industrial park environment. No vertical mixed-use currently exists within this area. Surrounding offices within the M Square Research Park that include federal tenants requiring secure facilities include FDA, NOAA, and the Center for Advanced Language Studies. Existing development at M Square is based on a suburban office park model and is not currently transit oriented or pedestrian-friendly. However, the University of Maryland has expressed interest in helping M-NCPPC to put development standards in place to promote future TOD at this station site. Located north of Paint Branch Parkway are small-scale industrial buildings, a tennis facility, and the College Park Airport. An ice rink and parkland are located to the east. The majority of properties are within APA-6 and are subject to certain height and notification requirements. Within APA-6, structures taller than 50 feet may not be approved unless the structure demonstrates compliance with FAR Part 77. Publicly owned land predominates; more than ninety percent of the land area is owned by the State of Maryland, M-NCPPC, WMATA, or the federal government. Closer to the University of Maryland, the dynamics of the housing units shift as the student population impacts the housing supply. In the half-mile radius around the College Park-UMD Metro Station, 37 percent of all units are multifamily in buildings with five or more units. As would be expected, one

216

As previously listed in Section 1.1 Overview, general planning objectives were established to help achieve the overall goal of lively, walkable, and attractive transit-oriented communities for all five station areas. Based on College ParkUMD station area’s unique existing conditions and opportunities, a more definitive list of planning objectives was established. For College Park-UMD, the planning objectives include: • Establish additional street connections through large development areas, including M Square Research Park and the industrial area north of Paint Branch Parkway, providing alternative vehicular and pedestrian routes and relieving congestion on larger thoroughfares as future development is built; currently Paint Branch Parkway provides the only connection through the study area connecting Kenilworth Avenue and Baltimore Avenue. • Link the station character with the area’s aviation history; currently the study area is defined by light industrial and suburban office buildings, with little recognition of the historic College Park Airport, the world’s oldest continuously-operated airport. • Strengthen trail connections from the proposed Purple Line station area and current office development to the Anacostia Tributary Trail System throughout the study area, including revitalizing the existing natural area south of the FDA building as currently only limited connections to the trail system exist. • Provide a signature plaza at the intersection of Paint Branch Parkway and River Road as a gateway for the study area to reinforce a sense of place and arrival, while providing an anchor for surrounding redevelopment; currently the study area lacks a central area defining it as a neighborhood. • While single-use, secure office buildings will continue to infill the M Square Research Park, target the 1/8-mile core area around the College Park-UMD Metro Station for new mixed-use development including residential and retail.

Market Conclusions Summary The College Park-UMD station area combines stable residential neighborhoods, industrial, and commercial uses along an existing rail line. The nearby University of Maryland campus and spin-off development make a dynamic land-use mix. New development will occur in the College Park-UMD area based on current market demand with the key limitation being availability of land and/or opportunity to expand a current office product. In addition

Development Strategy | College Park-UMD

Map 1.35 Key Map 1/2 Mile Radius Existing Roads MARC/Metro Rail Lines Purple Line Alignment Purple Line Stations

Ad elp h rsit y

D 20 1)

East Campus

y Blvd. E Universit

w y.

o re

Ba lti m

Kenilwo rth

t Bra Pain

College Park UMD

Av e. (M

University of Maryland

West Campus

shing ton Pkw y.

Un ive

UMD Campus Center

-Wa

Blv d. E

i Rd Adelphi Rd.

Good Luck Rd.

Baltimore Ave. (U S

Belcrest Rd.

to the approved M Square Lots 15–17 office buildings and other M Square development projects, current estimates suggest approximately 40,000 to 46,000 square feet of office and a few new retail offerings prior to the opening of the Purple Line. In addition, the market would support more than 1,200 new housing units prior to the opening of the Purple Line with approximately 90 percent as rental to meet the college student demand. The proposed Purple Line and the planned WMATA development will increase additional demand, resulting in steady office growth of another 40,000 square feet through 2025 and, importantly, an increase in residential development. Projections assume the ability to offer more dense residential products for a total of approximately 1,700 new rental apartment and 80 condominium residential units.

M Square (River Road)

East W est

r Age

(Beacon Heights) (MD 4 10)

Ve ter an s

R iverdale Rd.

Pk w y.

Rd.

e ue

Riverdale Road

Hwy.

MA R C/ Met ro R ail

e ap

Rive r Rd.

D (M

Riverdale Park

0) 41

Map 1.36 College Park-UMD Station Area—Existing Conditions 1/2 Mile Radius

Colle

ge Av e.

Rhod

Hop ki

e Isla

ns Av e.

nd Av e.

1/4 Mile Radius

mbia

ge A ve.

ral Fr ank Scott D

Colu

Calver

Colle

Ave.

outh

Ave.

Rd.

Dartm

t Rd.

Corp o

Bow doin

Ave .

Harv ard Rd .

Pain t

Bra

nch

Pkw

52n d Ave .

51st Ave.

r Rd .

Drexel Rd.

Rive

Erskine Rd.

/Met

Fordham Rd.

ro Ra

Guilf ord Rd .

MAR C

Knox

LEGEND

Purple Line Route Proposed by MTA Proposed College ParkUMD Station 0

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

217

Part 3: Recommendations

Use Type and Architectural Character Stakeholders preferred mixed-use development, including retail, restaurants, and residential, located near the transit stations.

Community Workshop opening presentation

Amenities and Open Spaces Stakeholders noted the need for more usable open spaces with seating, picnic tables, lighting, and trash cans.

Streetscape Character Stakeholders noted the need for pedestrian amenities such as shade trees along streets and continuous sidewalks along Kenilworth Avenue.

Community Workshop open house discussions

Community Workshop Stakeholder presentation

218

Development Strategy | College Park-UMD

TOD Recommendations The TOD Recommendations for the College Park-UMD station area focused on properties (excluding the existing residential single-family lots and parkland) within a half-mile of the proposed station. Properties for redevelopment were selected based on proximity to the proposed station, ownership, size, and the condition of the building. For these properties, the recommendations address land use, phasing, open space, street network, streetscape, and transportation. Transportation recommendations are separated into five components, including transit, pedestrian, bicycle, vehicular, and parking.

a new bus turn-around, the existing MARC/Metro station, and the proposed Purple Line Station. Additionally, new infill mixed-use development is shown between Paint Branch Parkway and the College Park Airport.

The redevelopment strategy is divided into two phases, short-term (before Purple Line completion) and long-term (after Purple Line completion). Below, the College Park-UMD station area is envisioned as a dense mixeduse transit hub with a large greenway and network of complete streets that accommodate pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists, transformed from its existing auto-oriented and suburban office park condition. The perspective below illustrates some of the primary planning objectives for this study area, including the use of open space to establish connections and mixeduse buildings fronting along the street and focused near the station. In the foreground of the perspective, the proposed WMATA mixed-use buildings can be seen between River Road and the expanded transit hub that includes

Perspective of proposed Greenway and redevelopment near the College Park-UMD transit hub

219

Part 3: Recommendations

TOD Concept

Map 1.37 College Park-UMD TOD Concept

The TOD concept diagram for the half-mile study area focuses on block configurations, building frontages, open space locations, trail connections, street networks, and important gateways and views. For the College Park-UMD station study area, the primary planning recommendations are: • New four- to eight-story mixed-use development. • Limited ground-floor retail along Paint Branch Parkway, River Road, and River Road Extended north of Paint Branch Parkway. • Mixed-use development with a primary focus on office uses with residential development largely concentrated north of Paint Branch Parkway along 51st Avenue and near the existing MARC/Metro station and proposed Purple Line Station as part of WMATA’s proposed mixeduse development. • A restored greenway extending from River Road to the Anacostia Tributary Trail System. • Intersection improvements along River Road at the College Park-UMD Metro Station entrance and along Paint Branch Parkway at 52nd Avenue as well as the proposed extension of College Avenue improve accessibility and pedestrian safety. • Paint Branch Parkway improved with the addition of a new multipurpose sidepath and pedestrian-scaled lighting.

Colle g

Hop ki

ns A ve.

Rhod

e Ave .

Knox

Rd.

The final route and station locations will be determined through MTA’s Purple Line engineering effort.

Guilf ord

LEGEND

Building Frontage Open Space Block/Edges Views/Axes Purple Line PA Proposed— Sidepath Existing Street Improvements Proposed Street Improvements Potential Future Connections 0

100

200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

220

400

600

Development Strategy | College Park-UMD

bia A ve.

Colu m

alver

Dart

mou

th Av e.

de Is land

Ave.

1/2-Mile Radius

t Rd.

Colle g

e Av e.

Drexel Rd.

ary T ra

Bra

nch

Pkw

Anac ostia Tribu t

Ave.

Pain t

52nd

51st

r Rd .

Rive

Erskine Rd.

/Me

Rd.

MAR C

Fordham

tro R

ail

d Rd .

Ave.

Bow doin

il Sys tem

Ave .

221

Part 3: Recommendations

Redevelopment Strategy—Short Term The short-term strategy governs development for the time period between the completion of this study and the completion of the Purple Line, when the rail line begins service. Within the short-term period for the College Park-UMD station area, there is currently a redevelopment plan for the WMATA site between the MARC/ Metro rail line and River Road that includes two 6-story office buildings with ground-level retail and a 5-story residential multifamily building wrapping structured parking. Infrastructure improvements to existing streets prior to the opening of the Purple Line are critical in the short term to ensure that pedestrian and bicycle connectivity is improved and vehicular access maintained. For example, the improvements of River Road and Paint Branch Parkway should coincide with the construction of the Purple Line route and station and be complete when rail service begins. The road reconstruction will include intersection improvements as well as improved pedestrian and bicycle connections.

Map 1.38 College Park-UMD Redevelopment Strategy—Short-Term

mou

bia A ve.

th Av e.

Redevelopment Knox Ground-Level Retail along Riverdale Rd. Rd. Office above

Colu m

Colle g

LEGEND

Purple Line PA Existing Street Improvements Proposed Street Improvements Park Land/ Open Space

Office Redevelopment Office 5-Story Parking Garage

Retail Residential

100

200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

222

400

600

Bra

Ave.

Pain t

52nd

r Rd .

Erskine Rd.

Drexel Rd.

Rive

Rd.

MAR C

Fordham

/Me tro R

ail

rd Rd .

Ave.

Guilfo

51st

Redevelopment Limited Ground-Level Retail along Riverdale Rd. Residential above Parking Garage

e Av e.

Ave .

Rd.

Bow doin

Calve rt

Dart

Hop kin

s Ave .

Rhod

e Ave .

e Isla

Colle g

nd A ve.

1/2-Mile Radius

nch

Pkw

Development Strategy | College Park-UMD

Redevelopment Strategy—Long Term The long-term strategy governs development for the time period after the completion of the Purple Line once rail service begins.

planned commercial and residential will require structured parking within the individual development parcels.

Within the long-term period for the College Park-UMD station area, the major parcels along River Road, Paint Branch Parkway, College Avenue, and within M Square Research Park are envisioned to be redeveloped as a mix of office and residential development with limited amounts of ground-level retail.

To note, the new multifamily, mixed-use development parcel between River Road and the Purple Line rail line could potentially happen within the shortterm strategy if WMATA and the selected developer for the joint development site move the project forward in the next few years.

The majority of office is planned within the M Square Research Park and includes general office as well as research facilities. Additional office is planned directly north of Paint Branch Parkway at the intersection of River Road Extended. Residential development, primarily in multifamily apartment buildings, is planned between River Road and the Purple Line rail line as well as north of Paint Branch Park along College Avenue. Locating new residential development along with retail and restaurants adjacent to the station, where none exist currently, will help transform the station area into a vibrant transit hub and destination. The majority of the

Map 1.39 College Park-UMD Redevelopment Strategy—Long-Term 1/2-Mile Radius

nd A ve.

Redevelopment Ground-Level Retail Office Parking Garage

Colle g

Ave.

Calve r

bia A ve.

Redevelopment Ground Level Retail Office

Colle g

Colu m

Rd.

outh

Knox

Redevelopment Residential

Dartm

Hop kin

s Ave .

Rhod

e Isla

e Ave .

t Rd.

e Av e.

Redevelopment Residential Parking Garage

LEGEND

Bra

Ave.

nch

Redevelopment Office Parking Garage

Redevelopment Residential Parking Garage

Pkw

Redevelopment Office

P P

Redevelopment Office Parking Garage

Purple Line PA Existing Street Improvements Proposed Street Improvements Park Land/ Open Space

Pain t

52nd

Rive r Rd .

Drexel Rd.

/Me

Rd.

Erskine Rd.

MAR C

Fordham

tro R

ail

rd Rd .

51st

Guilfo

Ave.

Bow doin

Ave .

Office Retail Residential

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

223

Part 3: Recommendations

Open Space For the College Park-UMD station area, a restored greenway is proposed south of Paint Branch Parkway, stretching from River Road and the proposed Purple Line Station to the Anacostia Tributary Trail System. The greenway design should integrate seating and eating areas for employees as well as a sidepath, providing access to the trail system to the east. A gateway plaza at the intersection of River Road Extended and Paint Branch Parkway, is recommended to be adjacent to mixed-use buildings with ground-level retail and should integrate public art, celebrating the unique character of the area including its aviation history. Additionally, a small linear green is proposed for the north side of College Avenue, connecting the traffic circle at the end of River Road Extended to the College Park Aviation Museum and park trails. Proper design of these open spaces is critical to their function. Usability, sustainability, and accessibility should be considered. Landscape plantings, walls, grade changes, and similar enhancements should be used to buffer open spaces from the street traffic for safety and enjoyment of the spaces. Shaded seating areas should be incorporated. Accessibility for those with limited mobility should be considered in the design and material selections. Plant materials should be selected from native species.

View of Greenway and Transit Plaza along River Road

Map 1.40 College Park-UMD Open Space Lake Artemesia

1/2-Mile Radius

nd A ve.

Indian Creek Comm. Park

Colle g

Paint Branch Stream Valley Park

Colle g

Colu m

e Av e.

Drexel Rd.

Ave.

Pain t

52nd

r Rd .

Erskine Rd.

Rive

Rd.

MAR C/M e

Fordham

tro R

ail

rd Rd .

Ave.

Guilfo

Calvert Recreation Center

51st

t Rd.

Bow doin Ave .

Calve r

bia A ve.

Ave.

Rd.

outh

Knox

Dartm

Hop kin

s Ave .

Rhod

e Isla

e Ave .

Bra

nch

Pkw

y. Paint Branch Parkway Comm. Park

Calvert Recreation Center LEGEND

Existing— Park/Open Space Proposed— Park/Open Space Wetland/Stream/ Water Bodies Existing—Trail Proposed— Sidepath 0

100

200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

224

400

600

Anacostia River Stream Valley Park

Development Strategy | College Park-UMD

Street Network For the College Park-UMD station area, River Road and Paint Branch Parkway are the primary commercial streets. The remaining majority of the other streets within the station area are the secondary commercial streets. Components of a successful commercial street in this study area include wide sidewalks to accommodate pedestrian movement and ground-level commercial activity such as outdoor dining; curb-to-building widths ranging between 15–24 feet with a minimum 6-foot clear pedestrian passage; building front setbacks between 0–10 feet; tree pits or rainwater planters lining the street edge to provide shade; and a buffer between the pedestrian zone and vehicular travel lanes. Neighborhood streets located primarily north of Paint Branch Parkway are characterized by narrower curb-to-building widths, generally 13 feet wide from curb to building with a 5-foot minimum sidewalk; building setbacks of 5–20 feet, allowing front yards for residential properties; and planting strips to provide a continuous buffer between the pedestrian zone and the travel lanes.

View of proposed streetscape along River Road

Map 1.41 College Park-UMD Street Network

nd A ve.

1/2-Mile Radius

Colle g

Colu m

t Rd.

e Av e.

Drexel Rd.

Ave.

Pain t

52nd

r Rd .

Erskine Rd.

Rive

Rd.

MAR C/M e

Fordham

tro R

ail

rd Rd .

51st

Guilfo

Ave.

Bow doin

Ave .

Calve r

bia A ve.

Ave.

Rd.

outh

Knox

Dartm

Hop kin

s Ave .

Rhod

e Isla

e Ave .

Bra

nch

Pkw

LEGEND

Existing Street— Commercial Street Type Existing Street— Neighborhood Street Type Proposed Streetù Commercial Street Type Proposed Street— Neighborhood Street Type

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

225

Part 3: Recommendations

Street Sections

8’

11’

5’

11’

5’

7’

River Road Right-of-Way

Fig. 1.7: College Park—River Road Existing Street Section Looking North

38’

7’

10’

KEY L

11’ Travel Lane

Varies

SF PZ

2’ 6’+

10’

7’

11’

5’

11’

5’

River Road Right-of-Way

Fig. 1.8: College Park—River Road Proposed Street Section Looking North

PL Purple Line CP 10’ Cycle Path Zone T

7’ Planting Zone

PZ 6–15’ Pedestrian Zone SF 2’ Storefront Zone

Notes: Final dimensions and configuration to be coordinated with MTA, SHA, and DPW&T.

226

7’

Development Strategy | College Park-UMD

Transit Recommendations With the MARC Camden Line, Metro Green Line, and several bus routes including, WMATA (Metrobus), University of Maryland (Shuttle-UM), and Central Maryland Regional Transit (CMRT) bus service, the area is currently well served by transit and will be further connected with the introduction of the Purple Line. A new bus turnaround or transit center is currently proposed as part of the WMATA development project. This new transit center will help facilitate transfers between the rail lines and local buses. Rider amenities at the new hub should include shelter, seating, lighting, transit route digital displays, and shaded areas. Coordination between rail schedule and bus schedules is recommended to better serve the transit riders. Existing bus stops and bus routes also shown in the vicinity of the proposed station may be consolidated to the proposed locations so as to ensure pedestrian access to transit is accessible (ADA compliant) and occurs in the most feasible and desirable location available for both operational needs and comfort.

Note: Bus stop locations need to be further studied and coordinated with DPW&T.

ile

Map 1.42 College Park-UMD Transit Recommendations

Colle

ge A ve.

Scot tD

Colu

Dart t Rd.

Corp oral Fran k

Calver

ius

Ave.

-M

mou

Rad

mbia

Rhod

Ave .

Harv ard Rd .

Bow doin Drexel Rd.

d Ave .

Bra

nch

Pkw

RECOMMENDATIONS Transit Legend

52n

Erskine Rd.

r Rd .

Fordham Rd.

Ave.

Pain t

51st

Guilf ord Rd .

Rive

Rd.

ile th Av e.

nd Av e. e Isla

ns Av e. Hop ki

Knox

COLLEGE P ARK -

D—

ge Av e.

Purple Line PA Alignment Proposed Purple Line Station Existing WMATA Bus Routes Existing Bus Stop Proposed Bus Stop (Bench, Shelter, Real-time Systems) Data Source: M-NCPPC/ Sabra-Wang & Associates

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

227

Part 3: Recommendations

Pedestrian Recommendations The recommended pedestrian improvements for the College Park-UMD station area are illustrated in Map 1.43 below. To complete a continuous network for pedestrians to access the proposed station by foot in the one-quarter- to a half-mile radius, the recommendations include new sidewalks along Guilford Road, Bowdoin Avenue, and 51st Avenue. Along River Road, sidepaths are recommended for both sides of the roadway along with pedestrian lighting. Sidepaths are also recommended for the south side of Paint Branch Parkway and along a new street proposed from River Road along the extended greenway to the east. Lighting is recommended along Paint Branch Parkway and along new street connections north of Paint Branch Parkway. Sidepaths are included to offer the highest quality of comfort and convenience to both pedestrians and bicyclists users.

ile

Map 1.43 College Park-UMD Pedestrian Recommendations

Colle

Ave.

-M

mou

ius

ge A ve.

Scot tD

Colu

Pedestrian tunnel Metro tracks Calvunder er

mbia

Rhod

oral Fran k

t Rd.

Corp

Ave .

Harv ard Rd .

Bow doin

Rive

52n

Erskine Rd.

Drexel Rd.

r Rd .

Fordham Rd.

d Ave .

Pain t Ave.

Guilf ord Rd .

51st

Rd.

Rad

th Av e.

nd Av e. e Isla

ns Av e. Hop ki

Knox

ile

Dart

COLLEGE P ARK

-UM

D—

ge Av e.

Bra

nch

Pkw

RECOMMENDATIONS Pedestrian Legend

Purple Line PA Alignment Proposed Purple Line Station Proposed Sidewalk Sidepath Pedestrian Lighting Existing Sidewalk Data Source: M-NCPPC/ Sabra-Wang & Associates

100

200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

228

400

600

Development Strategy | College Park-UMD

Bicycle Recommendations Bicyclists can choose many streets to access the station; however, the recommended bicycle improvements selected for the College Park-UMD area include a combination of bike routes and bike sharing as illustrated in Map 1.44. Bike facilities are proposed along Calvert Road, College Avenue, and 52nd Avenue. Bike parking and bike sharing are recommended in the vicinity of the proposed Purple Line Station to supplement the existing bike parking at the MARC/Metro station. This combination provides bicyclists safe and direct access along the most desired paths from the adjacent campus, neighborhood, and land uses to access the station.

ile

Map 1.44 College Park-UMD Bicycle Recommendations

Colle

nd Av e.

-M

Colle

ge A ve.

mbia

mou

ius

Ave.

Scot tD

ert Rd .

Colu

Pedestrian Tunnel under Metro Tracks Calv

oral Fran k

Rhod

Corp

M Harv ard Rd .

Ave .

Proposed Bike Rentals/Parking Bow doin

Drexel Rd.

d Ave . 52n

Erskine Rd.

r Rd .

Fordham Rd.

Ave.

Pain t

51st

Guilf ord Rd .

Rive

Rd.

Rad

th Av e.

e Isla

ns Av e. Hop ki

Knox

ile

Dart

COLLEGE P AR

K-U

—

ge Av e.

Bra

nch

Pkw

RECOMMENDATIONS Bike Legend

Purple Line LPA Alignment Proposed Purple Line Station

Bike Route Existing Bike Facility Proposed Sidepath Data Source: M-NCPPC/ Sabra-Wang & Associates

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

229

Part 3: Recommendations

Vehicular Recommendations

Parking Recommendations

Intersection improvements are recommended at Paint Branch Parkway at 52nd Avenue, at River Road, at the extended College Avenue, and at River Road at the Metro entrance. New street connections are recommended to improve grid connections between River Road and 52nd Avenue and south toward University Research Court as well as through new development north of Paint Branch Avenue. New street connections also aim to minimize vehicular congestion and maintain good vehicular access in and out of the adjacent Metro station and campus uses. The intersection improvements will also better accommodate pedestrians through crosswalks, ramps and possibly signals. Additionally, car sharing is recommended for the vicinity of the station as reserved spaces in the adjoining garage. Additional intersection improvements include access modifications to locations where crossing roadways intersect with the Purple Line alignment. These improvements create a true street grid that efficiently distributes traffic flow and allows for more convenient access to planned land uses.

A parking management plan is recommended for the station area. No separate Kiss & Ride area is proposed for the new Purple Line station stop due to the proximity of Metro’s bus drop-off area and other parking facilities. For recommended TOD parking ratios, see Section 4.2 Zoning Template on page 262.

ile

Map 1.45 College Park-UMD Vehicular Recommendations

Colle

ius

Colle

ge A ve.

Scot tD

Colu

Dart t Rd.

oral Fran k

Calver

Rad

Ave.

-M

mou

th Av e.

Rhod

Corp

Ave .

Harv ard Rd .

Bow doin

Pain t

Bra

nch

Pkw

RECOMMENDATIONS Vehicular

d Ave .

Legend 52n

Drexel Rd.

Rive

Erskine Rd.

r Rd .

Fordham Rd.

Ave.

Guilf ord Rd .

51st

Rd.

Knox

ile

mbia

nd Av e. e Isla

ns Av e. Hop ki

COLLEGE P ARK -UM D

—

ge Av e.

Purple Line PA Alignment Proposed Purple Line Station Intersection Improvement Proposed Street Potential Future Connections Data Source: M-NCPPC/ Sabra-Wang & Associates

100

200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

230

400

600

Development Strategy | West Campus

1.6

West Campus Overview 234

West Cam pus

Colle ge Pa UMD rk

Planning Objectives

234

Market Conclusions Summary

234

Community Input Summary

236

TOD Recommendations

237

M Sq

(Rive uare r Roa d)

Rive r

Rive rdale Park

(Bea dale Ro con H a eigh d ts)

233

Part 3: Recommendations

Overview

Market Conclusions Summary

The TOD Study area centered on the proposed West Campus Purple Line Station extends over a half-mile radius from the station stop, as shown on Map 1.47 on page 235. A half-mile represents an average 10-minute walk. The inner circle represents a quarter-mile radius or an average 5-minute walk.

In West Campus (University Hill) station, the impact of the University of Maryland is noticed immediately, and new development should be closely coordinated with the university’s master plan.

Major vehicular-oriented thoroughfares, including Adelphi Road and University Boulevard East, bisect the study area. Area commuters—in particular university students, faculty, staff, and visitors—use Campus Drive to connect between and access these thoroughfare corridors. Existing residential development within a quarter mile of the proposed station includes the 331unit Graduate Hills garden-style apartment complex as well as surrounding 1940s and 1950s single-family detached homes. Key commercial, institutional, and park properties within the half mile radius of the proposed station include the University of Maryland College Park campus, the University of Maryland Golf Course, the University of Maryland University College facilities, the Marriott Inn and Conference Center, St. Mark’s Catholic Church and School, the University Baptist Church, the University United Methodist Church, and M-NCPPC-owned University Hills Duck Pond Park. Pedestrian, road, and streetscape improvements, targeted new (re) development, and an accessible and integrated Purple Line Station have the potential to reposition the study area as a new, significant western gateway for the University of Maryland campus.

Planning Objectives As previously listed in Section 1.1 Overview, general planning objectives were established to help achieve the overall goal of lively, walkable, and attractive transit-oriented communities for all five station areas. Based on West Campus station area’s unique existing conditions and opportunities, a more definitive list of planning objectives was established. For West Campus, the planning objectives include: • Establish a street network providing alternative vehicular and pedestrian routes between Adelphi Road and Mowatt Lane, relieving congestion and creating accessible parcels for mixed-use development; currently the primary development area between Adelphi Road and Mowatt Lane south of Campus Drive is largely land-locked with limited access to a few buildings along Campus Drive and Mowatt Lane. • Enhance the natural area surrounding Turtle Creek as a greenway with trail connections to existing parks while providing an amenity for proposed redevelopment and buffering new single-family homes to the south; currently the study area lacks trail connections from existing parks to the University of Maryland and residential communities west of Adelphi Road.

234

The demographic profile shows persons between the ages of 20 to 24 years represent 27.9 percent of the population in the area but only 8.2 percent in the county. From 2000 to 2010, the area’s population has grown by 542 persons, an increase of 36.6 percent over the 10-year period. It is expected that the West Campus station area will also have a high concentration of white-collar jobs. Within the half-mile radius around the station, in terms of housing stock, 37 percent are multifamily buildings with five or more units. It is important to note that the higher density residential products are likely relevant in West Campus station areas. This station area does not have sufficient unmet retail demand at this time to support new retail development. Therefore, when potential new development happens, small neighborhood-scale commercial should concentrate along Campus Drive near the station.

Development Strategy | West Campus

Map 1.46 Key Map Ad elp h

1/2 Mile Radius Existing Roads MARC/Metro Rail Lines Purple Line Alignment Purple Line Stations

rsit y

D 20 1) w y.

o re

Belcrest Rd.

Baltimore Ave. (U S

Ba lti m

Kenilwo rth

t Bra Pain

College Park UMD

Av e. (M

University of Maryland

West Campus

shing ton Pkw y.

Un ive

East Campus

y Blvd. E Universit

-Wa

Blv d. E

i Rd

UMD Campus Center

Adelphi Rd.

East W est

Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights)

R iverdale Rd.

Ve ter an s

Pk w

D (M

Riverdale Park

Rd.

e ue

M Square (River Road) Hwy.

(MD 4 10)

0) 41

MA R C/ Met ro R ail

r Age

p ha

Good Luck Rd.

Rive r Rd.

Map 1.47 West Campus Station Area—Existing Conditions

Adelphi Rd .

ive

rsi

Blv d. E.

e Radius 1/2-Mil

Co ol

eR 1/4-Mil adius

S p rin g Rd.

Cha th

Temple St.

UMUC University of Maryland College Park

Blvd. E. University

d. R Adelphi

el W

t. eS

y ns

t. aS

lva

. vd

u rd Pu

Windsor Ln.

Ru tg

t. sS er

Sta nf

n Pe

Purple Line

Dr. n att L Mow

d or

LEGEND

Campu s

. Tulane Dr

der

man

Com

Dr.

Route Proposed by MTA Proposed West Campus Station 0

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

235

Part 3: Recommendations

Use, Type, and Architectural Character The station area is viewed as a western gateway to the University of Maryland integrated into the existing network of open spaces and community parks. Multifamily residential uses are predominantly preferred in the area with ground-floor retail concentrated along Campus Drive near the station. Townhouses and small apartment buildings with threeâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;six stories and lowrise academic buildings are preferred.

Community workshop opening presentation

Amenities and Open Spaces Sustainable design to minimize the impact of the new development on the natural environment should be considered to balance the built and natural environment. Public gathering spaces, such as plazas and parks, are desired with public safety in mind. The University Hills Duck Pond Park is a good example of an existing neighborhood park.

Streetscape Character

Community workshop open house discussions

Stakeholders noted the need for a small neighborhood-scale walkable environment, including retail such as coffee shops and casual restaurants.

Mobility Choices, Connectivity, and Access Focus improvements on the University Boulevard/Adelphi Road intersection to minimize circulation conflicts. Provide wider sidewalks, a pedestrian refuge, and buffers along Adelphi Road. Connect the isolated sections of sidewalk in the Cool Spring neighborhood to the station with bike routes and pedestrian connections. Taxi stands and a car-sharing program should serve the vehicular Kiss & Ride. Bike racks and storage are suggested for the bicycle facility. Bus shelters with weather protection need to be provided. University game day parking and traffic were brought up as a key issue.

Community workshop small group discussions

Station Character/Identity The station design should be University of Maryland oriented. Public art with a cultural and sports-related theme can be incorporated into the design. The station should provide shelter from the weather and good lighting for safety.

Community workshop Stakeholder presentation

236

Development Strategy | West Campus

TOD Recommendations The TOD recommendations for the West Campus station area focus on properties (excluding the existing residential single-family lots and parkland) within a half-mile of the proposed station. Properties for redevelopment were selected based on proximity to the proposed station, ownership, size, and the condition of the building. For these properties, the recommendations address land use, phasing, open space, street network, streetscape, and transportation. Transportation recommendations are separated into five components, including transit, pedestrian, bicycle, vehicular, and parking. The redevelopment strategy is divided into two phases, short-term (before Purple Line completion) and long-term (after Purple Line completion). Below, Campus Drive is envisioned as a livable street with mixed-use development transformed from its current auto-oriented condition. The rendering below illustrates some of the primary planning objectives for this study area, including complete streets, mixed-use buildings fronting along Campus Drive, and open space providing connections to the universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s planned expansion of its botanical gardens and the proposed greenway along Turtle Creek.

Existing view of Campus Drive from Presidential Drive

Perspective of Campus Drive from Presidential Drive

237

Part 3: Recommendations

TOD Concept

Map 1.48 West Campus TOD Concept

The TOD concept diagram for the half-mile study area focuses on block configurations, building frontages, open space locations, trail connections, street networks, and important gateways and views. For the West Campus station study area, the primary planning recommendations are: • New two- to five-story, mixed-use development primarily as multifamily residential buildings with limited ground-floor retail at key locations along Campus Drive, particularly at the station stop. • Establish a new western gateway for the University of Maryland. • New open spaces integrated into the existing surrounding network of open spaces and community parks. • A new pedestrian/bicycle greenway along Turtle Creek, providing connections to surrounding community parks. • Intersection improvements at University Boulevard, Adelphi Road, and Campus Drive; at Adelphi Road and Wells Boulevard; and at Stanford Street and Wells Boulevard to improve functionality, accessibility, and safety. The final route and station locations will be determined through MTA’s Purple Line engineering effort.

Universit

LEGEND

Building Frontage Open Space Block/Edges Views/Axes Purple Line PA Proposed— Sidepath Existing Street Improvements Proposed Street Improvements Potential Future Connections 0

100

200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

238

400

600

y Blvd.

Development Strategy | West Campus

Adelphi Rd .

Un ive rs

ity

Blv d. E.

e Radius 1/2-Mil

Co ol

S p rin g Rd.

Cha

Temple St.

UMUC

Cam p

us D

E. r. Tulane D

University of Maryland College Park

el W

t. eS

u rd Pu

. vd Bl

n Pe

an ylv

. St

Windsor Ln.

Ru tg

Sta nf

t. sS r e

d. Adelphi R

d or

n att L Mow

er D

Com

d man

239

Part 3: Recommendations

should coincide with the construction of the Purple Line route and station. The improvements will include intersection improvements as well as improved pedestrian and bicycle connections.

Within the short-term period for the West Campus station area, a mixed-use residential building is under construction and nearing completion at the corner of Campus Drive and Mowatt Lane. Slated to open in early 2013, the project contains 225 residential units and 10,000 square feet of ground-floor retail. Single-family detached homes south of Turtle Creek are also under construction. Infrastructure improvements to existing streets prior to the opening of the Purple Line, to ensure pedestrian and bicycle connectivity is improved and vehicular access is maintained, are critical in the short-term period. The improvements of Campus Drive, Adelphi Road, and University Boulevard

Map 1.49 West Campus Redevelopment Strategy—Short-Term

Co ol

Adelphi Rd .

ive

rsi

Blv d. E.

e Radius 1/2-Mil

S p rin g Rd.

Cha

UMUC Cam p

us D

Tulane D

100

200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

240

400

600

n lva sy

n Pe

. St

Windsor Ln.

Institutional

u rd Pu

. vd

Residential

Retail

t. eS

Office

s er

. St

el W

Park Land/ Open Space

Ru tg

Purple Line PA Existing Street Improvements Proposed Street Improvements

Sta nf

LEGEND

Domain at College Park Ground-Level Retail Along Campus Dr. Residential MF Units Structured Parking

n att L Mow

d or

University of Maryland College Park

. Adelphi Rd

Blvd. E.

Temple St.

University

er D

Com

d man

Redevelopment Residential Single-Family Units

Redevelopment Residential MF or TH Units

Development Strategy | West Campus

Redevelopment Strategy—Long Term The long-term strategy governs development for the time period after the completion of the Purple Line once rail service begins.

station, where none exist currently, will help transform the station area into a vibrant western gateway for the University of Maryland. The majority of the planned residential will require structured parking within the individual development parcels.

Within the long-term period for the West Campus station area, the major parcels between Adelphi Road and Mowatt Lane and south of Campus Drive are envisioned to be four- to five-story, multifamily apartments with groundlevel retail fronting Campus Drive. As retail demand may be limited, groundfloor retail should first be concentrated near the station stop. Additional residential parcels west of Adelphi Road are proposed as redevelopment sites for residential multifamily apartments or townhouses once the life spans of the existing buildings are reached and/or market demand builds. North of Campus Drive, institutional mixed-use development is planned based on the University of Maryland’s Facilities Master Plan goals. Locating new residential development along with retail and restaurants adjacent to the

Map 1.50 West Campus Redevelopment Strategy—Long-Term

Co ol

Adelphi Rd .

ive

rsi

Blv d. E.

e Radius 1/2-Mil

Mixed-Use Redevelopment Ground-Level Retail along Campus Dr. Institutional Use Above

S p rin g Rd.

Cha th

m Rd . Mixed-Use Redevelopment Ground-Level Retail along Campus Dr. Residential above (MF units)

Temple St.

Blvd. E. University

UMUC Cam p

us D

Tulane D

University of Maryland College Park

Mixed-Use Redevelopment Ground-Level Retail along Campus Dr. Residential above (MF Units)

Retail Residential

nn Pe Redevelopment Institutional and/or Residential (MF or TH units)

. St

Windsor Ln.

n lva sy

. Adelphi Rd

t. eS

u rd Pu

. vd

Office

Park Land/ Open Space

Redevelopment Residential MF or TH Units

t. sS er

ls el W

Existing Street Improvements Proposed Street Improvements

Ru tg

Purple Line PA

Sta nf

d or

LEGEND

n att L Mow

Redevelopment Residential (MF or TH units)

der

man

Com

Dr.

Institutional 0

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

241

Part 3: Recommendations

Open Space For the West Campus station area, a new greenway is proposed along Turtle Creek, stretching from Mowatt Lane to Campus Drive and connecting to the University of Maryland’s expanded Botanical Gardens. The greenway design should integrate a sidepath, providing access to the trails around University Hills Neighborhood Park west of Adelphi Road. Pocket parks are recommended to be adjacent to residential buildings and provide areas for community activities. Proper design of these open spaces is critical to their function. Usability, sustainability, and accessibility should be considered. Landscape plantings, walls, grade changes, and similar enhancements should be used to buffer open spaces from the street traffic for safety and enjoyment of the spaces. Shaded seating areas should be incorporated. Accessibility for those with limited mobility should be considered in the design and material selections. Plant materials should be selected from native species. View of proposed greenway along Turtle Creek

Map 1.51 West Campus Open Space

Co ol

Adelphi Rd .

ive

rsi

Blv d. E.

e Radius 1/2-Mil

UMD Botanical Gardens (Existing & Proposed) UMD Proposed Linear Green

S p rin g Rd.

Cha

UMUC

Temple St.

Adelphi Manor Community Recreation Center and Park

Cam p

us D

Blvd. E. University

Tulane D

University of Maryland College Park

r. P

Wetland/Stream/ Water Bodies Existing—Trail Proposed— Sidepath 200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

400

600

Lane Manor Community Recreation Center and Park

n Pe

t. aS

lva

y ns

Windsor Ln.

u rd Pu

Ru tg

d. lv

Proposed— Park/Open Space

242

t. eS

B ls

Existing— Park/Open Space

100

t. sS er

el W

LEGEND

Sta nf

University Hills Neigborhood Park

Lane Manor Aquatic Center

. Adelphi Rd

d or

n att L Mow

der

man

Com

Dr.

UMD Mayer Hall

Development Strategy | West Campus

Street Network For the West Campus station area, Campus Drive is the primary commercial street. Components of a successful commercial street in this study area include wide sidewalks to accommodate pedestrian movement and ground-level commercial activity such as outdoor dining; curb-to-building widths ranging between 15–24 feet with a minimum 6-foot clear pedestrian passage; building front setbacks between 0–10 feet; and tree pits or rainwater planters lining the street edge to provide shade and a buffer between the pedestrian zone and vehicular travel lanes. Neighborhood streets located throughout the study area are characterized by narrower curb-to-building widths, generally 13 feet wide from curb to building with a 5-foot minimum sidewalk; building setbacks of 5–20 feet, allowing front yards for residential properties; and planting strips, to provide a continuous buffer between the pedestrian zone and the travel lanes.

View of proposed Campus Drive streetscape at Presidential Drive

Map 1.52 West Campus Street Network

Co ol

Adelphi Rd .

ive

rsi

Blv d. E.

e Radius 1/2-Mil

S p rin g Rd.

Cha

Temple St.

UMUC

University

Cam p

us D

Blvd. E.

University of Maryland College Park

. Tulane Dr P

an ylv

s nn

. St

Windsor Ln.

u rd Pu

. vd

Ru tg

Sta nf 600

400

t. eS

200

t. sS er

el W

Existing Street— Existing Street— Commercial Commercial Street Type Street Existing Street— Existing Street— Neighborhood Neighborhood Street Type Type Proposed Street— Proposed Street— Commercial Commercial Street Type Street Type Proposed Street— Proposed Street— Neighborhood Neighborhood Street Type Type Street

100

LEGEND

. Adelphi Rd

d or

n att L Mow

der

man

Com

Dr.

SCALE: 1” = 200’

243

Part 3: Recommendations

Street Sections

5’

11’

8’

5’

Campus Drive Right-of-Way

Fig. 1.9: West Campus—Campus Drive Existing Street Section—Looking West

SF PZ

2’ 6’

10’

7’

38’

13’

11’

7’

6’

Campus Drive Right-of-Way

KEY L

Fig. 1.10: West Campus—Campus Drive Proposed Street Section—Looking West

11’ Travel Lane

PL Purple Line T

7’ Planting Zone

PZ 6-15’Pedestrian Zone SF 2’ Storefront Zone

Notes: Final dimensions and configuration to be coordinated with MTA, SHA, and DPW&T.

244

Development Strategy | West Campus

Transit Recommendations The West Campus station area is currently served by WMATA and University of Maryland Shuttle-MD buses. With the introduction of the proposed Purple Line, the transit options and connectivity will increase. Efforts should be made to locate/relocate bus stops to be proximate to the station stop. Further, schedules should be coordinated to facilitate transfers. Game day foot traffic from the station to Byrd Stadium and other event destinations would be facilitated by additional east-west vehicular connections between Adelphi Road and Mowatt Lane. Existing bus stops and bus routes also shown in the vicinity of the proposed station may be consolidated to the proposed locations so as to ensure pedestrian access to transit is accessible (ADA compliant) and occurs in the most feasible and desirable location available for both operational needs and comfort. Note: Bus stop locations need to be further studied and coordinated with DPW&T.

rsi

Blv d. E.

ive

ile

diu

Adelphi Rd .

S—

Map 1.53 West Campus Transit Recommendations

S p rin g Rd.

ile

diu

Cha

Co ol

Temple St.

UMUC

University

University of Maryland College Park

Blvd. E.

Campu s

. Tulane Dr

Dr.

d. t. sS er

ls el W

Proposed Bus Stop (Bench, Shelter, Real-time Systems)

n lva sy

. vd

Existing Bus Stop

Existing WMATA Bus Routes

t. eS

u rd Pu

n Pe

. St Windsor Ln.

Ru tg

Proposed Purple Line Station

Sta nf

d or

Purple Line PA Alignment

R Adelphi

Legend

n att L Mow

RECOMMENDATIONS Transit

der

man

Com

Dr.

Data Source: M-NCPPC/ Sabra-Wang & Associates 0

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

245

Part 3: Recommendations

Pedestrian Recommendations The recommended pedestrian improvements for the West Campus station area are illustrated in Map 1.54 below. To complete a continuous network for pedestrians to access the proposed station by foot in the one-quarterto a one-half-mile radius, sidewalks are recommended along Cool Spring Road and along new streets south of Campus Drive. A network of sidepaths is recommended along the east side of Adelphi Road, the north side of Stanford Road, the south side of Presidential Drive through campus, and along the new street and greenway, connecting Adelphi Road to Mowatt Lane. Sidepaths are included to offer the highest quality of comfort and convenience to both pedestrians and bicyclists users. Lighting is recommended along Adelphi Road, University Boulevard East, Campus Drive, Presidential Drive, and Stanford Street.

rsi

Blv d. E.

ive

ile

diu

Adelphi Rd .

S—

Map 1.54 West Campus Pedestrian Recommendations

S p rin g Rd.

ile

diu

Cha

Co ol

Temple St.

UMUC

Pedestrian Lighting Data Source: M-NCPPC/ Sabra-Wang & Associates 200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

246

400

600

Rd. Adelphi ia

n Pe

n lva sy

. St

Windsor Ln.

Ru tg

t. eS

u rd Pu

. vd Bl

Proposed Side Path

Proposed Sidewalk

t. sS er

el W

Proposed Purple Line Station

100

Sta nf

Purple Line PA Alignment

d or

Dr.

Legend

Campu s

. Tulane Dr

n att L Mow

RECOMMENDATIONS Pedestrian

University of Maryland College Park

Blvd. E.

University

der

man

Com

Dr.

Development Strategy | West Campus

Bicycle Recommendations Bicyclists can choose many streets to access the station; however, the recommended bicycle improvements selected for the West Campus station area include a combination of bike lanes, bike routes, shared lanes, and bike sharing as illustrated in Map 1.55. Shared lanes (wide outside lanes accommodating both vehicles and bicycles) are recommended along University Boulevard and Adelphi Road (north of University Boulevard East). Bike lanes are recommended on Campus Drive. Mowatt Lane is proposed to be designated as a bike route. A bike route is a street that is anticipated to carry bicycle traffic to and from the transit station through the neighborhood; drivers are alerted to the presence of cyclists via signage (refer to Appendix A.2 on page 333 for additional information). A network of sidepaths is recommended along the east side of Adelphi Road, the north side of Stanford Road, the south side of Presidential Drive through campus, and along the new street and greenway, connecting Adelphi Road to Mowatt Lane. Bike parking and bike sharing is

proposed in the vicinity of the proposed Purple Line Station. This combination provides bicyclists safe and direct access along the most desired paths from the adjacent campus, neighborhood, and land uses to access the station.

Blv d. E. ty rsi ive

ile

ius

Adelphi Rd .

d Ra

S—

Map 1.55 West Campus Bicycle Recommendations

S p rin g Rd.

ile

diu

Cha

Co ol

Temple St.

UMUC

n Pe

t. aS

lva

y ns

Windsor Ln.

Rd. Adelphi

u rd Pu

. vd

Proposed Side Path

Proposed Bike Lane

t. eS

Proposed Bike Route

t. sS er

el W

Proposed Purple Line Station

Ru tg

Purple Line PA Alignment

d or

Dr.

Legend

Campu s

. Tulane Dr

n att L Mow

RECOMMENDATIONS Bike

University of Maryland College Park

Blvd. E.

Sta nf

University

der

man

Com

Dr.

Data Source: M-NCPPC/ Sabra-Wang & Associates 0

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

247

Part 3: Recommendations

Vehicular Recommendations

Parking Recommendations

Intersection improvements for the West Campus station area are illustrated in Map 1.56 below. Improvements are recommended for University Boulevard at Adelphi Road, University Boulevard at Campus Drive, Adelphi Road at Campus Drive, and Adelphi Road at Wells Boulevard. New street connections are recommended to improve grid connections between Adelphi Road and Mowatt Lane south of Campus Drive. These improvements create a true street grid that efficiently distributes traffic flow and allows for more convenient access to planned land uses. New street connections also aim to minimize vehicular congestion and maintain good vehicular access in and out of the adjacent campus uses. The intersection improvements will also better accommodate pedestrians through crosswalks, ramps, and possibly signals.

A Kiss & Ride area is recommended to allow loading and unloading of passengers in the station vicinity. Additionally, a parking management plan is recommended for the University of Maryland campus area in the vicinity of the West Campus Purple Line Station. For recommended TOD parking ratios, see Section 4.2 Zoning Template on page 264.

Additionally, car sharing is recommended in the vicinity of the station as reserved on-street parallel parking spaces or reserved spaces in the adjoining garage. Additional intersection improvements include access modifications to locations where crossing roadways intersect with the Purple Line alignment. An additional transportation improvement study is recommended for the fiveway intersection at Campus Drive, University Boulevard, and Adelphi Road.

rsi

Blv d. E.

ive

ile

diu

Adelphi Rd .

S—

Map 1.56 West Campus Vehicular Recommendations

S p rin g Rd.

ile

diu

Cha

Co ol

Temple St.

UMUC

University

University of Maryland College Park

Blvd. E.

Campu s

. Tulane Dr

Dr.

Ru tg

Proposed Purple Line Station

t. t. sS er

el W

t. eS

Potential Future Connections Data Source: M-NCPPC/ Sabra-Wang & Associates 0

100

200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

248

400

600

n Pe

y ns

t. aS

lva

. vd

Proposed Street

Intersection Improvement

u rd Pu

Windsor Ln.

d or

Sta nf

Purple Line PA Alignment

Rd. Adelphi

Legend

n. att L Mow

RECOMMENDATIONS Vehicular

der

man

Com

Dr.

2. Zoning Template 2.1 Overview

252

2.2 TOD Zoning Standards

254

2.1 Overview Purpose

For appropriate redevelopment of areas served by transit, this study includes a zoning template. The template offers a departure from traditional Euclidean zoning (use-based zoning) to zoning regulations that ensure the envisioned form of TOD and encourage a mix of uses. The purpose of the template and the station-specific zoning plan diagrams is to provide a basis for future zoning revisions to achieve the goals of TOD redevelopment, to provide places to live, work, shop, and dine; and to provide easy walking distances to transit.

Zoning Template

Zoning Template Use This section provides a template for future zoning revisions required to encourage and achieve the community-supported vision for TOD around the study’s five proposed Purple Line Stations. The zoning template may be applied as an overlay to existing zoning regulations or as a replacement to existing regulations provided that the template, or portions of it, are codified into law. The zoning template has been applied to the five station areas discussed within this report to illustrate specific applications. However, the broader intent is for this template to be applicable to all areas served by transit within Prince George’s County regardless of the transit mode (e.g., bus, light rail, commuter rail, Metro, etc.).

Components The components of the template include TOD zoning standards and stationspecific zoning plans. The TOD zones section establishes a matrix defining the type of uses, the level of development intensity as well as the overall aesthetic and character for each zone within a station area. The station-specific zoning plan diagrams map key redevelopment parcels and recommendations for appropriate building heights, setbacks, parking ratios, etc. to provide transitions from center to edge and address existing and unique conditions for each station area. The TOD zoning standards include the following elements: Uses: A “use” is typically defined as any purpose for which a structure or a tract of land may be designed, arranged, intended, maintained, or occupied. Within this template, several recommended, permitted uses may be listed for each parcel, supporting the intended vibrant, mixed-use environment. Additionally, buildings with a vertical integration of uses are encouraged (i.e., a building may contain multiple uses where, for example, the ground floor use is retail with residential or office on the upper floors).

in vertical foot dimensions. Towers, steeples, spires, cupolas, and similar should not be included in the story count. Front Setbacks: Front setbacks are measured as the horizontal foot distance between a public right-of-way or front lot line and the façade of a building parallel and closest to the public right-of-way or front lot line. Front setbacks may coincide with build-to lines. Front porches, stoops, bay windows, and similar may project into the front setback. Generally, front setbacks should be shallow in TOD environments to maximize the potential of the land area and to create engaging streetscapes. See the front setback criteria recommendations within this section as well as the street sections within the Final Development Strategy, Section 3, on page 155. Frontage: Frontage is the percentage of a block occupied by building façades. Frontage is calculated as the sum of the building façade widths divided by the block width (with block width measured curb to curb minus any parking, sidewalk, or public open space widths). In TOD environments, buildings should occupy the majority of the block frontage. Parking: In TOD station areas, every effort should be made to reduce minimum parking requirements, which are often geared to suburban, singleuse parking ratios, and institute parking maximums to take full advantage of land resources, encourage transit ridership, and incentivise development. Transit Cooperative Research Program’s Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking, and Travel, TCRP Report 128 and Donald Shoup’s The High Cost of Free Parking are helpful references offering critical analysis on the subject of parking. Open Space Types: Open spaces include areas designated for parks, greenways, squares, greens, pocket parks, or plazas that offer public access and amenities. For more information on specific criteria for each open space type, see Section A.2 on page 333.

Densities/Intensities: Density describes the number of principal residential dwelling units per acre (to note, to encourage incremental increases in density and supply owner-controlled rental apartments, accessory dwelling units such as an apartment on a single-family detached lot should not be included when calculating density; however, minimum parking requirements should be met for accessory dwelling units). Intensity, measured in FAR, describes the sum of a building’s gross floor area (the total square feet on all floors) per acre. Increasing the density and intensity of land use near transit stations supports sustainable growth and aligns with the state’s Smart, Green & Growing initiative. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy’s Visualizing Density is a useful tool for helping communities appropriately understand and interpret variations in density. Building Heights: Building heights are often regulated as the vertical foot distance from the average grade (or ground plane) around a building to the top or midpoint of the roof. However, to encourage tall commercial bases on buildings, generous floor-to-floor heights, and variation in roof planes, the template recommends building heights in the number of stories rather than

253

Part 3: Recommendations

2.2 TOD Zoning Standards Within each Purple Line station study area, transitions occur in the recommended redevelopment, typically with more intense development near the station and decreased development further from the station. The following zones apply to the Purple Line station study areas and vary according to recommended building heights, setbacks, parking ratios, etc. as can be seen in the TOD zones matrix to the right.

TOD ZONES

Park/Open Space

Uses

Cultural/Civic

Densities (du/acre); Intensities (FAR)

Not Applicable

Building Heights

Not Applicable

Front Setbacks

Not Applicable

Frontage

Not Applicable

Parking

Not Applicable

Open Space Types

Park

Park/Open Space: Areas consist of parkland and lands unsuitable for settlement due to topography (steep slope), flood plain, and wetland constraints, which may include some park and recreation facilities as well as some agricultural uses and facilities. Cultural and civic uses are permitted. TOD A: Areas consisting of a mix of single-family detached (houses) and attached (townhouses) along with some multifamily (apartments or condos) and limited commercial (mainly local-serving retail and professional offices), institutional, and civic uses; building heights range from one- to three-stories; building front setbacks vary from shallow to moderate; buildings line the majority of the streetscape; residential buildings often have front stoops or porches and small front yards; commercial buildings may have arcades, and storefronts with awnings and canopies are typical with ground-level retail but are not continuous along the street; parking is typically accommodated mid-block in surface lots and on-street, in parallel parking spaces. TOD B: Areas consist of a mix of single-family attached (townhouses) and multifamily (apartments or condos) with commercial uses (retail and office) and other uses (institutional and civil); building heights range from two- to five-stories; building front setbacks are shallow to none; buildings line the majority to all of the streetscape; residential buildings often have front stoops or dooryards; commercial buildings may have arcades, and storefronts with awnings and canopies are typical with ground-level retail and are fairly continuous along the street; parking is accommodated mid-block either in surface lots or structured parking garages and on-street in parallel parking spaces. TOD C: Areas consist of a mix of multifamily (apartments or condos) with commercial uses (retail, entertainment, and office) and other uses (institutional and civil); building heights range from four- to eight-stories (to note, TOD C.1 allows building heights to a maximum of six-stories; whereas TOD C.2 allows building heights to maximum of eight-stories); building front setbacks are shallow to none; buildings define the streetscape; residential buildings may have front stoops, but are typically entered through a lobby; commercial buildings may have arcades, and storefronts with awnings and canopies are typical with fairly continuous ground-level retail along the street; parking is typically accommodated mid-block in structured parking garages and on-street in parallel parking spaces. District: Areas consist of primarily a single-use, including office, industrial, and institutional; densities, building heights, setbacks, etc. vary depending on the use. While districts may be governed by unique circumstance and may not be subject to municipal zoning regulation requirements near transit stations, efforts should be made to increase densities and reduce parking ratios to encourage transit ridership and reduce environmental impacts.

TOD Zones Matrix Notes: Where parking reductions are noted, these reductions should apply to parking ratios in the current edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation, the Urban Land Institute Shared Parking, Prince Georgeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s County Zoning Regulations, or other applicable sources.1 Where further Shared Parking reductions are noted, these reductions should follow the methodology in the current edition of Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking, or other widely-accepted methodology.

254

Size: 1 acre min. Greenways Size: Varies

Zoning Template

TOD A

TOD B

TOD C

District

Residential: Single-family detached (houses) Single-family attached (townhouses) Multifamily (apartments, condos) Employment: Commercial Office Commercial Retail (localserving) Other Uses: Institutional, Cultural/Civic

Residential: Residential: Single-family attached Multifamily (apartments, (townhouses) condos) Multifamily (apartments, Employment: Commercial Office condos) Employment: Commercial Retail (entertainCommercial Office ment, community-serving) Commercial Retail (community Other Uses: serving, local-serving) Institutional, Cultural/Civic Other Uses: Institutional, Cultural/Civic

Primarily single-use; Office, Industrial, and Institutional

4 - 35 du/acre 1.0 FAR min.

8 - 75 du/acre 1.5 FAR min.

35 - 175 du/acre 1.0 FAR min.

Not Applicable

2-Story or 30’ min. 3-Story max.

2-Story min. 5-Story max.

TOD C.1 (4-Story min., 6-Story max.) Not Applicable TOD C.2 (5-Story min., 8-Story max.)

5’ min.-20’ max. (excepting Civic) Shallow to medium front setbacks

0’min.-10’ max. (excepting Civic) Shallow front setbacks or none; buildings define the street wall

0’min.-20’max.

50% - 80%

60% - 100%

80% - 100%

Not Applicable

Residential (Single-family): 1/4 mile radius: 1.00 sp/du - 2.00 sp/du 1/2 mile radius: 1.5 sp/du - 2.00 sp/du Residential (Multifamily): 1/4 mile radius: 1.00 sp/du - 1.75 sp/du 1/2 mile radius: 1.25 sp/du - 2.00 sp/du Commercial (Retail, Office) 1/4 mile radius: 2.5 sp/1000 sf - 1.5 sp/1000 sf 1/2 mile radius: 1.0 sp/1000 sf - 4.0 sp/1000 sf Other Uses: 1/4 mile radius: 25% reduction1 1/2 mile radius: 15% reduction1 Further Shared Parking reductions allowed.2

Residential (Single-family): 1/4 mile radius: 1.00 sp/du - 1.75 sp/du 1/2 mile radius: 1.25 sp/du - 2.00 sp/du Residential (Multifamily): 1/4 mile radius: .8 sp/du - 1.5 sp/du 1/2 mile radius: 1.0 sp/du - 2.00 sp/du Commercial (Retail, Office) 1/4 mile radius: 1.75 sp/1000 sf - 2.5 sp/1000 sf 1/2 mile radius: 2.00 sp/1000 sf - 1.0 sp/1000 sf Other Uses: 1/4 mile radius: 25% reduction1 1/2 mile radius: 15% reduction1 Further Shared Parking reductions allowed.2

Residential (Single-family): Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Squares Size: 1/4 - 2 Acres Greens Size: 1 - 4 Acres

Plazas Size: 1/8 - 1 Acre Squares Size: 1/4 - 2 Acres Pocket Parks Size: 1/16 - 1/8 Acre

Residential (Multifamily): 1/4 mile radius: .8 sp/du - 1.25 sp/du 1/2 mile radius: 1.00 sp/du - 1.75 sp/du Commercial (Retail, Office) 1/4 mile radius: 1.75 sp/1000 sf - 2.25 sp/1000 sf 1/2 mile radius: 2.00 sp/1000 sf - 2.75 sp/1000 sf Other Uses: 1/4 mile radius: 25% reduction1 1/2 mile radius: 15% reduction1 Further Shared Parking reductions allowed.2 Plazas Size: 1/8 - 1 Acre Greens Size: 1 - 4 Acres Park Size: 1 Acre min.

TOD Zones Matrix 255

Part 3: Recommendations

Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) The Zoning Template map (Map 2.1 on page 257) represents the envisioned transit-oriented development surrounding the Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) station, based on input from the community and Prince George’s County. The purpose of the diagram is to provide a template for future zoning revisions to achieve the envisioned redevelopment, mapping recommendations for appropriate building heights, setbacks, parking ratios, and similar specifications. While the area is currently dominated by its roadways, establishing a village-scaled TOD at the proposed station stop will create a much-needed community center. Focusing on new residential, some neighborhood-serving retail and office, as well as some meaningful public open spaces near the station, will give the community a sense of place and a destination for arrival.

256

A fairly large Park/Open Space area that lays atop the Baltimore-Washington Parkway, a thoroughfare that is classified as parkland, cuts the half-mile study area into two sections. On either side of Baltimore-Washington Parkway, around the five-minute walk (or quarter mile) from the proposed station stop, TOD B is indicated. Within this TOD B area, building heights may vary between two- to five-stories; however, the read should be of no more than four-story buildings along Riverdale Road; the five-story maximum height is reserved for off-hill conditions to accommodate changes in grade and the varying topography of this station area. On the periphery of the half-mile radius to the east, some pockets of TOD A are indicated to transition to the existing, surrounding residential neighborhood.

TOD ZONES

Park/Open Space

TOD A

Uses

Cultural/Civic

Residential: Residential: Single-family detached (houses) Single-family attached (townhouses) Single-family attached (townhouses) Multifamily (apartments, condos) Multifamily (apartments, condos) Employment: Employment: Commercial Office Commercial Office Commercial Retail (community servCommercial Retail (local-serving) ing, local-serving) Other Uses: Other Uses: Institutional, Cultural/Civic Institutional, Cultural/Civic

Densities (du/acre); Intensities (FAR)

Not Applicable

4 - 35 du/acre 1.0 FAR min.

8 - 75 du/acre 1.5 FAR min.

Building Heights

Not Applicable

2-Story or 30’ min. 3-Story max.

2-Story min. 5-Story max.

Front Setbacks

Not Applicable

5’ min.-20’ max. (excepting Civic) Shallow to medium front setbacks

0’min.-10’ max. (excepting Civic) Shallow front setbacks or none; buildings define the street wall

Frontage

Not Applicable

50% - 80%

60% - 100%

Parking

Not Applicable

Residential (Single-family): 1/4 mile radius: 1.00 sp/du - 1.75 sp/du 1/2 mile radius: 1.25 sp/du - 2.00 sp/du Residential (Multifamily): 1/4 mile radius: .8 sp/du - 1.5 sp/du 1/2 mile radius: 1.0 sp/du - 2.0 sp/du Commercial (Retail, Office) 1/4 mile radius: 1.75 sp/1000 sf - 2.5 sp/1000 sf 1/2 mile radius: 2.00 sp/1000 sf - 1.0 sp/1000 sf Other Uses: 1/4 mile radius: 25% reduction1 1/2 mile radius: 15% reduction1 Further Shared Parking reductions allowed.2

Open Space Types

Park Size: 1 acre min. Greenways Size: Varies

Squares Size: 1/4 - 2 Acres Greens Size: 1 - 4 Acres

Plazas Size: 1/8 - 1 Acre Squares Size: 1/4 - 2 Acres Pocket Parks Size: 1/16 - 1/8 Acre

TOD B

Zoning Template

Map 2.1 Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Zoning Template 1/2-Mile Radius

th 67

67t

h P l.

ran

t e rson St.

67th

Ave.

66th Ave .

Dr.

Eastp ine

Baltimore-Washington P kwy.

64th Ave. 63rd Pl.

Ve te

Powhatan St.

r. Te

Patterson St.

Riverdale Rd.

oo w rn Fe

Ct .

eR 1/4-Mil adius

etwork e ine LPA 2 Mile N

Park/Open Space TOD A TOD B

Street Network Rail Line Purple Line PA 1/4 & 1/2 Mile

TOD C.1 TOD C.2 DISTRICT

257

Part 3: Recommendations

Riverdale Park Map 2.2 to the right represents the envisioned transit-oriented development surrounding the Riverdale Park station based on input from the community and Prince George’s County. The purpose of the diagram is to provide a template for future zoning revisions to achieve the envisioned redevelopment, mapping recommendations for appropriate building heights, setbacks, parking ratios, and similar specifications. With the proposed Riverdale Park station at the crossroads of Kenilworth Avenue and East-West Highway; the proximity to M Square; an existing mix of uses; and strong, supporting residential neighborhoods; the area is primed for TOD. However, the area needs a core built around this new transit hub. Focusing on new residential, community-serving retail, neighborhood-serving office, as well as some meaningful public open spaces near the station, will give the community a sense of place reflective of the cultural diversity and vibrancy of the surrounding neighborhoods.

258

TOD ZONES

Park/Open Space

TOD B

Uses

Cultural/Civic

Residential: Single-family attached (townhouses) Multifamily (apartments, condos) Employment: Commercial Office Commercial Retail (community serving, local-serving) Other Uses: Institutional, Cultural/Civic

Densities (du/acre); Intensities (FAR)

Not Applicable

8 - 75 du/acre 1.5 FAR min.

Building Heights

Not Applicable

2-Story min. 5-Story max.

Front Setbacks

Not Applicable

0’min.-10’ max. (excepting Civic) Shallow front setbacks or none; buildings define the street wall

Frontage

Not Applicable

60% - 100%

Parking

Not Applicable

Residential (Single-family): 1/4 mile radius: 1.00 sp/du - 1.75 sp/du 1/2 mile radius: 1.25 sp/du - 2.00 sp/du Residential (Multifamily): 1/4 mile radius: .8 sp/du - 1.5 sp/du 1/2 mile radius: 1.0 sp/du - 2.0 sp/du Commercial (Retail, Office) 1/4 mile radius: 1.75 sp/1000 sf - 2.5 sp/1000 sf 1/2 mile radius: 2.00 sp/1000 sf - 1.0 sp/1000 sf Other Uses: 1/4 mile radius: 25% reduction1 1/2 mile radius: 15% reduction1 Further Shared Parking reductions allowed.2

Open Space Types

Park Size: 1 acre min. Greenways Size: Varies

Plazas Size: 1/8 - 1 Acre Squares Size: 1/4 - 2 Acres Pocket Parks Size: 1/16 - 1/8 Acre

The new four-block core area directly adjacent to and south of the proposed elevated station is targeted for significant mixed-use redevelopment with two- to five-story building heights. This core, along with other parcels reaching out north-south along Kenilworth Avenue and east along Riverdale Road are indicated as TOD B. While the secondary areas outside the four-block core may not reach five stories due to their proximity to the major thoroughfares and the continuation of the Purple Line route, TOD B is warranted. The proposed greenway that extends west through the core blocks as well as the existing parkland of the Anacostia Tributary Trail System are labeled as Park/Open Space areas.

Zoning Template

Map 2.2 Riverdale Park Zoning Template

Kenilworth Ave.

1/2-Mile Radius

ale

Patterson St.

n St.

nS t.

62nd Pl.

a St.

Riverdale

63rd Ave.

Patte rso

at a

Riv erd

Quintan

Quinta

na St.

ighw ay Po wh

St.

58th Ave .

West H

Ave.

60th Pl.

Quin tana

e. Av th

East

e. Av

t 57

oke

Roan

61st Pl.

eR 1/4-Mil adius

Rd .

st 61

54t

ral

Av e.

hA ve.

Mustang Dr.

Nichols

on St.

Av e.

Jeff erso

Ave .

Gr ee

nv ale

wy .

56th

55t

Ken ilw ort h

n St .

t Network ine e Line LPA 1/2 Mile 600

Park/Open Space TOD A TOD B

Street Network Rail Line Purple Line PA 1/4 & 1/2 Mile

TOD C.1 TOD C.2 DISTRICT

259

Part 3: Recommendations

M Square (River Road) Map 2.3 to the right represents the envisioned transit-oriented development surrounding the M Square station based on input from the community and Prince George’s County. The purpose of the diagram is to provide a template for future zoning revisions to achieve the envisioned redevelopment, mapping recommendations for appropriate building heights, setbacks, parking ratios, and similar specifications. Given the proximity to the existing station hub of the Metro Green Line and the MARC Camden Line, along with the proposed Purple Line stops at College Park-UMD and M Square, the area is primed for more intensive redevelopment. While the majority of M Square is likely to remain a research park with office uses only, focusing on new mixed-use development at the new M Square station stop supports sustainable growth and aligns with the state’s Smart, Green & Growing initiative.

TOD ZONES

Park/Open Space

TOD A

Uses

Cultural/Civic

Residential: Multifamily (apartments, condos) Employment: Commercial Office Commercial Retail (entertainment, community-serving) Other Uses: Institutional, Cultural/Civic

Densities (du/acre); Intensities (FAR)

Not Applicable

4 - 35 du/acre 1.0 FAR min.

8 - 75 du/acre 1.5 FAR min.

35 - 175 du/acre 1.0 FAR min.

Building Heights

Not Applicable

2-Story or 30’ min. 3-Story max.

2-Story min. 5-Story max.

TOD C.1 (4-Story min., 6-Story max.) TOD C.2 (5-Story min., 8-Story max.)

Front Setbacks

Not Applicable

5’ min.-20’ max. (excepting Civic) Shallow to medium front setbacks

0’min.-10’ max. (excepting Civic) Shallow front setbacks or none; buildings define the street wall

Frontage

Not Applicable

50% - 80%

60% - 100%

80% - 100%

Parking

Not Applicable

Residential (Single-family): 1/4 mile radius: 1.00 sp/du - 1.75 sp/du 1/2 mile radius: 1.25 sp/du - 2.00 sp/du Residential (Multifamily): 1/4 mile radius: .8 sp/du - 1.5 sp/du 1/2 mile radius: 1.0 sp/du - 2.0 sp/du Commercial (Retail, Office) 1/4 mile radius: 1.75 sp/1000 sf - 2.5 sp/1000 sf 1/2 mile radius: 2.00 sp/1000 sf - 1.0 sp/1000 sf Other Uses: 1/4 mile radius: 25% reduction1 1/2 mile radius: 15% reduction1 Further Shared Parking reductions allowed.2

Residential (Single-family): Not Applicable

Squares Size: 1/4 - 2 Acres Greens Size: 1 - 4 Acres

Plazas Size: 1/8 - 1 Acre Squares Size: 1/4 - 2 Acres Pocket Parks Size: 1/16 - 1/8 Acre

Open Space Types

260

Redevelopment is concentrated within a five-minute walk (or quarter mile) of the stations. Directly adjacent to the M Square station, TOD C is indicated along either side of River Road as well as near the College Park-UMD Metro Station. To the north and west of the M Square station, along Rivertech Court and along the western side of Kenilworth Avenue, TOD Zone B is recommended. The proposed greenway and the existing parkland of the Anacostia Tributary Trail System are labeled as Park/Open Space areas.

Park Size: 1 acre min. Greenways Size: Varies

TOD B

TOD C

Map 2.3 MÂ Square (River Road) Zoning Template

Zoning Template

Pain t Bra nch Pkw y.

Rhode Isla

nd Ave.

1/2-Mile Radius

lwo

rth

Ave .

Univ . Research Ct.

Ken i

Riv ert e

ch Ct.

MAR C/M etro Rail

eR 1/4-Mil adius

Rive

r Rd.

Haig Dr.

Lafa yett e

Ave.

Taylor R d.

Tuckerman St.

East W est H

wy. (M

D 410

)

Park/Open Space TOD A TOD B

Street Network Rail Line Purple Line PA 1/4 & 1/2 Mile

TOD C.1 TOD C.2 DISTRICT

261

Part 3: Recommendations

College Park-UMD Map 2.4 to the right represents the envisioned transit-oriented development surrounding the College Park-UMD Metro Station based on input from the community and Prince George’s County. The purpose of the diagram is to provide a template for future zoning revisions to achieve the envisioned redevelopment, mapping recommendations for appropriate building heights, setbacks, parking ratios, and similar specifications. Given the established mixed-use character, the existing station hub of the Metro Green Line and the MARC Camden Line, along with the proposed Purple Line stop, the area is primed for more intensive redevelopment. Focusing development at the confluence of three rail lines and multiple bus routes supports sustainable growth and aligns with the state’s Smart, Green & Growing initiative.

TOD ZONES

Park/Open Space

TOD A

Uses

Cultural/Civic

Residential: Multifamily (apartments, condos) Employment: Commercial Office Commercial Retail (entertainment, community-serving) Other Uses: Institutional, Cultural/Civic

Densities (du/acre); Intensities (FAR)

Not Applicable

4 - 35 du/acre 1.0 FAR min.

8 - 75 du/acre 1.5 FAR min.

35 - 175 du/acre 1.0 FAR min.

Building Heights

Not Applicable

2-Story or 30’ min. 3-Story max.

2-Story min. 5-Story max.

TOD C.1 (4-Story min., 6-Story max.) TOD C.2 (5-Story min., 8-Story max.)

Front Setbacks

Not Applicable

5’ min.-20’ max. (excepting Civic) Shallow to medium front setbacks

0’min.-10’ max. (excepting Civic) Shallow front setbacks or none; buildings define the street wall

Frontage

Not Applicable

50% - 80%

60% - 100%

80% - 100%

Parking

Not Applicable

Residential (Single-family): 1/4 mile radius: 1.00 sp/du - 1.75 sp/du 1/2 mile radius: 1.25 sp/du - 2.00 sp/du Residential (Multifamily): 1/4 mile radius: .8 sp/du - 1.5 sp/du 1/2 mile radius: 1.0 sp/du - 2.0 sp/du Commercial (Retail, Office) 1/4 mile radius: 1.75 sp/1000 sf - 2.5 sp/1000 sf 1/2 mile radius: 2.00 sp/1000 sf - 1.0 sp/1000 sf Other Uses: 1/4 mile radius: 25% reduction1 1/2 mile radius: 15% reduction1 Further Shared Parking reductions allowed.2

Residential (Single-family): Not Applicable

Squares Size: 1/4 - 2 Acres Greens Size: 1 - 4 Acres

Plazas Size: 1/8 - 1 Acre Squares Size: 1/4 - 2 Acres Pocket Parks Size: 1/16 - 1/8 Acre

Open Space Types

Park Size: 1 acre min. Greenways Size: Varies

TOD Zones Matrix—College Park-UMD 262

Redevelopment is concentrated within a five-minute walk (or quarter mile) of the station and reduces in intensity further from the station. Directly adjacent to the station, TOD C is indicated, concentrated within the quartermile radius east of the rail lines. To note, TOD C.1 allows building heights to a maximum of six-stories; whereas TOD C.2 allows building heights to a maximum of eight-stories. From the quarter-mile to the half-mile radius, TOD B is indicated, stretching to the airport and the parkland to the north and east. Additionally, on the west side of the rail lines, small inclusions of TOD B lay near the existing residential in key areas adjacent to Paint Branch Parkway and the station. Near the airport, TOD A is indicated to limit the building height and provide appropriate transition to the parkland and the College Park Aviation Museum. The proposed greenway and existing parkland are labeled as Park/Open Space areas.

TOD B

TOD C

Zoning Template

Map 2.4 College Park-UMD Zoning Template

nd A ve.

1/2-Mile Radius

e Isla

Colle g

Colu m

e Av e.

Rd.

Erskine Rd.

Drexel Rd.

Ave.

r Rd .

Fordham

Pain t

Bra

nch

Pkw

Rive

tro R

Guilf ord R

51st

t Rd.

Bow doin Ave ail .

Calve r

bia A ve.

Ave.

Rd.

outh

Knox

Dart m

Hop ki

ns A ve.

Rhod

eR 1/4-Mil adius

/ Me

e Ave .

MAR C

Colle g

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

Park/Open Space TOD A TOD B

Street Network Rail Line Purple Line PA 1/4 & 1/2 Mile

TOD C.1 TOD C.2 DISTRICT

263

Part 3: Recommendations

West Campus Map 2.5 to the right represents the envisioned transit-oriented development surrounding the West Campus station based on input from the community and Prince George’s County. The purpose of the diagram is to provide a template for future zoning revisions to achieve the envisioned redevelopment, mapping recommendations for appropriate building heights, setbacks, parking ratios, and similar specifications. With the University of Maryland located directly across the street and the arrival of the Purple Line, future mixeduse development should be focused near the proposed station stop along Campus Drive. In particular, predominantly residential development projects should concentrate their limited retail fronting Campus Drive to activate the streetscape. Importantly, this new station and the surrounding development will shape the western gateway to the university; efforts should be made to coordinate with the university’s master plan. TOD ZONES

Park/Open Space

TOD A

Uses

Cultural/Civic

Primarily single-use; Office, Industrial, and Institutional

Densities (du/acre); Intensities (FAR)

Not Applicable

4 - 35 du/acre 1.0 FAR min.

8 - 75 du/acre 1.5 FAR min.

Not Applicable

Building Heights

Not Applicable

2-Story or 30’ min. 3-Story max.

2-Story min. 5-Story max.

Not Applicable

Front Setbacks

Not Applicable

5’ min.-20’ max. (excepting Civic) Shallow to medium front setbacks

0’min.-10’ max. (excepting Civic) Shallow front setbacks or none; buildings define the street wall

0’min.-20’max.

Frontage

Not Applicable

50% - 80%

60% - 100%

Not Applicable

Parking

Not Applicable

Residential (Single-family): 1/4 mile radius: 1.00 sp/du - 1.75 sp/du 1/2 mile radius: 1.25 sp/du - 2.00 sp/du Residential (Multifamily): 1/4 mile radius: .8 sp/du - 1.5 sp/du 1/2 mile radius: 1.0 sp/du - 2.0 sp/du Commercial (Retail, Office) 1/4 mile radius: 1.75 sp/1000 sf - 2.5 sp/1000 sf 1/2 mile radius: 2.00 sp/1000 sf - 1.0 sp/1000 sf Other Uses: 1/4 mile radius: 25% reduction1 1/2 mile radius: 15% reduction1 Further Shared Parking reductions allowed.2

Not Applicable

Open Space Types

Park Size: 1 acre min. Greenways Size: Varies

Squares Size: 1/4 - 2 Acres Greens Size: 1 - 4 Acres

Plazas Size: 1/8 - 1 Acre Squares Size: 1/4 - 2 Acres Pocket Parks Size: 1/16 - 1/8 Acre

Plazas Size: 1/8 - 1 Acre Greens Size: 1 - 4 Acres Park Size: 1 Acre min.

TOD Zones Matrix—West Campus 264

With the University of Maryland campus located in the half-mile radius, a large portion of the station area is considered a district. A district is an area consisting of primarily a single-use and may not be subject to municipal zoning regulations. In this case, the campus is an institution under the state’s jurisdiction. While governed by unique circumstance, future campus development should aim to line and activate Campus Drive, supporting the recent and future TOD development south of Campus Drive. In order to focus new development adjacent to the campus and the station stop, the area south of Campus Drive and University Boulevard East is indicated as TOD B with two- to five-story building heights. South of the TOD B blocks, the school property is indicated as TOD A to acknowledge the proximity to the station with reduced parking ratios. Several Park/Open Space areas are present in the station area, including the existing parkland around Turtle Creek Lake and the proposed Turtle Creek greenway. TOD B

District

Zoning Template

Map 2.5 Zoning Plan West Campus Template

Adelphi Rd .

Un ive rsi ty

Bl v d. E.

1/2-Mile Radius

Co ol

eR 1/4-Mil adius

S p rin g Rd.

Cha

Temple St.

UMUC Cam p

y Blvd. E. Universit

us D

Tulane D

t. t. sS er

. vd

n Pe

an ylv

. St

Windsor Ln.

el W

t. eS

u rd Pu

d. Adelphi R

Ru tg

Sta nf

n att L Mow

d or

University of Maryland College Park

der

an mm

Park/Open Space TOD A TOD B

Dr.

Street Network Rail Line Purple Line PA 1/4 & 1/2 Mile

TOD C.1 TOD C.2 DISTRICT

265

3. Implementation Strategies 3.1 Business Technical Assistance

269

3.2 Business Financial Assistance

270

3.3 Mitigation of Construction-Related Impacts 271 3.4 Residential Implementation Strategies

272

3.5 Federal Affordable Housing Tools

273

3.6 Expanded State/Local Affordable Housing Tools

273

3.7 Redevelopment Funding Alternatives

274

Overview The following section profiles implementation strategies and alternative funding sources for the existing and new commercial businesses and services along the proposed Purple Line. All strategies considered for this analysis will be reviewed and refined in coordination with the Prince Georgeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s County Economic Development Corporation.

Implementation Strategies

3.1 Business Technical Assistance Businesses from start-ups to established can benefit from technical assistance offered by government entities. Federal and state programs offer assistance to specific groups, varying based on industry sector, size, location, and age of the operations. These programs range extensively and are frequently matched with local programs and resources. The Prince George’s County Economic Development Corporation (EDC) has a series of existing programs in place to retain existing businesses and attract new businesses to Prince George’s County. The EDC offers business development and small-business assistance. This assistance ranges from technical help to direct financial assistance.

Build Technical Capacity In Prince George’s County, the strength of the existing relationship among county staff and federal Service Corps of Retired Executives (SCORE) counselors provides a model for other communities. The U.S. Small Business Administration supports SCORE, the nonprofit association that provides education and technical assistance to small businesses throughout the country. These counselors work directly with Prince George’s EDC staff to respond to individuals and parties interested in starting a new business in the county. In Phoenix, Arizona, the construction of the Central Phoenix Light Rail Transit line stretched approximately 20 miles, impacting 3,500 businesses. Valley Metro (the transit agency) provided free analysis of individual businesses’ strengths and weaknesses. The on-call consultants prepared detailed action plans for interested businesses. Along the Purple Line, existing business owners and operators uncertain about the reality of the proposed new light rail system may limit their investment and commitment to the communities they currently serve. During the planning phases, the business environment could erode with disinvestment. To combat these concerns, frequent communication, community leadership, and direct guidance to specific businesses should attempt to reduce the uncertainties and help businesses thrive.

and knowledge of existing government programs, both for technical and financial assistance. In Seattle, the Office of Economic Development (OED) updated its approach to assisting existing and start-up businesses. Seattle created business advocates to interact with businesses and required documentation of interactions with tracking to both identify recurring problems and guarantee progress. According to the Seattle Jobs Plan 2011, the city helped an estimated 671 businesses since the program’s implementation in 2009 and visited more than 1,200. In Portland, the community outreach began by hiring local residents. These local residents offered bilingual outreach and involved both residents and business owners. The process incorporated regular door-to-door canvassing and telephone calls to keep business owners updated and involved. According to Tri-Met, only one business failed, as a direct result of construction-related disruptions, and three relocated. In Portland, the community relations staff and construction supervisors initiated daily contact in advance with businesses adjacent to construction to prepare business owners. In addition the 24 hour construction hotline with live operator allowed businesses to report after-hour issues with construction. 1 In Phoenix, Valley Metro hired a business advocate with the sole purpose of communicating to businesses along the 20-mile corridor. In Prince George’s County, regular and frequent contact from an ombudsman would bridge the gap between state and county efforts.

Promote Business Leadership and Partnership

Within Prince George’s County, the University of Maryland at College Park is a key anchor institution with capacity to assist local businesses.

The county should consider further support of local business associations to foster collaboration and interaction among area businesses. The Central Kenilworth Avenue Revitalization (CKAR) organization is one of the only business organizations along the proposed Purple Line corridor in Prince George’s County. As a non-profit, CKAR could build its capacity to assist area businesses.

Assist in Business Location and Relocation

Adjust Regulatory Environment

Currently the EDC in Prince George’s County provides assistance to those businesses searching for a business location or place to relocate within the county. The EDC staff accesses CoStar data, a national data provider of available commercial property, to provide site-specific information and details on rental rates, amenities and features for office, industrial, flex, research and development, and retail space. However, CoStar does not capture smaller office space with less than 5,000 square feet.

Improve Communications and Interaction Efforts to expand public engagement during large-scale infrastructure projects that spur redevelopment require a long-term commitment and dedicated staff. The communication should provide information on more than the infrastructure improvements to help expand the communities’ understanding

Typically the regulatory environment offers protection and guidelines for business owners but can create barriers that slow down the business process. Reviewing the current regulatory environment and delineating the steps and appropriate contacts at the different government levels could help to adjust the regulatory environment. Some jurisdictions offer expedited review of development plans and assign government staff to support businesses and coordinate across different agencies. These minor adjustments to the regulatory environment can greatly improve business operations. The current regulatory environment may not provide sufficient incentives or may delay a business owner’s ability to respond to dramatic changes in the business climate. Regulatory conditions initially intended to provide efficiency 1 Collins, Reuben R., Light Rail Transit Construction Impact Mitigation Strategies: Case Studies and Recommendations for the Central Corridor, December 21, 2007.

269

Part 3: Recommendations

and transparency can artificially prevent business adaptation during transition. Regulatory barriers could be as simple as increasing the speed of permit approval process so a business impacted by new infrastructure improvements may place a banner showing a detour to its entrance for customers.

Support Immigrant Entrepreneurs Most economic development officials suggest that the best economic results come from support of local business entrepreneurs. The immigrant population represents a segment of this market targeted for growth. In New York City, the Mayor’s three immigrant business initiatives highlight a new collaboration between the Department of Small Business Services and the EDC. These initiatives included a business expo, education programs, and a business plan competition for innovative strategies to assist immigrant entrepreneurs. 2

Maryland Sustainable Communities While the federal government and local governments offer sustainable community designations, the State of Maryland first offered designation under the 2010 Sustainable Communities Act. The state targets communities in designated Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Zones and TODs. An interagency review panel, under the governor’s smart growth subcabinet, reviews these five-year designations. Communities may renew their designation at the end of the five-year period. The state provides incentives targeted to these sustainable communities, including technical and financial assistance. Initially communities must apply for designation prior to applying for incentives. Recently the sustainable communities designation received an extension until the end of 2013 with underlying funding earmarked for incentives offered to participating communities. In order to be eligible for the sustainable communities designation, a community needs to meet the specific criterion for a BRAC Zone or TOD area. Senate Bill 204 defined TOD as dense, mixed use, deliberately planned development with a half-mile of transit stations designated to increase transit use. Those communities along the proposed Purple Line in Prince George’s County would certainly qualify under the state definition. In addition the Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development would support one application for the entire Purple Line Corridor with different strategies for the east and west section of the Purple Line. It should be noted that College Park has already applied for designation under the Sustainable Communities Program, and as such, the boundaries should be contiguous with the Purple Line. The state provides maps of the specific boundaries on its web site for reference. The financial incentives offered to those accepted sustainable communities include all those programs under the previous neighborhoods and community legacy areas. A set of programs support existing and new business and include:

2 McConnell, J. Katie; McFarland, Christiana; Common, Brett Supporting Entrepreneurs and Small Business: A Tool Kit for Local Leaders, p 19.

270

• Neighborhood Business Works—Loans offering both gap financing and subordinate financing for new or expanding small business and nonprofit organizations. • Maryland Department of Business & Economic Development Job Creation Tax Credit—Offering $1,000 to $1,500 tax credits per new employee for businesses that create more than 25 new jobs. • Commercial Rehabilitation Tax Credit—The State of Maryland’s historical trust provides a 10-percent tax credit for rehabilitation of non-historic structures. Local governments and Prince George’s County may take advantage of additional programs under the Sustainable Community Program such as: • Community Legacy Program—Gives funding to local governments and community development organizations to fund essential projects, including commercial revitalization, homeownership expansion, business retention and attraction. • Maryland Department of Transportation Sidewalk Retrofit Program—For projects in sustainable community areas provides 100 percent of the cost to replace sidewalks along state highways (Maryland US Routes, other than expressways).

3.2 Business Financial Assistance The EDC has a series of existing programs in place to retain and attract new businesses to Prince George’s County. The EDC offers business development and small business assistance through a variety of funding sources.

Economic Development Incentive Fund The county recently created a new Economic Development Incentive (EDI) Fund to spur further private investment in Prince George’s County. The $50 million multiyear commitment from the county provides a flexible source of capital. The EDI Fund allows applicants to use the funds for acquisition, construction, renovation, relocation, working capital, and training. The flexibility of this fund coupled with the quick approval process (projected at 90 days) focuses funding on TOD and Inner-Beltway communities.

Revitalization Area Tax Credit Prince George’s County offers a five-year tax credit for properties within designated revitalization areas, primarily inner-Beltway communities. The tax credit provides full abatement (100 percent) on the increase in taxes resulting from improvement to the property in the first year. The credit steps down over the five-year period by 20 percent annually. Additional publicity about this tax credit and other programs geared for the inner-Beltway communities could expand participation.

Façade Improvement Grants or Loans Typically used along “main streets,” these financial incentives provide assistance with upgrades to a business exterior. The options include lowinterest loans and direct-matching grants, allowing the business owner to

Implementation Strategies

select the improvement and pay for a portion of the total costs. In general business owners often upgrade signage, building windows, awnings, and siding with a total cost of less than $40,000. For a more dramatic impact, some jurisdictions offer free architectural assistance to these businesses first to help guide the exterior improvements along a corridor or street. To be successful, these types of programs need only minimal underwriting requirements, alternatives for business owners with absentee landlords (such as a waiver for participation in the program) and favorable rates.

Small Business and Low-Interest Loans Prince George’s County offers assistance to small businesses and low-interest loans to businesses throughout the county. These programs offer assistance for business upgrades and expansion, equipment purchases, and other capital investments. Typically the loans reflect a below-market interest rate with less stringent underwriting than required by private lenders.

3.3 Mitigation of ConstructionRelated Impacts Purple Line Business Advocate The MTA and county agencies may assign staff to serve as Purple Line business advocates. These advocates would require authorization to respond directly to local stakeholder concerns and be offered sufficient support. The function of these advocates would include serving as the central point of contact for local businesses situated along the planned light rail transit alignment. These advocates may offer marketing and coordination support for the businesses during the construction of the Purple Line and serve as a direct conduit to local, county, and state business assistance programs.

Business Interruption Grants Many jurisdictions use forgivable or conditional loan programs to offer grants to businesses located in construction zones for major infrastructure improvements. In Minnesota, both St. Paul and Minneapolis offer forgivable loans during the construction of the Central Corridor Light Rail Transit Line. These forgivable loans offer assistance to cover basic business expenses for those business impacted by new infrastructure projects. The program targets small business with less than $2 million in annual gross sales with loans of up to $20,000. Businesses must demonstrate a loss of revenue, and the loans are forgiven over a five-year period as long as the business stays at the current location. Since the program is based on the premise of businesses suffering due to construction, applicants may apply 60 days after construction begins. These programs often reduce the number of businesses that close as a result of construction interruption to basic business operations.

Construction Parking Strategies During the construction of new infrastructure investments, the change in traffic patterns and barricades make access to traditional parking in

front of retail stories challenging. While arrangements may be made for employee parking, customers often need immediately visible parking alternatives. For those auto-dependent businesses with a significant customer base consisting of drive-by traffic, construction projects can make it difficult for customers to access the business. Often jurisdictions provide additional temporary signage for shared parking locations or change current parking restrictions during construction to alleviate the problem. Direct communication with business owners to understand the number of customers and peak time of day for these customers can also provide solutions and remedies by adjusting construction schedules to protect business owners’ busiest times.

Signage and Wayfinding Construction of new infrastructure, especially the creation of light rail operations that run along existing thoroughfares, creates new traffic patterns for automobiles and pedestrians. Often times, entrances to parking lots may be blocked and/or on-street parking may be temporarily removed. Barricades and staging areas for construction equipment can block business entrances and signage and generally discourage customers from accessing local businesses. Funding new signage, including “business open” signs, helps to mitigate these problems by helping customers access the business. In addition to adding more signage, some jurisdictions reduce temporary-sign regulations, offering businesses the opportunity to post banners or other temporary signs that give customers more information about access and operations during construction.

Customer Loyalty Programs The burden of construction for a new light rail project can be difficult for customers who must navigate a challenging pedestrian and automobile experience. In order to maintain business sales, many jurisdictions offer customer loyalty programs, providing financial incentives for current customers to continue to patronize the business during construction.

Temporary Public Art While construction detracts from the business environment, public art provides a welcome attraction for residents and potential business customers. To minimize the impact of construction, local jurisdictions place temporary public art along construction barriers or to shield staging areas. These efforts support community pride and provide a new focal point during construction. In Seattle, the wall surrounding the construction site of the Capitol Hill station ranged from 8 to 24 feet high and needed to be maintained for six years during construction. While different than a corridorwide street improvement, this transit project changed the nature of the pedestrian environment. To help reduce this impact, the community and local artists designed graphics for the wall exterior. 3

3 Sound Transit, “Capitol Hill Station Construction”. http://projects.soundtransit.org/ProjectsHome/University-Link/Capitol-Hill-Station.xml

271

Part 3: Recommendations

3.4 Residential Implementation Strategies The following section profiles implementation strategies and alternative funding sources for the residential community, focusing on the issues of affordable housing.

Residential Advocate Along the Purple Line specific station area, communities struggle with more foreclosures or distressed sales compared to other communities in Prince George’s County. During 2011, almost one in five sales represented distressed activity (including short-sales or foreclosure properties) in zip code 20737. In April, Governor Martin O’Malley passed new legislation on foreclosure prevention measures, which included a measure to help struggling homeowners before they lose their home. The new law creates a statewide database of foreclosed properties to help localities keep track of the inventory and contacts. The statewide registry will also capture the amount of time following each step in the foreclosure process and help communities struggling with vacant properties. Finally, the new law provides a tax credit for potential homeowners as an incentive for purchasing foreclosed properties in targeted communities.4

Outreach to Property Owners Area residents and community leaders need to reach out to the owners of vacant properties, ideally as soon as they purchase a property in the neighborhood. That contact should include discussion of the community’s expectations of property owners; county codes that apply to vacant properties; the owner’s plans and concerns; the community’s continued scrutiny; and an invitation to join with the community in enforcing property standards. Many communities conduct landlord training classes to help new landlords and property managers learn how to screen tenants, deal with problem tenants, and prevent drug and other problems. Buffalo’s Crime Free Rental Housing Program couples training with a survey of the property by a police officer and a landlord commitment to take action. One useful training handbook is available at www.cdri.com/library/LTPNat4_1.pdf. It is also important to provide incentives to behave responsibly. Utah reduces its rental housing fees through the “good landlord program” if the landlords carry out specified actions. Other incentives for good landlords include greater access to available properties, expedited eviction of problem tenants, free safety inspections, free or subsidized security/safety equipment (e.g., smoke detectors), property improvement loans or grants, and improved access to Police and City officials.

4 Community Review: the official blog of the Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development, Governor O’Malley Signs Foreclosure Prevention Measures Establishing Early Mediation and Foreclosed Property Database .

272

Vacant Structures Chicago requires owners of vacant properties to post a sign with their contact information. New Haven (CT) property owners, primarily banks and institutions, must register foreclosed properties or face fines of $250 per day. Allentown (PA) requires local agents to register and assigns them the same legal responsibilities as the owners. In addressing this scourge, the community has been hindered by lack of information as to who owns each unit. It can take several months for the lenders to sort through who holds title to the vacant houses. Then, following foreclosure, many units were purchased by investors who hid behind corporate identities. The City of Atlanta has adopted legislation that requires owners of all vacant properties to register. Several communities charge penalties of 10 to 20 percent per month for unpaid registration fees. A state requirement that mortgage services register and provide specific contact information also could help to identify responsible parties. The amount of the registration fees can be used to discourage holding units vacant. Wilmington (DE) assesses fees tied to the number of years a building has been vacant $500 for one year; $1,000 for two years; $2,000 for three to four years; $3,500 for five to nine years; and $5,000 for 10 years plus $500 for each additional year, regardless of changes in ownership. This helped Wilmington reduce the number of vacant houses by 22 percent from 2003 to 2007. San Diego (CA) requires an action plan for returning vacant units to status allowing occupancy, including a maintenance plan during vacancy and a schedule for rehabilitation or demolition. The city charges fines up to $1,000 and/or six months in jail for failing to register, file a reuse plan, or follow the property maintenance standards.

Code Enforcement Enforcing building and housing codes is a key tool for cleaning up the neighborhood. The County Code requires maintenance of houses in habitable condition. Properties must be maintained, the grass cut, and vacant structures secured against entry. Property owners who fail to maintain their properties are fined. The county has the authority to maintain or repair the property, charge the property owner, and/or put a lien on the property. Concentrated code enforcement can be effective, particularly when coupled with incentives and forgivable loans for rehab by current owners and cooperative landlords. Baltimore’s Vacants to Value Initiative has new authority to issue $900 citations, targeting 1,000 vacant buildings. A new public/private partnership has code enforcement attorneys working with committed, capitalized developers. Every owner of a vacant property must rehab it or sell to someone who can. The city invests in infrastructure and maintenance, clearing vacant buildings and land banking in the most severely distressed areas.

Implementation Strategies

Clean It or Lien It One of the most common tools is local government action to correct the code violations by putting a lien on the property to recover the cost. A problem arises, however, when the lien takes a secondary position behind the mortgage, meaning that the proceeds from sale are used first to pay the mortgage. Raleigh’s Probationary Rental Occupancy Permit charges fees for landlords with repeated, multiple violations. An owner who has violated codes and failed to repair the property pays $500 per year and must attend a property management court. One remedy is to legislate “super priority” for nuisance abatement liens. This means that along with unpaid property taxes, the cost of cleaning up and securing the property would be paid first from any proceeds from sale. Pennsylvania requires purchasers of a building with substantial code violations to bring it into compliance within one year. If not, the owner is personally liable for maintenance, repair, and/or demolition costs as well as a fine of $1,000 to $10,000.

3.5 Federal Affordable Housing Tools The federal government plays a major financial role in affordable housing through its many programs. The following list includes the most prominent federal programs for affordable housing: • Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) that offset up to 60 percent of the costs of developing affordable housing with federal income tax credits. • HOME Investment Partnership that helps to fund transitional housing acquisition, rehabilitation, construction, and tenant-based rental assistance. • Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds granted to the county to fund housing and services for low- and moderate-income residents at the county’s discretion. • Historic Tax Credits that provide an offset to federal income taxes in exchange for qualified rehabilitation of designated historic properties.

taxes paid as an incentive for investment in the construction or rehabilitation of affordable housing. Projects financed with the issuance of tax-exempt bonds qualify for an automatic four-percent tax credit allocation. After a project has been awarded tax credits, the owner or developer usually hires a broker or syndicator to market the credits. The credits are sold to investors on the basis of their current value. Investors in tax credit projects can use the credits to reduce their federal income taxes, dollar for dollar, each year for 10 years. In addition to these programs, the federal HOME Investment Partnership and funds from the CDBG may be viable sources of additional financial support for proposed redevelopment along the Purple Line.

3.6 Expanded State/Local Affordable Housing Tools In addition to the funding alternatives mentioned previously, there are a variety of programs that may assist in offsetting the public investment.

Dedicated New Taxes for Affordable Housing The creation of a new property tax for affordable housing within a specific district or countywide could generate additional funds to support the creation of affordable housing. This alternative could be combined with other tools as the funding source. Once created a new tax stream could be used to finance municipal bonds. Municipal bonds that are backed by the full faith and credit of Prince George’s County require voter approval to fund investment as the general fund securitizes the bonds. It should be noted that Prince George’s County has a series of funding priorities with which affordable housing would be competitive and as such access to use general obligation bonds may be unlikely. Also, the 1978 Tax Reform Initiative by Marylanders (TRIM) tax policy created a tax cap or limit on the amount of tax revenue generated. In Prince George’s County, the current TRIM policies prevent the county from increasing tax revenue.

Inclusionary Zoning—Bonus Density

These resources are, of course, limited by statewide caps on the value of credits and formulae for distributing funding across the United States. In particular the capacity and mere existence of many federal programs rely on support from the U.S. Congress. Changes to the political will may result in the loss of these programs or significant reduction in funding capacity. Recently, the federal government has reviewed the potential for significant budget cuts to the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Community Development Fund, which includes CDBG.

The State of Maryland allows for the adoption of inclusionary zoning policies that offer an increase in the total developable square feet (or bonus density) for development that incorporates affordable housing. Throughout Maryland many local jurisdictions have adopted inclusionary policies that tie the construction of new market-rate residential units to creation and inclusion of affordable units. Price points and specifics vary considerably, allowing for low-income to moderately-priced dwelling units to meet the criteria of each jurisdiction’s programs.

Low-Income Housing Tax Credits

Pooled Investment Fund

The LIHTC is based on Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code and provides a credit against tax liability or a dollar-for-dollar reduction in the amount of

Many municipalities and jurisdictions search for additional funds and seek to leverage a larger pool of foundation and private lender capital. Denver, San Francisco, and other localities use a commitment of local public funds to

273

Part 3: Recommendations

fund the most risky portion of affordable housing development. If a project’s cash flow is not sufficient to repay the total loan, it is the city’s loan that is not repaid. Foundations provide additional funding that is at risk of not being repaid if the shortfall exceeds the city’s share of the fund. This reduces the risk to cooperating private lenders who are assured that their loans will be repaid in full. This tool would be combined with other tools to acquire and make available sites for preservation or creation of affordable housing at a reduced cost. In New York City, the Affordable Housing Acquisition Loan Fund provides loans for property acquisition and other construction costs associated with the preservation or creation of affordable housing units. The fund, established in 2006, typically takes the guarantee position or a larger amount of senior debt and offers a rate of return between seven to eight percent. Community Development Financial Institutions underwrite, originate, and service the loans associated with the fund, including Corporation for Supportive Housing, Enterprise Community Loan Fund, Local Initiatives Support Corporation, Low Income Investment Fund and the New York City Housing Development Corporation. These loans range from $400,000 to $7.5 million with a short term of up to three years for 100-percent-affordable or mixed-use development projects by non-profit or for-profit developers. Montgomery County is considering the creation of a Revolving Equity Fund that takes a portion of the existing county’s Housing Initiatives Fund (HIF) to leverage long-term taxable bonds through an initial capital infusion. Building on this initial funding, the larger pool of funds from private investors (banks, insurance funds, major employers, etc.) would be able to access a greater amount of taxable revenue bonds. The fund would offer the raised capital as one source of equity for affordable housing development projects in partnership with the private sector real estate development community. As an equity member of the real estate transaction, the fund would retain a residual ownership interest and the benefit of any returns on the investment. Additionally the fund may provide credit enhancement by committing a portion of the county’s HIF fund for repayment. Enterprise Foundation is currently seeking support for its regional Green Preservation of Affordable Transit-Oriented Housing initiative to acquire existing apartment buildings near transit stations and preserve them as long-term affordable housing. Its first investments have been in Southeast Washington, D.C.

Philanthropic Funding Small to large foundations provide financial support for development of affordable housing as a mission-driven investment or a response to request. The variety of foundation funds and opportunities range from monies available for local governments to expand capacity or study affordable housing issues/ policies (such as the Center for Housing Policy’s grants) to specific grants for developers or builders (which include the Home Depot Affordable Housing Built Responsible Grant and Wells Fargo Housing Foundation grants).

274

Many of the private foundation funds provide direct assistance to improve homeownership opportunities.

3.7 Redevelopment Funding Alternatives There is clearly a need to obtain private sector investment, as public sources become scarce. The following list of public sector sources represents a first cut at sharing the high cost of redevelopment across agencies. Many of these funding sources help leverage private sector investment to offset public sector outlays. The mixed-finance approach to redevelopment, particularly in lowincome communities with new transit access, emphasizes the formation of new public and private partnerships to ensure long-term project sustainability. The redevelopment opportunities along Purple Line require both public and private investment during different phases of development depending on market conditions and current land ownership interests. The following list of development funding sources recommends leveraging several public sector programs including New Market Tax Credits, Historic Tax Credits, Green Communities, Tax Increment Financing (TIF), State Infrastructure Banks, Special Benefit Districts and direct Development Impact Fees.

New Markets Tax Credits New Markets Tax Credits provide equity through Community Development Entities (CDE) to assist financing of commercial development projects in low-income communities. Similar to LIHTCs tax benefits offered by the New Markets Tax Credit attract investors willing to make an equity investment in a CDE. The annual dollar volume of New Markets Tax Credits allocated by the U.S. government is capped, creating a competitive process for receiving the allocation of credits during each annual funding round. Mixed-use developments can qualify as long as more than 20 percent of the gross revenue in the seven-year compliance period comes from commercial rents. The most common model used by non-profits for New Markets Tax Credits allows up to 95 percent of a project’s cost to be financed with favorable debt coverage ratios as low as 1.1 times net operating income and interest-only loans at rates as low as three percent. Loans can also be structured so that debt service is tied to available cash flow. An essential requirement for New Markets Tax Credit derived financing is that it must involve debt (unlike other tax credit programs) in order to meet Internal Revenue Service requirements. In addition to this requirement, New Markets Tax Credits may not be combined with Low-Income Housing Tax Credits. It is likely that area CDEs with outstanding allocation for New Market Tax Credits would find the Purple Line opportunity sites attractive for investment given sound development plans.

Implementation Strategies

Enterprise Community Investment Alternatives Enterprise’s Multifamily Mortgage Finance business merged with Bellwether Real Estate Capital in May 2012 and continues to offer access to institutional investors from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to a range of institutional investors, including life insurance companies, pension funds, and commercial banks. These different entities offer loans for acquisition, refinancing, new construction, rehabilitation, long-term permanent, and non-recourse financing for commercial and residential properties for both nonprofit and for-profit developers. The communities along the proposed Purple Line meet many of the criteria and could compete for the funding available through Enterprise.

Enterprise— Green Communities Initiative The Enterprise Community Loan Fund offers additional financial resources for “green” developments. The Green Communities Initiative provides funding for redevelopment of existing residential developments for both planning and construction. Planning funds may be used for architectural work, engineering, site surveys, energy use studies and environmental reviews. Construction funds may be applied to green construction items, including green materials and energy-efficient appliances. Any community-based housing developer may apply for these funds and receive up to $3 million at 6.5-percent for up to 36 months. These funds require that rental housing projects serve households with incomes at or below 60 percent of the area median income. For homeownership units, households with incomes at or below 80 percent of area median income are eligible for assistance. As a competitive process, it is important that projects meet green standards set out by the Enterprise Foundation. Fortunately, the development along the Purple Line in both Riverdale Park and Beacon Heights qualifies based on its location, the community served, and potential to impact the greater community by improving energy efficiency. Green Communities provides resources for developers and communities to build well-located green affordable homes. Enterprise’s TOD work includes financing, research and policy advocacy with charrette grants, sustainable training grants, and offset funding alternatives. The offset funding alternative allows developers to build green housing and offset a community’s current carbon footprint. This type of alternative funding program helps to value the more environmentally friendly building options and incentivize a more green redevelopment effort.

Historic Tax Credits Historic Tax Credits can be from the federal and state government in support of the renovation and maintenance of important historic structures. The federal program requires meeting the Department of the Interior’s standards for historic rehab. The tax credit helps to fill the gap for the high cost of renovating a historic structure. The Maryland Sustainable Communities Rehabilitation Tax Credit Program provides state tax credits based on the amount of qualified costs. As previously mentioned, a 10-percent credit exists for non-historic

commercial structures. For historic structures of commercial buildings, the 20 percent credit is expanded to 25 percent for certified Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Gold or higher buildings.

Tax Increment Financing The use of TIF is particularly appropriate for projects with high infrastructure costs or projects that create significant public benefit; this funding source is recommended as a primary method to support infrastructure (sidewalks, trail improvements, curb, and gutter) associated with the proposed Purple Line but not included in the state costs. TIF devotes incremental tax revenues generated by property value increases to fund infrastructure and other public improvements needed to support the development. It most often involves real property tax revenues generated by increases in assessed property values. The concept involves using tax revenues that otherwise would not be generated to pay for public infrastructure and other costs to facilitate redevelopment. Tax revenues generated by the value of existing property or properties at the time a TIF district is established continue to flow to the jurisdiction’s general fund. During the life of the TIF, the local tax revenues generated by the increase in property values are deposited in a special fund to finance public infrastructure and other specified uses. Any incremental revenues not needed for debt service revert to the jurisdiction. When all bonds have been repaid, the jurisdiction then receives all of the property tax revenues generated by the redevelopment as part of regular taxes. While the TIF is in place, the jurisdiction benefits from other increased tax and fee revenues not subject to TIF, including income, personal property, utility and hotel taxes as well as permit and other fees. Maryland law allows the county to devote additional local taxes to the TIF in TODs at the county’s discretion.

Special Benefits Districts Special benefits districts involve the creation of a district to tax affected properties that benefit from a public infrastructure improvement. Such districts are used commonly to fund sewer extensions. While these types of districts typically require approval by a large majority of property owners, the focus on specific improvements expected to enhance property values makes consensus building more feasible. Private property owners in the District of Columbia’s NoMa neighborhood agreed to create a special assessment district, taxing themselves to raise $25 million for construction of the New York Avenue Metro Station on Metro’s Red Line. In Massachusetts, special assessment bond legislation, created in 2007, broadened the power of a local area to create its own local improvement district (LID). Under the new legislation, private businesses and land owners could create their own district with 80-percent support from property owners, and Mass Development (the state’s economic development arm) would issue bonds for infrastructure on behalf of the newly formed LID. In 2007, the City of Berkeley, California, created a special assessment district that allowed privately placed debt of property owners to finance energy efficiency improvements as a property tax. In 2009, Boulder County allowed the use of special assessment bonds to finance energy improvements with

275

Part 3: Recommendations

a mixture of tax-exempt and taxable bonds. Those property owners located within the special benefits district could receive loans for qualifying clean energy projects that would be repaid through a special assessment that remains with the property. This is the first national example of a public debt issuance for local energy improvements. The Boulder County example provides an interesting option for Prince George’s County to consider for Riverdale Park and surrounding areas. The town does not have the financial capacity or staff capable of underwriting tax-exempt bonds. As in Berkeley and Boulder County, Prince George’s County could structure a more creative special assessment for Riverdale Park and the surrounding area that would allow the county to group major public investments into a single bond issuance funded by a new tax on the cities’ and towns’ property owners and/or those properties within one-half mile of the proposed Purple Line.

Developer Impact Fees Impact fees are fees charged to new development to fund public costs resulting from that development. In Maryland, a municipality can only impose an impact fee as part of a regulatory measure, typically during the approval process for new development. This permission falls under Article 23A, §2(b) (33)(ii) of the Maryland Annotated Code. There must be an adequate nexus between the charge imposed and the cost of the services. Maryland’s current law further requires that revenue must be appropriately earmarked to make certain it directly benefits the new development. Recent case history in 2004 further outlined the ability to use impact fees, allowing the City of Taneytown to impose fees for police and fire protection services. The enabling legislation for impact fees does exist for Prince George’s County, but the amount of these fees does not pay for all recommended county infrastructure improvements. Currently Prince George’s County, impact fees/surcharges are $21,615 per new single-family residential dwelling unit for schools, public safety, and roads. Along the proposed Purple Line, development prospects consist primarily of redevelopment with limited opportunities for major new developments. This limits the potential funds generated via impact fees under the current program structure and therefore should not be relied on as a source of new funding for the necessary infrastructure upgrades associated with redevelopment.

276

4. Next Step

Next Steps

Next Steps Critical to the success of new TOD at the proposed Purple Line Stations is the alignment of public policy with the envisioned station area plans. A first step in this process is revising the current zoning to support the communityendorsed vision for TOD. The zoning template in this report may be applied as an overlay to existing zoning regulations or may replace the existing zoning regulations for the station areas. The first of these rezoning efforts is planned for the M Square and College Park-UMD station areas as described below. Similar efforts are required for the three remaining stations: Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights), Riverdale Park, and West Campus. The county can facilitate the implementation strategies noted in this report by targeting the station areas for technical and financial assistance to retain existing businesses, attract new businesses, and by aligning and coordinating with state and federal programs. Additionally, continued coordination between Prince Georgeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s County and MTA through the final engineering of the Purple Line route and station locations is required to ensure the proper multimodal streetscape character and station amenities.

Update of the 1997 College Park-Riverdale Transit District Development Plan Building on the Purple Line TOD Study land use, infrastructure, and zoning recommendations documented in this report, the Prince Georgeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s County Planning Department will initiate an update of the 1997 College ParkRiverdale Transit District Development Plan as part of its 2013 work program. Zoning revisions should allow more intensive development near the transit stops by increasing areas of mixed-use development and building heights and reducing setbacks, parking ratios, etc.

279

Purple Line TOD Study Part 2: MarketConditions Analysis Existing Report February 2012 May 2013

Contents 1. Introduction 115 1.1 Purpose of Market Analysis

2. Demographic Profile 2.1 Regional Economic Overview 2.2 Demographic Profile

117

119 121 122

3. Residential Market

125

3.1 Housing Stock

127

4. Commercial Market 4.1 Office

133 135

113

Purple Line TOD Study—Part 2: Market Analysis

List of Maps Map 1.1 Map 3.1 Map 4.1 Map 4.2 Map 4.3 Map 4.4 Map 4.5

Purple Line Corridor Rental Submarket Purple Line Office Market Area Purple Line Grocery Stores Purple Line Shopping Centers Purple Line Shopping Centers Commercial Improvements as Percent of Value

List of Figures 117 130 135 141 141 142 143

114

Figure 2.1: Figure 3.1: Figure 3.2: Figure 4.1:

121 127 128 138 138 146

1. Introduction

Purpose of Market Analysis

117

Introduction

1.1 Purpose of Market Analysis

Map 1.1 Purple Line Corridor 2010 Central US 1 Corridor 2009 TakomaLangley Crossroads TakomaLangley Transit Center

LRT Alignment on Aerial

ation

Proposed Station Location MARC Commuter Rail WMATA Metrorail Sector/Revitalization Plan

y Zone

Transit District Development Plan

Overlay Zone

Transit District Overlay Zone

y Area

Development District Overlay Zone

d Facilities

East Campus

Riggs Road

LRT Alignment

ial

Functional

West Campus (University Hills)

UM Campus Center

East Campus

1997 College ParkWest Campus Riverdale (University Hills) College Park-UMD

College Park-UMD

LRT Alignment in Tunnel

opment Plan

Center

Riggs Road

nel

Plan

UM TakomaCampus Langley Center Transit

Central Kenilworth Avenue M Square (River Road) Riverdale Park

2010 New Carrollton M Square (River Road)

Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights)

Riverdale Park

Glenridge

Riverda Road (Bea Heights

Purple Line TOD Study Area University of Maryland Facilities Master Plan Area Purple Line Corridor Functional Master Plan

2010 Central Annapolis Road

New Carrollton Transit Center

117

Purple Line TOD Studyâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Part 2: Market Analysis

118

2. Demographic Profile 2.1 Regional Economic Overview

121

2.2 Demographic Profile

122

Demographic Profile

2.1 Regional Economic Overview

Figure 2.1: Employment Trends, 2001-2010 2.50% 2.00% 1.50%

Prince George's County 1.00%

Maryland

0.50%

Washington‐Baltimore Region

0.00% ‐0.50% ‐1.00% ‐1.50% ‐2.00% ‐2.50%

2010

2008

2006

2004

‐3.50%

2002

‐3.00%

121

Purple Line TOD Study—Part 2: Market Analysis

in the Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) station area. It is expected that the West Campus station area also has a high concentration of white-collar jobs.

Table 2.1: Population Trends, 2000-2010 Population 2000 2010 2000-2010 Change Median Age 2010

Riverdale Road Riverdale (Beacon Heights) Park Station Station Area Area

College ParkWest UMD Station Campus Area Station Area

Prince George’s County

Suburban Maryland

5,187 6,169 18.9%

9,109 9,017 -1.0%

802 888 10.7%

1,249 1,962 57.1%

1,493 2,035 36.6%

801,473 863,420 7.7%

1,674,856 1,793,857 7.1%

29.8

28.0

33.1

22.9

25.5

35.0

37.3

Source: ESRI, 2012; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2012.

122

M Square (River Road) Station Area

Demographic Profile

College ParkUMD Station Area

Prince West Campus Suburban George's Station Area Maryland County

25.0 30.2 22.6 22.3

22.9 39.4 26.1 11.6

24.1 29.0 33.8 13.1

24.3 30.3 33.2 12.1

2.20

2.90

2.78

2.73

33.4 66.6

43.5 56.5

62.8 37.2

65.4 34.6

1.9

1.5

1.6

1.7

Source: ESRI, 2012; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2012.

123

Purple Line TOD Studyâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Part 2: Market Analysis

124

3. Residential Market 3.1 Housing Stock

127

Residential Market

3.1 Housing Stock

Figure 3.1: Housing Units by Year Built, 2000 Suburban Maryland

Prince George's

College Park

1969 or Earlier 1970 to 1979 1980 to 1989

M Square

1990 to 2000

Riverdale Park

Riverdale Road

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

127

Purple Line TOD Study—Part 2: Market Analysis

Figure 3.2: Value of Owner-Occupied Housing, 2010 100%

80%

$500,000 and Over

60%

$300,000 to $499,999 $200,000 to $299,999 $150,000 to $199,999

40%

$100,000 to $149,999 Under $100,000

20%

0% Riverdale Road (Beacon Riverdale Park Station M‐Square (River Road) Heights) Station Area Area Station Area

128

College Park‐ UMD Station Area

Prince George's County

Residential Market

129

Purple Line TOD Study—Part 2: Market Analysis

Map 3.1 Rental Submarket

130

Residential Market

2010 Households 4,567 7,418 553 1,352 579 14,469 306,006 2,488,170

Projected 2025 Households 4,582 7,935 731 4,202 829 18,279 340,456 2,996,854

Increase in Households 15 517 178 2,850 250 3,810 34,450 508,684

Share of County Growth (%) 0.044 1.501 0.517 8.273 0.726 11.061

Source: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Round 8.0, 2011; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2012.

131

Purple Line TOD Study—Part 2: Market Analysis

Units

Percent Units

M Square River Road)

Percent Units Percent

College Park/ West Campus UMD Total Units PerUnits Units Percent cent

170 90 260

65 35

228 152 380

60 40

350 90 440

80 20

2,673 297 2,970

90 10

500 75 575

87 13

3,921 704 4,625

50 40 0 90 350

56 44 0

30 190 0 220 600

14 86 0

20 100 70 190 630

11 53 37

20 160 140 320 3,290

6 50 44

5 15 230 250 825

2 6 92

125 505 440 1,070 5,695

Source: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Round 8.0 Forecast, 2011; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2012.

132

4. Commercial Market 4.1 Office

135

Commercial Market

4.1 Office

Map 4.1 Purple Line Office Market Area

135

Purple Line TOD Study—Part 2: Market Analysis

Table 4.1: Office Space Trends, Purple Line Submarket Area, 1993-2011 Year

Total Sq. Ft.

Vacant Sq. Ft.

Occupied Sq. Ft.

Occupancy Rate (%)

Average Rent

379,115 634,040 705,970 672,318 615,832 653,015 610,480 564,919 388,951 500,822 426,017 474,365 460,725 643,064 674,945 585,971 580,708 575,698

2,923,954 3,006,529 2,934,599 3,128,843 3,185,329 3,158,146 3,200,681 3,257,422 3,433,390 3,499,969 3,574,774 3,607,103 3,620,743 3,438,404 3,605,007 3,693,981 3,699,244 3,827,254

89 83 81 82 84 83 84 85 90 87 89 88 89 84 84 86 86 87

$15.70/fs $14.86/fs $15.05/fs $16.15/fs $16.26/fs $16.98/fs $16.93/fs $18.61/fs $19.86/fs $20.82/fs $20.45/fs $20.35/fs $20.48/fs $22.94/fs $23.33/fs $22.87/fs $22.44/fs $21.73/fs

10,779

569,832

$3.12/fs

Note: Full service average rent, including taxes, utilities, and janitorial. Source: CoStar, 2011; Partners for Economic Solutions, LLC, 2012.

136

Commercial Market

Total Sq. Ft.

New Construction

Vacant Sq. Ft.

Vacancy Rate (%)

Annual Net Absorption

n/a 0 186,560 23,796 164,092 115,300 100,000 283,277 0 5,000 9,092 144,000 0 0 62,768 0 0 0 0 268,762

n/a 3,593,814 3,653,518 4,102,954 4,182,046 4,278,729 4,257,622 4,178,814 4,255,688 4,568,250 4,671,421 4,646,541 4,570,914 4,662,305 4,569,056 4,408,533 4,676,141 4,615,994 4,607,679 4,916,153

12.5 14.1 14.2 15.9 16.1 16.4 16.3 15.8 16.1 17.3 17.7 17.5 17.2 17.6 17.2 16.6 17.6 17.4 17.3 18.3

403,188 286,775 146,943 (1,260)

1,046,739 4.0%

1,013,865 28.2%

Note: Full service average rent, including taxes, utilities, and janitorial. Sources: CoStar; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2012.

Office Demand Traditional office demand forecasts rely on the expected growth in the number of employees who need a place to work. Industries that use office

137

Purple Line TOD Study—Part 2: Market Analysis

2000-2010 13% 1990 -1999 17%

1950 or less 4%

1951- 1969 10%

1970-1989 56%

2000-2010 14% 1990 -1999 17%

1950 or less 2% 1951- 1969 34%

1970-1989 33%

Figure 4.1: Prince George’s County Office Space by Year Built

Figure 4.2: Proposed Purple Line Office Space by Year Built

138

Commercial Market

Table 4.3: Purple Line Projected Employment Growth, 2025 Station Areas

2010 Employment

Projected 2025 Employment

Increase in Jobs

Share of County Growth (%)

Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Riverdale Park M Square (River Road) College Park/UMD West Campus Total Purple Line Area Prince George's County Region

1,629 2,946 5,752 3,661 1,834 15,822 358,385 4,012,116

1,767 3,368 7,604 4,152 2,159 19,050 399,635 4,921,093

138 422 1,852 491 325 3,228 41,250 908,977

0.335 1.023 4.490 1.190 0.788 7.826

Source: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Round 8.0, 2011; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2012.

Office Allocation Increase in Jobs Office Jobs (%) 138 422 1,852 491 325 3,228

30 40 90 80 80

41 169 1,667 393 260 2,530

Office Demand (SF) Jobs 9,810 39,980 394,770 93,030 61,572 599,162

Years Jobs 15 15 15 15 15

Annual Increase (SF) 654 2,665 26,318 6,202 4,105 39,944

Source: MWCOG, Round 8.0, 2011; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2012.

139

Purple Line TOD Study—Part 2: Market Analysis

Table 4.5: Demand Summary Based on Employment Growth, 2025 Type of Space Office Flex/Industrial Total

Annual 35,800 6,500 42,300

Baseline Total 537,000 97,500 634,500

Creation of Place Annual Total 48,800 732,000 6,500 97,500 55,300 829,500

Leveraged Demand 195,000 n/a

Source: MWCOG, Round 8.0, 2011; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2012.

140

Commercial Market

Map 4.2 Purple Line Grocery Stores

Map 4.3 Purple Line Shopping Centers

141

Purple Line TOD Study—Part 2: Market Analysis

Map 4.4 Purple Line Shopping Centers

142

Commercial Market

Map 4.5 Commercial Improvements as Percent of Value

143

Purple Line TOD Study—Part 2: Market Analysis

Riverdale Park Primary Market Area $15,025,686 $2,753,870 $2,327,842 -$1,049,285 $17,548,491 $798,605 -$13,309,728 $5,423,802 -$14,477,382 $13,277,865 $722,394 $2,402,178 -$7,477,027

Source: ESRI Business Analyst, 2011; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2012.

Retail Potential

Hotel

In conclusion, the retail analysis for each of the five station areas determined that:

As an industry, lodging relates to business travelers and visitors to a region for a variety of reasons (e.g., passing through on a longer trip to visit family,

144

Commercial Market

Number of Rooms

Year Opened

Type

237 82 169 118 68 220 125 51 30 152 29 45 80

1862 1941 1962 1964 1967 1971 1985 1988 1990 1991 1998 2000 2000

Upper Upscale Midscale Midscale Upper Midscale Economy Upper Midscale Upper Midscale Economy Economy Upscale Economy Independent Upper Midscale

151 88 40

1963 1990 2000

Economy Upper Midscale Independent

Source: STR Global, 2011; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2012.

145

Purple Line TOD Study—Part 2: Market Analysis

2000 to 2007 10% 1990s 18%

1980s 10%

1960s or 1970s 57%

2 Sernovitz, Daniel, Washington Business Journal “Commercial Real Estate Extra: Road Map College Park,” November 18–24, 2011, p 19.

Source: STR Global, 2011; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2012.

Figure 4.3: Purple Line Area Hotel Occupancy Annual Averages, 2005-2010 0.7

Occupancy Rate

0.65

0.6

0.55

0.5 2005

2006

2007

Source: STR Global, 2011; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2012.

146

2008

2009

2010

Commercial Market

Table 4.8: Day of Week Hotel Occupancy Day of the Week Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Total

Sep-09

Year Ending Sep-10

Nov-11

42.1% 56.5% 63.4% 64.8% 58.1% 56.4% 58.3% 57.1%

46.6% 58.6% 66.0% 66.8% 60.2% 59.4% 59.7% 59.6%

43.2% 57.3% 61.7% 64.0% 58.2% 56.2% 57.5% 56.9%

Source: STR Global, 2011; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2012.

147

Purple Line TOD Studyâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Part 2: Market Analysis

148

Purple Line TOD Study Part 3: Recommendations Existing Conditions Report February 2012 May 2013

149

Contents 1. Development Strategy 1.1 Overview 1.2 Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) 1.3 Riverdale Park 1.4 MÂ Square (River Road) 1.5 College Park-UMD 1.6 West Campus

2. Zoning Template 2.1 Overview 2.2 TOD Zoning Standards

3. Implementation Strategies

155 157 161 179 197 215 233

251 252 254

267

4. Next Step Next Steps

277 279

151

Part 3: Recommendations

152

List of Figures Fig. 1.2:

153

Part 3: Recommendations

154

1. Development Strategy 1.1 Overview

157

1.2 Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights)

161

1.3 Riverdale Park

179

1.4 MÂ Square (River Road)

197

1.5 College Park-UMD

215

1.6 West Campus

233

Development Strategy

Purpose

157

Part 3: Recommendations

Uni ver s

ity B

lvd

West Campus Adelphi Rd .

Map 1.1 Purple Line Corridor and TOD Study Area

UMUC

Bld E.

Camp

us Dr.

Adelphi Rd

University

West Campus

LEGEND

158

University of Maryland College Park

Development Strategy

College Park-UMD

Bran

River

Rd.

Pain t

ch Pk wy.

MÂ Square (River Road) nectio

n to U

Ave .

e con

S-1

wor th

Bridg

Kenilworth Ave.

Ken il

Riv er R d.

hway

Vet e

ran

kw y.

Ken i

lwo rth

Ave .

Riverdale Rd.

Baltimore-Washingt on Pkwy.

East W est Hig

Riverdale Rd.

Riverdale Park

Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights)

159

Part 3: Recommendations

160

Development Strategy | Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights)

1.2

Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Overview 162

West Cam pus

Colle ge Pa UMD rk

Planning Objectives

162

Market Conclusions Summary

162

Community Input Summary

164

TOD Recommendations

165

M Sq

(Rive uare r Roa d)

Rive r

Rive rdale Park

(Bea dale Ro con H a eigh d ts)

161

Part 3: Recommendations

162

Development Strategy | Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights)

Map 1.2 Key Map Ad elp h

1/2 Mile Radius Existing Roads MARC/Metro Rail Lines Purple Line Alignment Purple Line Stations

w y.

Adelphi Rd.

shing ton Pkw y.

Good Luck Rd.

Baltimore Ave. (U S

Belcrest Rd.

Ba lti m

o re

t Bra Pain

College Park UMD

Av e. (M

University of Maryland

Kenilwo rth

West Campus

D 20 1)

East Campus

Blvd. E University

-Wa

Un ive rsit y

Blv d. E

i Rd

UMD Campus Center

M Square (River Road)

East W est

(Beacon Heights) (MD 4 10)

MA R C/ Met ro R ail

n ee

Riverdale Road

Hwy.

Ve ter an s

R iverdale Rd.

Pk w

rR Age

l pe

Rive r Rd.

D (M

Riverdale Park

0) 41

Map 1.3 Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights)—Existing Conditions 1/2 Mile Radius

1/4 Mile Radius

th 67

Baltimore-Washington P kwy

Dr.

. Pl

64th Ave.

67 67th Ave.

Eastp ine

ce ra

r Te

63rd Pl.

Powhatan St.

66th Ave.

Patterson St.

oo nw

Riverdale Rd.

r Fe

Ct .

Riverdale Rd.

Ve te

ran

Patterson St.

LEGEND

Purple Line Route Proposed by MTA Proposed Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Station 0

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

163

Part 3: Recommendations

Community workshop opening presentation

Community workshop open house discussions

Community workshop small group discussions

Station Character/Identity Stakeholders identified lighting and shelters as important concerns. They also noted the importance of maintaining the area and keeping it clean.

Community workshop stakeholder presentation

164

Development Strategy | Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights)

credit: www.google.maps.com

Existing view of Riverdale Road at Baltimore-Washington Parkway

Perspective of Riverdale Road at Baltimore-Washington Parkway

165

Part 3: Recommendations

TOD Concept

Map 1.4 Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) TOD Concept

63rd Pl.

The final route and station locations will be determined through MTA’s Purple Line engineering effort.

64th Ave.

Riverdale R Patterson St.

Powhatan St.

166

Development Strategy | Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights)

1/2-Mile Radius

Ct . th 67

Baltimore-Washington P kwy.

67t

h P l.

ran

LEGEND

t e rson St.

Building Building Frontage Frontage Open OpenSpace Space

67th Ave.

66th Ave .

Dr.

r. Te

Ve te

Eastp ine

Rd.

oo nw

r Fe

Riverdale Rd.

Block/Edges Block / Edges Views/Axes Views / Axes Purple PurpleLine Line PA LPA Existing Street Existing Street Improvements Improvements Proposed Street Proposed Street Improvements Improvements

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

167

Part 3: Recommendations

pedestrians. Also, Eastpine Drive will be realigned to provide connections/ access to Riverdale Road at 64th Avenue (see Transit Recommendations on page 173).

Map 1.5 Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Redevelopment Strategy—Short-Term 1/2-Mile Radius

Ct . 67 th

67t

h P l.

ran

LEGEND

Purple Line PA

t e rson St.

Existing Street Improvements Proposed Street Improvements

Ave.

67th

66th Ave.

Dr.

Eastp ine

Baltimore-Washington P kwy.

64th Ave. 63rd Pl.

Ve te

Powhatan St.

r. Te

Patterson St.

Riverdale Rd.

oo nw

r Fe

Riverdale Rd.

Park Land/ Open Space Office Retail Residential

100

200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

168

400

600

Development Strategy | Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights)

Redevelopment Strategy—Long Term The long-term strategy governs development for the time period after the completion of the Purple Line once rail service begins.

To note, although just outside of this station area, an intergenerational community learning center is proposed to the south along Annapolis Road, near the proposed Glenridge Metro station stop.

Map 1.6 Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Redevelopment Strategy—Long-Term 1/2-Mile Radius

Redevelopment Residential MF or TH Units

667 7tth hC Ctt. .

B altimore -Wash Baltim ington Pkw ore-W ashin y.

ran

67t

h P l. 67th Ave.

66th Ave.

64th Ave. 64th Ave.

Ve te

. Pl

EEaasstp tpiinne eD Drr..

th 67

Redevelopment Ground-Level Retail along Riverdale Rd. Office above

a t Patterson St. t e rson St.

St. PowhatanSt. Powhatan

66th Ave.

St. PattersonSt. Patterson

67th Ave.

Riverdale Riverdale Rd. Rd.

Riverdale Rd. Riverdale Rd.

e ac r.err TeT dod ooo ww rnern FeF

63r 63rd d Pl. Pl.

Full Redevelopment Ground-Level Retail along Riverdale Rd. Residential (MF or TH units)

kw Vye. te

ran

Redevelopment Ground-Level Retail along Riverdale Rd. Office above

LEGEND

Purple Line PA Existing Street Improvements Proposed Street Improvements

Redevelopment Residential MF or TH Units

Full Redevelopment Ground-Level Retail along Riverdale Rd. Residential (MF or TH units)

Park Land/ Open Space Office Retail Residential

200 100 200 100

400 400

600 NN 600

SCALE:1”1”= =200’ 200’ SCALE:

169

Part 3: Recommendations

View looking at proposed plaza and station from 67th Avenue

Map 1.7 Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Open Space 1/2-Mile Radius

Madison Hill Community Park

Wildercroft Neighborhood Park

Riverdale Hills Neighborhood Playground

Riverdale Rd. Ct . th 67

h P l. 67t

LEGEND

Existing— Park/Open Space

t e rson St.

East Pines Neighborhood Rec. Center

Proposed— Park/Open Space

Ave.

67th

66th Ave.

Dr.

Eastp ine

Baltimore-Washington P kwy.

64th Ave. 63rd Pl.

r. Te

Browning’s Grove Neighborhood Park

ran

Powhatan St.

Patterson St.

oo nw

r Fe

Riverdale Rd.

Ve te

Wetland/Stream/ Water Bodies Existing—Trail

Cherry Hill Cemetery Historic Site

Glenridge Community Park

100

200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

170

400

600

Development Strategy | Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights)

Proposed streetscape for 67th Avenue

Map 1.8 Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Street Network 1/2-Mile Radius

th 67

67t

h P l.

ran

LEGEND

Existing Street— Commercial Street Type

t e rson St.

Existing Street— Neighborhood Street Type

67th Ave.

66th Ave.

Dr. Eastp ine

Baltimore -Washington P kwy.

64th Ave. 63rd Pl.

r. Te

Ve te

Powhatan St.

Patterson St.

oo nw

Riverdale Rd.

r Fe

Ct .

Riverdale Rd.

Proposed Street— Commercial Street Type Proposed Street— Neighborhood Street Type

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

171

February 21, 2012

Part 3: Recommendations

Street Sections

East Pines Shipping Center

5’

11’

10’

11’

10’

60’

2’

Riverdale Road Right-of-Way

Fig. 1.1: Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights)—Riverdale Road Existing Street Section Looking East

6’

7’

16’

11’

16’

2’ 6’

27’

7’

PZ SF

6’+ 2’

Riverdale Road Right-of-Way

Fig. 1.2: Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights)—Riverdale Road Proposed Street Section Looking East KEY L

11’ Travel Lane

SL 16’ Shared Travel Lane PL Purple Line * C

2’ Curb Step-Off Zone

7’ Planting Zone

PZ 6-15’ Pedestrian Zone SF 2’ Storefront Zone

*Notes: Final dimensions and configuration to be coordinated with MTA, SHA, and DPW&T.

172

Development Strategy | Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights)

urn Aub

u di

Ct .

Baltimore-Washington P kwy

Dr.

Eastp ine

ile 1/4-M 64th Ave.

63rd Pl.

. Pl

DAL

th 67

67th Ave.

ER RIV

ce ra

Powhatan St.

r Te

Patterson St.

Purple Line PA Alignment

Riverdale Rd.

oo nw

Legend

Riverdale Rd.

66th Ave.

RECOMMENDATIONS Transit

s r Fe

E ROAD (Beacon He igh ts

)—

Ave n

ile

Map 1.9 Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Transit Recommendations

Ve te

ran

Patterson St.

Proposed Purple Line Station Existing WMATA Bus Routes Existing Bus Stop Proposed Bus Stop (Bench, Shelter, Real-Time Systems) Data Source: M-NCPPC/ Sabra-Wang & Associates

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

173

Part 3: Recommendations

u di

h 67 t

Baltimore-Washington P kwy

Dr.

Ct .

ile 1/4-M 64th Ave.

Ve te

ran

Patterson St.

Eastp ine

. Pl

63rd Pl.

ALE

67th Ave.

RD IVE

ce ra

Powhatan St.

r Te

Patterson St.

Purple Line PA Alignment

Riverdale Rd.

oo nw

Legend

Riverdale Rd.

66th Ave.

RECOMMENDATIONS Pedestrian

s r Fe

ROAD (Beacon H eig

hts

)—

ile

Map 1.10 Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Pedestrian Recommendations

Proposed Purple Line Station Proposed Sidewalk Sidewalk with Planting Strip Pedestrian Lighting Existing Sidewalk

Data Source: M-NCPPC/ Sabra-Wang & Associates

100

200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

174

400

600

Development Strategy | Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights)

u di

th 67

Baltimore -Washington P kwy

Dr.

Ct .

ile

1/4-M 63rd Pl.

64th Ave.

Eastp ine

RDA

. Pl

E RIV

67 67th Ave.

Powhatan St.

e ac rr Te

Patterson St.

Riverdale Rd.

oo nw

Legend

Riverdale Rd. r Fe

RECOMMENDATIONS Bike

66th Ave.

D (Beacon LE ROA Heig h

ts)—

ile

Map 1.11 Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Bicycle Recommendations

Bike Parking Rentals

Ve te

ran

Patterson St.

Purple Line PA Alignment Proposed Purple Line Station Proposed Bike Route Proposed Bike Lane Proposed Shared Lane Data Source: M-NCPPC/ Sabra-Wang & Associates

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

175

Part 3: Recommendations

Vehicular Recommendations

Parking Recommendations

u di

h 67 t

Baltimore -Washington P kwy

Dr. Eastp ine

Ct .

ile

1/4-M 64th Ave.

63rd Pl.

. Pl

ALE

Proposed Cul-de-Sac

67 67th Ave.

Powhatan St.

e ac rr Te

Patterson St.

Riverdale Rd.

oo nw

RD IVE

Riverdale Rd.

66th Ave.

RECOMMENDATIONS Vehicular

s r Fe

ROAD (Beacon H eig

hts

)—

ile

Map 1.12 Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Vehicular Recommendations

Ve te

ran

Patterson St.

Legend

Purple Line PA Alignment Proposed Purple Line Station Intersection Improvement Proposed Street Data Source: M-NCPPC/ Sabra-Wang & Associates

100

200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

176

400

600

Development Strategy | Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights)

This page intentionally left blank

177

Part 3: Recommendations

178

Development Strategy | Riverdale Park

1.3

Riverdale Park Overview 180

West Cam pus

Colle ge Pa UMD rk

Planning Objectives

180

Market Conclusions Summary

180

Community Input Summary

182

TOD Recommendations

183

M Sq

(Rive uare r Roa d)

Rive r

Rive rdale Park

(Bea dale Ro con H a eigh d ts)

179

Part 3: Recommendations

180

Development Strategy | Riverdale Park

Map 1.13 Key Map Ad elp h

1/2 Mile Radius Existing Roads MARC/Metro Rail Lines Purple Line Alignment Purple Line Stations

rsit y

D 20 1) w y.

o re

Ba lti m

Kenilwo rth

t Bra Pain

College Park UMD

Av e. (M

University of Maryland

West Campus

shing ton Pkw y.

Un ive

East Campus

y Blvd. E Universit

-Wa

Blv d. E

i Rd

UMD Campus Center

Baltimore Ave. (U S

Belcrest Rd.

Adelphi Rd.

Good Luck Rd.

M Square (River Road)

East W est

Ve ter an s

R iverdale Rd.

Pk w y.

Rd.

MA R C/ Met ro R ail

r Age

(Beacon Heights) (MD 4 10)

e ap

Riverdale Road

Hwy.

d lR

e ue

Rive r Rd.

D (M

Riverdale Park

0) 41

Map 1.14 Riverdale Park—Existing Conditions

a St.

Patterson St.

St.

62nd Pl.

Quintan

Riverdale Rd.

n St.

ale

Av e.

erd Riv

Mustang Dr.

Ke ni

Nic

hol

son

nv ale

St.

tA ve .

Gr ee

lw or

Ave . 54t h

Rd.

63rd Ave.

Powh ata Rd .

61 s

ale

Jeff erso

Ave . 56th

n St .

55t

Riv erd

Patte rson

St.

Ave.

58th Ave.

ighw ay

e. Av

West H

East

oke

Roan

Quin tana

e. Av

60th Pl.

An a

stia

1/4 Mile Radi us

61st Pl.

Tri b

uta

Tra il

Sy ste m

Kenilworth Ave.

1/2 Mile Radius

LEGEND

Purple Line Route Proposed by MTA Proposed Riverdale Park Station 0

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

181

Part 3: Recommendations

Community workshop opening presentation

Streetscape Character

Community workshop open house discussions

Stakeholders noted the need for a walkable environment, including safe, walkable sidewalks buffered from traffic and shaded with trees and pedestrian amenities such as benches and lighting.

Station Character/Identity

Community workshop small group discussions

Community workshop stakeholder presentation

182

Development Strategy | Riverdale Park

Existing view of stormwater channel from Riverdale Road

Perspective of proposed canal

183

Part 3: Recommendations

TOD Concept

Map 1.15 Riverdale Park TOD Concept

East

ighw ay

Po wh

ata n

Riv erd

ale

LEGEND

Building Frontage Open Space Block/Edges Views/Axes Purple Line PA

The final route and station locations will be determined through MTA’s Purple Line engineering effort.

Proposed— Sidepath Existing Street Improvements Proposed Street Improvements Potential Future Connections 0

100

200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

184

West H

400

600

Rd .

54t hA ve.

Jeff erso

Development Strategy | Riverdale Park

Kenilworth Ave.

1/2-Mile Radius

aT rib

u t ar y T rai lS ys t

Rittenhouse St.

Patte rso

62nd Pl.

61st Pl.

60th Pl.

e. Av Quintan

Quinta

a St.

na St.

Riverdale Rd.

63rd Ave.

Patterson St.

n St.

nS t.

P P

61 s

tA ve .

Mustang Dr.

Nichols

on St.

55t

Ave .

Av e.

Ken ilw ort h

on S t.

St.

Quin tana

e. Av

ve. ke A

o Roan

Gr ee

nv ale

wy .

56th

t cos Ana

185

Part 3: Recommendations

The stormwater channel is reconstructed as a naturalized stream with a greenway trail connecting Riverdale Road Extended and Greenvale Parkway and providing a central amenity for the community.

Map 1.16 Riverdale Park Redevelopment Strategy—Short-Term

Kenilworth Ave.

1/2-Mile Radius

ale

Patterson St.

St.

62nd Pl.

61st Pl.

60th Pl. Quintan

Quintan

a St.

Riverdale Rd.

63rd Ave.

ata n

Ave.

58th Ave.

Patte rson

Po wh

Riv erd

St.

a St.

ighw ay

e. Av

West H

East

oke

Roan

57 Quin tana

e. Av

Rd .

Retail Residential Institutional

100

200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

186

400

600

Av e. st 61

Av e.

Gr ee Ave .

hP l.

Nichols

56th

Office

n St .

55t

Park/Open Space

Jeff erso

Ken ilw ort h

Purple Line PA Existing Street Improvements Proposed Street Improvements

54t

LEGEND

hA ve.

Mustang Dr.

on St.

nv ale

wy .

Development Strategy | Riverdale Park

Redevelopment Strategy—Long Term The long-term strategy governs development for the time period after the completion of the Purple Line once rail service begins.

Map 1.17 Riverdale Park Redevelopment Strategy—Long-Term

Kenilworth Ave.

1/2-Mile Radius

62nd Pl.

61st Pl.

Mixed-Use Redevelopment Ground level retail Office above along Kenilworth Ave. Residential above elsewhere

Riverdale Rd.

Commercial

63rd Ave.

ale

Patterson St.

St.

a St.

58th Ave.

ata n

Ave.

Quintan

a St.

Patte rson

Po wh

Riv erd

St.

Residential

ighw ay

e. Av

West H

East

Quin tana

oke

Roan

Mixed-Use Retail/Office

e. Av

60th Pl.

Mixed-Use Redevelopment Ground level retail along Kenilworth Ave Residential above (MF Units)

Rd .

Mustang Dr.

Education, Recreation, Health & Human Services, Cultural Arts & Housing Campus

Retail

Av e.

Ave .

Nichols

on St.

nv ale

wy .

56th

Office

n St .

55t hP

Park/Open Space

Jeff erso

Ken ilw ort h

Existing Street Improvements Proposed Street Improvements

Mixed-Use Redevelopment Ground level retail along 58th Ave. Ext. Residential above (MF Units) Gr ee

54t

Purple Line PA

hA ve.

Mixed-Use Retail/Office LEGEND

Residential Institutional

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

187

Part 3: Recommendations

View looking east at proposed promenade and canal

Map 1.18 Riverdale Park Open Space Madison Hill Comm. Park Riverdale Hills Neighborhood Playground

m aT rib

u t ar y T rai lS ys t

Anacostia River Stream Valley Park

Northea st Branch Ana

Riverdale Comm. Rec. Center

Kenilworth Ave.

costia R iver

1/2-Mile Radius

Riverdale Historic Site

Riv erd

ale

ighw ay

Quintan

St.

62nd Pl.

61st Pl.

60th Pl.

Quintan

a St.

Patterson St.

Ave.

a St.

Riverdale Rd.

63rd Ave.

ata n

e. Av

Po wh

Patte rson

St.

East W est H

oke

Roan

Quin tana

e. Av

58th Ave.

t cos Ana

Rd .

61 s

54t

Riverside Drive Neighborhood Park

Wetland/Stream/ Water Bodies

Ave . 56th

Proposed— Park/Open Space

on St.

Ken ilw ort h

Existing— Park/Open Space

Nichols

55t hP

n St .

Av e.

Jeff erso

LEGEND

East Pines Neighborhood Rec. Center

tA ve .

hA ve.

Mustang Dr.

Gr ee

nv ale

wy .

Browning’s Grove Neigborhood Park

Existing—Trail Proposed— Sidepath

100

200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

188

400

600

Fletcher’s Field Community Park

Templeton Knolls Neighborhood Park

Development Strategy | Riverdale Park

View looking west at proposed elevated station from East West Highway

Map 1.19 Riverdale Park Street Network

Kenilworth Ave.

1/2-Mile Radius

ale

ighw ay

Patterson St.

St.

Rd .

62nd Pl.

61st Pl.

60th Pl.

a St.

Riverdale Rd.

63rd Ave.

Riv erd

Quintan

a St.

Patte rson

Ave.

58th Ave.

ata n

e. Av

Po wh

St.

East W est H

oke

Roan

Quin tana

e. Av

P P

54t

Av e.

hA ve.

Mustang Dr.

LEGEND

Proposed Street— Commercial Street Type

Nichols

on St.

Ave .

Gr ee

nv ale

wy .

56th

Av e.

n St .

55t

Existing Street— Neighborhood Street Type

Jeff erso

Ken ilw ort h

Existing Street— Commercial Street Type

Proposed Street— Neighborhood Street Type

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

189

Part 3: Recommendations

Street Sections

5’

11’

5’

11’

5’

East West Highway Right-of-Way

Fig. 1.3: Riverdale Park—East West Highway Existing Street Section Looking West

45’

7’

16’

11’

5’

11’

16’

7’

6’

East West Highway Right-of-Way

Fig. 1.4: Riverdale Park—East West Highway Proposed Street Section Looking West KEY L

11’ Travel Lane

SL 16’ Shared Travel Lane PL Purple Line T

7’ Planting Zone

PZ 6-15’ Pedestrian Zone

Notes: Final dimensions and configuration to be coordinated with MTA, SHA, and DPW&T.

190

Development Strategy | Riverdale Park

Map 1.20 Riverdale Park Transit Recommendations

Patterson St.

62nd Pl.

Rd. Mustang Dr.

Existing Stop to be Removed

hol

son

nv ale

St.

Av e.

Gr ee

54t

Ke n

Nic

th Av e. ilw or

hA ve.

Bus Route to be Re-routed

Jeff erso

Ave . 56th

n St .

55t

Existing WMATA Bus Routes

61st Pl.

n St.

RECOMMENDATIONS Transit

Proposed Purple Line Station

Riverdale Rd.

Powh ata Rd .

ale

Purple Line PA Alignment

a St.

erd Riv

Legend

Quintan

St.

Ave.

58th Ave.

Patte rson

St.

oke

Roan

60th Pl.

e. Av

63rd Ave.

ale

Kenilworth Ave.

Sy ste m ry uta Tri b stia

E PA RK— 1

Riv erd

Rittenhouse St

a Rd

Quin tana

ighw ay

dius

esad

e. Av

West H

RQua

East

-M

ile

Kenilworth Avenue

RIVERDAL

Tra il

Anacostia Tributary Trail System An a

ile

Existing Bus Stop Proposed Bus Stop (Bench, Shelter, Real-time Systems) Data Source: M-NCPPC/ Sabra-Wang & Associates

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

191

Part 3: Recommendations

Map 1.21 Riverdale Park Pedestrian Recommendations

St.

Av e.

62nd Pl.

61st Pl.

th Ke n

Nic

hol

son

nv ale

St.

63rd Ave.

Mustang Dr.

Gr ee

ilw or

hA ve. 54t

Rd.

st Av e.

ale

erd Riv

Jeff erso

Ave .

n St .

56th

Side Path

60th Pl.

n St.

55t

Sidewalk with Planting Strip

Riverdale Rd.

Powh ata Rd .

Purple Line PA Alignment

Proposed Sidewalk

a St.

Legend

Proposed Purple Line Station

Quintan

Patterson St.

Ave.

ale

Patte rson

St.

oke

Roan

58th Ave.

K—

E PA R RIVERDAL

e. Av

Riv erd

Rittenhouse St

a Rd

57 Quin tana

ighw ay

dius

esad

West H

RQua

RECOMMENDATIONS Pedestrian

East

-M

ile

Kenilworth Avenue

Kenilworth Ave.

Sy ste m

An a

stia

Tri b

uta

Tra il

Anacostia Tributary Trail System

ile

Pedestrian Lighting Existing Sidewalk Data Source: M-NCPPC / Sabra-Wang & Associates

100

200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

192

400

600

Development Strategy | Riverdale Park

Map 1.22 Riverdale Park Bicycle Recommendations

ale

RECOMMENDATIONS Bike

Patte rson

St.

62nd Pl.

a St.

Patterson St.

61st Pl.

Quintan

St.

Ave.

60th Pl.

Quin tana

oke

Roan

Riverdale Rd.

Powh ata

n St.

Rd . ale

erd Riv

Rd.

Bike Parking / Rentals

Mustang Dr.

63rd Ave.

Riv erd

e. Av

58th Ave.

E PA RK— RIVERDAL

ighw ay

Rittenhouse St

a Rd

e. Av

West H

dius

esad

East

RQua

Trail Connection

-M

ile

Kenilworth Avenue

Kenilworth Ave.

Sy ste m

An a

stia

Tri b

uta

Tra il

Anacostia Tributary Trail System

ile

Proposed Shared Lane

St.

nv ale

st Av e.

son

Ave .

Ke ni lw or th

hol

Gr ee

Ave .

n St .

56th

Proposed Bike Lane

Pl.

Proposed Bike Route

Streamside Trail Nic

Jeff erso

55t h

Proposed Purple Line Station

54t h

Purple Line PA Alignment

Av e.

Legend

Proposed Side Path Existing Bike Facility Data Source: M-NCPPC/ Sabra-Wang & Associates

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

193

Part 3: Recommendations

Map 1.23 Riverdale Park Vehicular Recommendations

Patterson St.

St.

hol

son

nv ale

St.

Av e.

Ke n

Nic

Av e. th

Gr ee

ilw or

54t hA ve.

Mustang Dr.

63rd Ave.

Jeff erso

56th

Ave .

n St .

55t

Intersection Improvement

62nd Pl.

n St.

Proposed Purple Line Station

Riverdale Rd.

Powh ata

Rd .

RECOMMENDATIONS Vehicular Purple Line PA Alignment

a St.

al erd Riv

Legend

Quintan

58th Ave.

Patte rson

St.

Ave. oke

Roan

61st Pl.

e. Av

60th Pl.

a Rd

ale

Kenilworth Ave.

Sy ste m ry uta Tri b stia co

E PA RK— 1

Riv erd

Rittenhouse St

esad

Quin tana

ighw ay

dius

e. Av

West H

RQua

East

M 4-

ile

RIVERDAL

Tra il

Anacostia Tributary Trail System An a

ile

Kenilworth Avenue

Proposed Street Potential Future Connections Data Source: M-NCPPC/ Sabra-Wang & Associates

100

200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

194

400

600

Development Strategy | Riverdale Park

This page intentionally left blank

195

Part 3: Recommendations

196

Development Strategy | M Square (River Road)

1.4

MÂ Square (River Road) Overview 198

West Cam pus

Colle ge Pa UMD rk

Planning Objectives

198

Market Conclusions Summary

198

Community Input Summary

200

TOD Recommendations

201

M Sq

(Rive uare r Roa d)

Rive r

Rive rdale Park

(Bea dale Ro con H a eigh d ts)

197

Part 3: Recommendations

198

Planning Objectives As previously listed in Section 1.1 Overview, general planning objectives were established to help achieve the overall goal of lively, walkable, and attractive transit-oriented communities for all five station areas. Based on M Square (River Road) station area’s unique existing conditions and opportunities, a more definitive list of planning objectives was established. For M Square (River Road), the planning objectives include: • Establish additional street connections through large development areas, including M Square Research Park, providing alternative vehicular and pedestrian routes and relieving congestion on larger thoroughfares as future development is built; currently River Road provides the only connection through the study area connecting Kenilworth Avenue and Paint Branch Parkway. • Strengthen trail connections from the proposed Purple Line station area and current office development to the Anacostia Tributary Trail System throughout the study area as currently only limited connections to the existing trail system exist. • Target the 1/8-mile core area around the M Square station for new mixed-use development, including residential and retail, while single-use, secure office buildings will continue to infill the M Square Research Park.

Development Strategy | M Square (River Road)

Map 1.24 Key Map 1/2 Mile Radius Existing Roads MARC/Metro Rail Lines Purple Line Alignment Purple Line Stations

Ad elp h

UMD Campus Center

w y.

shing ton Pkw y.

Ba lti m

Good Luck Rd.

Baltimore Ave. (U S

Belcrest Rd.

Adelphi Rd.

M Square

Ve ter an s

Riverdale Park

Pk w

0) 41

Ave.

R iverdale Rd.

D (M

51st

(Beacon Heights) (MD 4 10)

Rd.

e ue

Riverdale Road

Hwy.

MA R C/ Met ro R ail

r Age

p ha

Rive r Rd.

(River Road)

East W est

Map 1.25 M Square (River Road)—Existing Conditions

o re

t Bra Pain

College Park UMD

Av e. (M

University of Maryland

Kenilwo rth

West Campus

D 20 1)

East Campus

y Blvd. E Universit

-Wa

Un ive

rsit y

Blv d. E

i Rd

Pain t Bra nch Pkw y.

1/2 Mile Radius

Ken i

lwo

rth

Ave .

Univ ersity Research Ct. Dr. Haig

Lafa yett e

Ave.

Riv ert e

ch Ct .

MAR C

/ Me

tro R

ail

1/4 Mile Radius

River

Rd.

Taylor Rd .

Tuckerman St.

LEGEND

EastWest

Purple Line Route Proposed by MTA

Hwy.

(MD 41

Proposed M Square (River Road) Station 0

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

199

Part 3: Recommendations

Use Type and Architectural Character Stakeholders preferred mixed-use development, including retail, restaurants, and residential, located near the transit stations.

Community workshop opening presentation

Amenities and Open Spaces Stakeholders noted the need for more usable open spaces with seating, picnic tables, lighting, and trash cans.

Streetscape Character Stakeholders noted the need for pedestrian amenities such as shade trees along streets and continuous sidewalks along Kenilworth Avenue.

Community workshop open house discussions

Community workshop stakeholder presentation

200

Development Strategy | M Square (River Road)

Existing view at River Road and University Research Court

Perspective of station at River Road and University Research Court

201

Part 3: Recommendations

TOD Concept

Map 1.26 M Square (River Road) TOD Concept

nd Ave.

For the M Square (River Road) station study area, the primary planning recommendations are:

MAR C

Brid

ge c onne

ction

to U S

-1

The final route and station locations will be determined through MTA’s Purple Line engineering effort.

LEGEND

Building Frontage Open Space

Lafa yett e

Ave.

Tuc

Block / Edges Views / Axes Purple Line PA Sidepath Existing Street Improvements Proposed Street Improvements Potential Future Connections 0

100

200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

202

400

600

East W est H

wy. (M

D 410

Development Strategy | M Square (River Road)

Pain t Bra nch Pkw y.

1/2-Mile R adius

Ave . rth lwo

Rd .

Ken i

Univ . Research Ct.

Riv er

Riv ert e

ch Ct .

Met

ro R a

Haig Dr.

Taylor R d.

ckerman St.

203

Part 3: Recommendations

Metro rail line, and US 1, a potential bridge over the MARC/Metro rail line is planned south of the American Association of Physics Teachers building and north of Tuckerman Street.

Map 1.27 M Square (River Road) Redevelopment Strategy—Short-Term P

1/2-Mile R adius

Redevelopment Office

Rhode Islan

d Ave.

Pain t Bra nch Pkw y.

Redevelopment Office Parking Garage

ail

Redevelopment Residential Parking Garage

Purple Line PA Existing Street Improvements Proposed Street Improvements Park Land/ Open Space Office

Lafa yett e

Ave.

Taylor Rd .

Tuckerman St.

LEGEND

East W est H

wy. (M

Retail

Redevelopment Ground-Level Retail Residential Parking Garage

r th lwo

Redevelopment Office Parking Garage

Ave .

Redevelopment Ground-Level Retail Office

Ken i

Rd .

Univ . Research Ct.

Riv er

Riv ert e

Redevelopment Office Parking Garage

ch Ct .

MAR C

/Me

tro R

Haig Dr.

D 410

)

Residential

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

204

April 4, 2012 Prince George’s County Planning Department

THE MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION

PRR, Inc. Sabra, Wang, & Associates, Inc. Partners for Economic Solutions, LLC

Redevelopment Strategy - Long Term M Square (River Road) - Purple Line TOD Study

connecting

Development Strategy | M Square (River Road)

Redevelopment Strategy—Long Term The long-term strategy governs development for the time period after the completion of the Purple Line once rail service begins.

Map 1.28 M Square (River Road) Redevelopment Strategy—Long-Term P

Rhode Islan

d Ave.

Redevelopment Office

Pain t Bra nch Pkw y.

1/2-Mile R adius

P P

ail

Redevelopment Residential Parking Garage

Redevelopment Office Parking Garage

Purple Line PA Existing Street Improvements Proposed Street Improvements Park Land/ Open Space

Lafa yett e

Ave.

Taylor Rd .

Tuckerman St.

LEGEND

East W est H

wy. (M

Office

Redevelopment Ground-Level Retail Residential Parking Garage

Redevelopment Office Parking Garage

hA ve. lwo rt

Rd .

Redevelopment Ground-Level Retail Office

Ken i

Riv er

Riv ert e

Redevelopment Office Parking Garage

ch Ct .

Univ . Research Ct.

MAR C

/Me

tro R

Haig Dr.

D 410

)

Retail Residential 0

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

205

Part 3: Recommendations

Map 1.29 M Square (River Road) Open Space d Ave.

Pain t Bra nch Pkw y.

Rhode Islan

1/2-Mile R adius

Paint Branch Parkway Comm. Park

Riverdale Neighborhood Playground

Haig Dr.

Taylor Rd .

Tuckerman St.

Wetland/Stream/ Water Bodies Existing—Trail Proposed— Sidepath 0

100

200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

206

400

600

Lafa yett e

Existing— Park/Open Space Proposed— Park/Open Space

Ave.

LEGEND

East W est H

wy. (M

D 410

)

Riverdale Comm. Rec. Center

lwo rth Ave .

Ken i

Ri ve Northea st

Bran ch A nac ost ia

Rd .

Anacostia River Stream Valley Park

Univ . Research Ct.

Riv er

Riv ert e

ch Ct .

MAR C

/Me

tro R

ail

Calvert Neighborhood Park

Development Strategy | M Square (River Road)

Map 1.30 M Square (River Road) Street Network P

d Ave.

1/2-Mile R adius

Rhode Islan

Pain t Bra nch Pkw y.

ail

Rd .

Riv ert e

Riv er

Ave .

-1

rth

to U S

lwo

ction

ch Ct .

ge c onne

Ken i

Brid

Univ . Research Ct.

MAR C

/Me

tro R

Haig Dr.

Taylor Rd .

Tuckerman St.

100

200

400

600

Lafa yett e

Ave.

LEGEND

East W est H

wy. (M

D 410

)

SCALE: 1” = 200’

207

Part 3: Recommendations

Street Sections

8’

12’

5’

12’

4’

25’

River Road Right-of-Way

Fig. 1.5: M Square—River Road Existing Street Section Looking West

SF PZ

2’ 6’

7’

KEY L

11’ Travel Lane

38’

PZ SF

10’

7’

11’

5’

11’

7’

10’

6’ 2’

River Road Right-of-Way

Fig. 1.6: M Square—River Road Proposed Street Section Looking West

PL Purple Line CP 10’ min. Cycle Path Zone T

7’ Planting Zone

PZ 6-15’ Pedestrian Zone SF 2’ Storefront Zone

Notes: Final dimensions and configuration to be coordinated with MTA, SHA, and DPW&T.

208

Development Strategy | M Square (River Road)

d Ra

Pain t Bra nch Pkw y.

Legend

Purple Line PA Alignment

Ave . lwo rth Ken i

N Br orth an ea ch st

ius ch Ct .

Univ ersity Research Ct. Dr. Haig

Ave.

Riv ert e

MAR C

1/4-Mile R ad

/ Me

tro R

ail

Anacostia Tributary Trail System

Lafa yett e

RECOMMENDATIONS Transit

M SQUARE (R ive

r Ro ad

)—

ile

51st

Ave.

Map 1.31 M Square (River Road) Transit Recommendations

River

Rd.

Taylor Rd .

Tuckerman St.

Proposed Purple Line Station Existing WMATA Bus Routes Existing Bus Stop Proposed Bus Stop (Bench, Shelter, Real-time Systems)

EastWest

Hwy.

(MD 41

Data Source: M-NCPPC/ Sabra-Wang & Associates 0

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

209

Part 3: Recommendations

d Ra

Pain t Bra nch Pkw y.

—

ile

51st

Ave.

Map 1.32 M Square (River Road) Pedestrian Recommendations

River

hA ve. Ken ilw ort

N Br orth an ea ch st

Univ ersity Research Ct. Dr. Haig

ch Ct .

1/4-Mile R ad ius

ail / Me tro R MAR C Ave.

Riv ert e

RECOMMENDATIONS Pedestrian

Lafa yett e

M SQUARE (R iver

Roa

Anacostia Tributary Trail System

Rd.

Legend Tuckerman St. Taylor Rd .

Purple Line PA Alignment Proposed Purple Line Station Proposed Sidewalk Proposed Sidepath Pedestrian Lighting EastWest

Existing Sidewalk

Hwy.

(MD 41

Data Source: M-NCPPC/ Sabra-Wang & Associates 0

100

200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

210

400

600

Development Strategy | M Square (River Road)

d Ra

Pain t Bra nch Pkw y.

RECOMMENDATIONS Bike

Ave . rth Ken i

lwo

N Br orth an ea ch st

Univ ersity Research Ct. Dr. Haig

ch Ct .

1/4-Mile R ad

Lafa yett e Av e.

Riv ert e

MAR C

ius

ail

Anacostia Tributary Trail System

/ Me tro R

M SQUARE (R ive

r Ro ad

)—

ile

51st

Ave.

Map 1.33 M Square (River Road) Bicycle Recommendations

River

Rd.

Tuckerman St.

Taylor Rd .

Legend

Purple Line PA Alignment Proposed Purple Line Station Proposed Bike Route Existing Bike Facility EastWest

Hwy.

(MD 41

Proposed Sidepath Data Source: M-NCPPC/ Sabra-Wang & Associates 0

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

211

Part 3: Recommendations

d Ra

Pain t Bra nch Pkw y.

—

ile

51st

Ave.

Map 1.34 M Square (River Road) Vehicular Recommendations

Ave . r th Ken i

lwo

N Br orth an ea c h st

Univ ersity Research Ct. Dr.

1/4 Mile R ad

ch Ct .

ius

Rail etro MAR C/M

Ave.

Riv ert e

Haig

RECOMMENDATIONS Vehicular

Lafa yett e

Potential bridge connection to US-1

M SQUARE (Ri ve

r Ro a

Anacostia Tributary Trail System

River

Rd.

Tuckerman St.

Legend

Taylor Rd .

Purple Line PA Alignment Proposed Purple Line Station Intersection Improvement Proposed Street EastWest

Potential Future Connections

Hwy.

(MD 41

Data Source: M-NCPPC/ Sabra-Wang & Associates 0

100

200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

212

400

600

Development Strategy | M Square (River Road)

213

Part 3: Recommendations

214

Development Strategy | College Park-UMD

1.5

College Park-UMD Overview 216

West Cam pus

Colle ge Pa UMD rk

Planning Objectives

216

Market Conclusions Summary

216

Community Input Summary

218

TOD Recommendations

219

M Sq

(Rive uare r Roa d)

Rive r

Rive rdale Park

(Bea dale Ro con H a eigh d ts)

215

Part 3: Recommendations

Planning Objectives

216

Development Strategy | College Park-UMD

Map 1.35 Key Map 1/2 Mile Radius Existing Roads MARC/Metro Rail Lines Purple Line Alignment Purple Line Stations

Ad elp h rsit y

D 20 1)

East Campus

y Blvd. E Universit

w y.

o re

Ba lti m

Kenilwo rth

t Bra Pain

College Park UMD

Av e. (M

University of Maryland

West Campus

shing ton Pkw y.

Un ive

UMD Campus Center

-Wa

Blv d. E

i Rd Adelphi Rd.

Good Luck Rd.

Baltimore Ave. (U S

Belcrest Rd.

M Square (River Road)

East W est

r Age

(Beacon Heights) (MD 4 10)

Ve ter an s

R iverdale Rd.

Pk w y.

Rd.

e ue

Riverdale Road

Hwy.

MA R C/ Met ro R ail

e ap

Rive r Rd.

D (M

Riverdale Park

0) 41

Map 1.36 College Park-UMD Station Area—Existing Conditions 1/2 Mile Radius

Colle

ge Av e.

Rhod

Hop ki

e Isla

ns Av e.

nd Av e.

1/4 Mile Radius

mbia

ge A ve.

ral Fr ank Scott D

Colu

Calver

Colle

Ave.

outh

Ave.

Rd.

Dartm

t Rd.

Corp o

Bow doin

Ave .

Harv ard Rd .

Pain t

Bra

nch

Pkw

52n d Ave .

51st Ave.

r Rd .

Drexel Rd.

Rive

Erskine Rd.

/Met

Fordham Rd.

ro Ra

Guilf ord Rd .

MAR C

Knox

LEGEND

Purple Line Route Proposed by MTA Proposed College ParkUMD Station 0

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

217

Part 3: Recommendations

Use Type and Architectural Character Stakeholders preferred mixed-use development, including retail, restaurants, and residential, located near the transit stations.

Community Workshop opening presentation

Amenities and Open Spaces Stakeholders noted the need for more usable open spaces with seating, picnic tables, lighting, and trash cans.

Streetscape Character Stakeholders noted the need for pedestrian amenities such as shade trees along streets and continuous sidewalks along Kenilworth Avenue.

Community Workshop open house discussions

Community Workshop Stakeholder presentation

218

Development Strategy | College Park-UMD

Perspective of proposed Greenway and redevelopment near the College Park-UMD transit hub

219

Part 3: Recommendations

TOD Concept

Map 1.37 College Park-UMD TOD Concept

Colle g

Hop ki

ns A ve.

Rhod

e Ave .

Knox

Rd.

The final route and station locations will be determined through MTA’s Purple Line engineering effort.

Guilf ord

LEGEND

Building Frontage Open Space Block/Edges Views/Axes Purple Line PA Proposed— Sidepath Existing Street Improvements Proposed Street Improvements Potential Future Connections 0

100

200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

220

400

600

Development Strategy | College Park-UMD

bia A ve.

Colu m

alver

Dart

mou

th Av e.

de Is land

Ave.

1/2-Mile Radius

t Rd.

Colle g

e Av e.

Drexel Rd.

ary T ra

Bra

nch

Pkw

Anac ostia Tribu t

Ave.

Pain t

52nd

51st

r Rd .

Rive

Erskine Rd.

/Me

Rd.

MAR C

Fordham

tro R

ail

d Rd .

Ave.

Bow doin

il Sys tem

Ave .

221

Part 3: Recommendations

Map 1.38 College Park-UMD Redevelopment Strategy—Short-Term

mou

bia A ve.

th Av e.

Redevelopment Knox Ground-Level Retail along Riverdale Rd. Rd. Office above

Colu m

Colle g

LEGEND

Purple Line PA Existing Street Improvements Proposed Street Improvements Park Land/ Open Space

Office Redevelopment Office 5-Story Parking Garage

Retail Residential

100

200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

222

400

600

Bra

Ave.

Pain t

52nd

r Rd .

Erskine Rd.

Drexel Rd.

Rive

Rd.

MAR C

Fordham

/Me tro R

ail

rd Rd .

Ave.

Guilfo

51st

Redevelopment Limited Ground-Level Retail along Riverdale Rd. Residential above Parking Garage

e Av e.

Ave .

Rd.

Bow doin

Calve rt

Dart

Hop kin

s Ave .

Rhod

e Ave .

e Isla

Colle g

nd A ve.

1/2-Mile Radius

nch

Pkw

Development Strategy | College Park-UMD

Redevelopment Strategy—Long Term The long-term strategy governs development for the time period after the completion of the Purple Line once rail service begins.

planned commercial and residential will require structured parking within the individual development parcels.

Map 1.39 College Park-UMD Redevelopment Strategy—Long-Term 1/2-Mile Radius

nd A ve.

Redevelopment Ground-Level Retail Office Parking Garage

Colle g

Ave.

Calve r

bia A ve.

Redevelopment Ground Level Retail Office

Colle g

Colu m

Rd.

outh

Knox

Redevelopment Residential

Dartm

Hop kin

s Ave .

Rhod

e Isla

e Ave .

t Rd.

e Av e.

Redevelopment Residential Parking Garage

LEGEND

Bra

Ave.

nch

Redevelopment Office Parking Garage

Redevelopment Residential Parking Garage

Pkw

Redevelopment Office

P P

Redevelopment Office Parking Garage

Purple Line PA Existing Street Improvements Proposed Street Improvements Park Land/ Open Space

Pain t

52nd

Rive r Rd .

Drexel Rd.

/Me

Rd.

Erskine Rd.

MAR C

Fordham

tro R

ail

rd Rd .

51st

Guilfo

Ave.

Bow doin

Ave .

Office Retail Residential

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

223

Part 3: Recommendations

View of Greenway and Transit Plaza along River Road

Map 1.40 College Park-UMD Open Space Lake Artemesia

1/2-Mile Radius

nd A ve.

Indian Creek Comm. Park

Colle g

Paint Branch Stream Valley Park

Colle g

Colu m

e Av e.

Drexel Rd.

Ave.

Pain t

52nd

r Rd .

Erskine Rd.

Rive

Rd.

MAR C/M e

Fordham

tro R

ail

rd Rd .

Ave.

Guilfo

Calvert Recreation Center

51st

t Rd.

Bow doin Ave .

Calve r

bia A ve.

Ave.

Rd.

outh

Knox

Dartm

Hop kin

s Ave .

Rhod

e Isla

e Ave .

Bra

nch

Pkw

y. Paint Branch Parkway Comm. Park

Calvert Recreation Center LEGEND

Existing— Park/Open Space Proposed— Park/Open Space Wetland/Stream/ Water Bodies Existing—Trail Proposed— Sidepath 0

100

200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

224

400

600

Anacostia River Stream Valley Park

Development Strategy | College Park-UMD

View of proposed streetscape along River Road

Map 1.41 College Park-UMD Street Network

nd A ve.

1/2-Mile Radius

Colle g

Colu m

t Rd.

e Av e.

Drexel Rd.

Ave.

Pain t

52nd

r Rd .

Erskine Rd.

Rive

Rd.

MAR C/M e

Fordham

tro R

ail

rd Rd .

51st

Guilfo

Ave.

Bow doin

Ave .

Calve r

bia A ve.

Ave.

Rd.

outh

Knox

Dartm

Hop kin

s Ave .

Rhod

e Isla

e Ave .

Bra

nch

Pkw

LEGEND

Existing Street— Commercial Street Type Existing Street— Neighborhood Street Type Proposed Streetù Commercial Street Type Proposed Street— Neighborhood Street Type

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

225

Part 3: Recommendations

Street Sections

8’

11’

5’

11’

5’

7’

River Road Right-of-Way

Fig. 1.7: College Park—River Road Existing Street Section Looking North

38’

7’

10’

KEY L

11’ Travel Lane

Varies

SF PZ

2’ 6’+

10’

7’

11’

5’

11’

5’

River Road Right-of-Way

Fig. 1.8: College Park—River Road Proposed Street Section Looking North

PL Purple Line CP 10’ Cycle Path Zone T

7’ Planting Zone

PZ 6–15’ Pedestrian Zone SF 2’ Storefront Zone

Notes: Final dimensions and configuration to be coordinated with MTA, SHA, and DPW&T.

226

7’

Development Strategy | College Park-UMD

Note: Bus stop locations need to be further studied and coordinated with DPW&T.

ile

Map 1.42 College Park-UMD Transit Recommendations

Colle

ge A ve.

Scot tD

Colu

Dart t Rd.

Corp oral Fran k

Calver

ius

Ave.

-M

mou

Rad

mbia

Rhod

Ave .

Harv ard Rd .

Bow doin Drexel Rd.

d Ave .

Bra

nch

Pkw

RECOMMENDATIONS Transit Legend

52n

Erskine Rd.

r Rd .

Fordham Rd.

Ave.

Pain t

51st

Guilf ord Rd .

Rive

Rd.

ile th Av e.

nd Av e. e Isla

ns Av e. Hop ki

Knox

COLLEGE P ARK -

D—

ge Av e.

Purple Line PA Alignment Proposed Purple Line Station Existing WMATA Bus Routes Existing Bus Stop Proposed Bus Stop (Bench, Shelter, Real-time Systems) Data Source: M-NCPPC/ Sabra-Wang & Associates

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

227

Part 3: Recommendations

ile

Map 1.43 College Park-UMD Pedestrian Recommendations

Colle

Ave.

-M

mou

ius

ge A ve.

Scot tD

Colu

Pedestrian tunnel Metro tracks Calvunder er

mbia

Rhod

oral Fran k

t Rd.

Corp

Ave .

Harv ard Rd .

Bow doin

Rive

52n

Erskine Rd.

Drexel Rd.

r Rd .

Fordham Rd.

d Ave .

Pain t Ave.

Guilf ord Rd .

51st

Rd.

Rad

th Av e.

nd Av e. e Isla

ns Av e. Hop ki

Knox

ile

Dart

COLLEGE P ARK

-UM

D—

ge Av e.

Bra

nch

Pkw

RECOMMENDATIONS Pedestrian Legend

Purple Line PA Alignment Proposed Purple Line Station Proposed Sidewalk Sidepath Pedestrian Lighting Existing Sidewalk Data Source: M-NCPPC/ Sabra-Wang & Associates

100

200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

228

400

600

Development Strategy | College Park-UMD

ile

Map 1.44 College Park-UMD Bicycle Recommendations

Colle

nd Av e.

-M

Colle

ge A ve.

mbia

mou

ius

Ave.

Scot tD

ert Rd .

Colu

Pedestrian Tunnel under Metro Tracks Calv

oral Fran k

Rhod

Corp

M Harv ard Rd .

Ave .

Proposed Bike Rentals/Parking Bow doin

Drexel Rd.

d Ave . 52n

Erskine Rd.

r Rd .

Fordham Rd.

Ave.

Pain t

51st

Guilf ord Rd .

Rive

Rd.

Rad

th Av e.

e Isla

ns Av e. Hop ki

Knox

ile

Dart

COLLEGE P AR

K-U

—

ge Av e.

Bra

nch

Pkw

RECOMMENDATIONS Bike Legend

Purple Line LPA Alignment Proposed Purple Line Station

Bike Route Existing Bike Facility Proposed Sidepath Data Source: M-NCPPC/ Sabra-Wang & Associates

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

229

Part 3: Recommendations

Vehicular Recommendations

Parking Recommendations

ile

Map 1.45 College Park-UMD Vehicular Recommendations

Colle

ius

Colle

ge A ve.

Scot tD

Colu

Dart t Rd.

oral Fran k

Calver

Rad

Ave.

-M

mou

th Av e.

Rhod

Corp

Ave .

Harv ard Rd .

Bow doin

Pain t

Bra

nch

Pkw

RECOMMENDATIONS Vehicular

d Ave .

Legend 52n

Drexel Rd.

Rive

Erskine Rd.

r Rd .

Fordham Rd.

Ave.

Guilf ord Rd .

51st

Rd.

Knox

ile

mbia

nd Av e. e Isla

ns Av e. Hop ki

COLLEGE P ARK -UM D

—

ge Av e.

Purple Line PA Alignment Proposed Purple Line Station Intersection Improvement Proposed Street Potential Future Connections Data Source: M-NCPPC/ Sabra-Wang & Associates

100

200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

230

400

600

Development Strategy | College Park-UMD

This page intentionally left blank

231

Part 3: Recommendations

232

Development Strategy | West Campus

1.6

West Campus Overview 234

West Cam pus

Colle ge Pa UMD rk

Planning Objectives

234

Market Conclusions Summary

234

Community Input Summary

236

TOD Recommendations

237

M Sq

(Rive uare r Roa d)

Rive r

Rive rdale Park

(Bea dale Ro con H a eigh d ts)

233

Part 3: Recommendations

Overview

Market Conclusions Summary

In West Campus (University Hill) station, the impact of the University of Maryland is noticed immediately, and new development should be closely coordinated with the university’s master plan.

Planning Objectives As previously listed in Section 1.1 Overview, general planning objectives were established to help achieve the overall goal of lively, walkable, and attractive transit-oriented communities for all five station areas. Based on West Campus station area’s unique existing conditions and opportunities, a more definitive list of planning objectives was established. For West Campus, the planning objectives include: • Establish a street network providing alternative vehicular and pedestrian routes between Adelphi Road and Mowatt Lane, relieving congestion and creating accessible parcels for mixed-use development; currently the primary development area between Adelphi Road and Mowatt Lane south of Campus Drive is largely land-locked with limited access to a few buildings along Campus Drive and Mowatt Lane. • Enhance the natural area surrounding Turtle Creek as a greenway with trail connections to existing parks while providing an amenity for proposed redevelopment and buffering new single-family homes to the south; currently the study area lacks trail connections from existing parks to the University of Maryland and residential communities west of Adelphi Road.

234

Development Strategy | West Campus

Map 1.46 Key Map Ad elp h

1/2 Mile Radius Existing Roads MARC/Metro Rail Lines Purple Line Alignment Purple Line Stations

rsit y

D 20 1) w y.

o re

Belcrest Rd.

Baltimore Ave. (U S

Ba lti m

Kenilwo rth

t Bra Pain

College Park UMD

Av e. (M

University of Maryland

West Campus

shing ton Pkw y.

Un ive

East Campus

y Blvd. E Universit

-Wa

Blv d. E

i Rd

UMD Campus Center

Adelphi Rd.

East W est

Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights)

R iverdale Rd.

Ve ter an s

Pk w

D (M

Riverdale Park

Rd.

e ue

M Square (River Road) Hwy.

(MD 4 10)

0) 41

MA R C/ Met ro R ail

r Age

p ha

Good Luck Rd.

Rive r Rd.

Map 1.47 West Campus Station Area—Existing Conditions

Adelphi Rd .

ive

rsi

Blv d. E.

e Radius 1/2-Mil

Co ol

eR 1/4-Mil adius

S p rin g Rd.

Cha th

Temple St.

UMUC University of Maryland College Park

Blvd. E. University

d. R Adelphi

el W

t. eS

y ns

t. aS

lva

. vd

u rd Pu

Windsor Ln.

Ru tg

t. sS er

Sta nf

n Pe

Purple Line

Dr. n att L Mow

d or

LEGEND

Campu s

. Tulane Dr

der

man

Com

Dr.

Route Proposed by MTA Proposed West Campus Station 0

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

235

Part 3: Recommendations

Community workshop opening presentation

Streetscape Character

Community workshop open house discussions

Stakeholders noted the need for a small neighborhood-scale walkable environment, including retail such as coffee shops and casual restaurants.

Community workshop small group discussions

Community workshop Stakeholder presentation

236

Development Strategy | West Campus

Existing view of Campus Drive from Presidential Drive

Perspective of Campus Drive from Presidential Drive

237

Part 3: Recommendations

TOD Concept

Map 1.48 West Campus TOD Concept

The TOD concept diagram for the half-mile study area focuses on block configurations, building frontages, open space locations, trail connections, street networks, and important gateways and views. For the West Campus station study area, the primary planning recommendations are: • New two- to five-story, mixed-use development primarily as multifamily residential buildings with limited ground-floor retail at key locations along Campus Drive, particularly at the station stop. • Establish a new western gateway for the University of Maryland. • New open spaces integrated into the existing surrounding network of open spaces and community parks. • A new pedestrian/bicycle greenway along Turtle Creek, providing connections to surrounding community parks. • Intersection improvements at University Boulevard, Adelphi Road, and Campus Drive; at Adelphi Road and Wells Boulevard; and at Stanford Street and Wells Boulevard to improve functionality, accessibility, and safety. The final route and station locations will be determined through MTA’s Purple Line engineering effort.

Universit

LEGEND

Building Frontage Open Space Block/Edges Views/Axes Purple Line PA Proposed— Sidepath Existing Street Improvements Proposed Street Improvements Potential Future Connections 0

100

200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

238

400

600

y Blvd.

Development Strategy | West Campus

Adelphi Rd .

Un ive rs

ity

Blv d. E.

e Radius 1/2-Mil

Co ol

S p rin g Rd.

Cha

Temple St.

UMUC

Cam p

us D

E. r. Tulane D

University of Maryland College Park

el W

t. eS

u rd Pu

. vd Bl

n Pe

an ylv

. St

Windsor Ln.

Ru tg

Sta nf

t. sS r e

d. Adelphi R

d or

n att L Mow

er D

Com

d man

239

Part 3: Recommendations

should coincide with the construction of the Purple Line route and station. The improvements will include intersection improvements as well as improved pedestrian and bicycle connections.

Map 1.49 West Campus Redevelopment Strategy—Short-Term

Co ol

Adelphi Rd .

ive

rsi

Blv d. E.

e Radius 1/2-Mil

S p rin g Rd.

Cha

UMUC Cam p

us D

Tulane D

100

200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

240

400

600

n lva sy

n Pe

. St

Windsor Ln.

Institutional

u rd Pu

. vd

Residential

Retail

t. eS

Office

s er

. St

el W

Park Land/ Open Space

Ru tg

Purple Line PA Existing Street Improvements Proposed Street Improvements

Sta nf

LEGEND

Domain at College Park Ground-Level Retail Along Campus Dr. Residential MF Units Structured Parking

n att L Mow

d or

University of Maryland College Park

. Adelphi Rd

Blvd. E.

Temple St.

University

er D

Com

d man

Redevelopment Residential Single-Family Units

Redevelopment Residential MF or TH Units

Development Strategy | West Campus

Redevelopment Strategy—Long Term The long-term strategy governs development for the time period after the completion of the Purple Line once rail service begins.

Map 1.50 West Campus Redevelopment Strategy—Long-Term

Co ol

Adelphi Rd .

ive

rsi

Blv d. E.

e Radius 1/2-Mil

Mixed-Use Redevelopment Ground-Level Retail along Campus Dr. Institutional Use Above

S p rin g Rd.

Cha th

m Rd . Mixed-Use Redevelopment Ground-Level Retail along Campus Dr. Residential above (MF units)

Temple St.

Blvd. E. University

UMUC Cam p

us D

Tulane D

University of Maryland College Park

Mixed-Use Redevelopment Ground-Level Retail along Campus Dr. Residential above (MF Units)

Retail Residential

nn Pe Redevelopment Institutional and/or Residential (MF or TH units)

. St

Windsor Ln.

n lva sy

. Adelphi Rd

t. eS

u rd Pu

. vd

Office

Park Land/ Open Space

Redevelopment Residential MF or TH Units

t. sS er

ls el W

Existing Street Improvements Proposed Street Improvements

Ru tg

Purple Line PA

Sta nf

d or

LEGEND

n att L Mow

Redevelopment Residential (MF or TH units)

der

man

Com

Dr.

Institutional 0

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

241

Part 3: Recommendations

Map 1.51 West Campus Open Space

Co ol

Adelphi Rd .

ive

rsi

Blv d. E.

e Radius 1/2-Mil

UMD Botanical Gardens (Existing & Proposed) UMD Proposed Linear Green

S p rin g Rd.

Cha

UMUC

Temple St.

Adelphi Manor Community Recreation Center and Park

Cam p

us D

Blvd. E. University

Tulane D

University of Maryland College Park

r. P

Wetland/Stream/ Water Bodies Existing—Trail Proposed— Sidepath 200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

400

600

Lane Manor Community Recreation Center and Park

n Pe

t. aS

lva

y ns

Windsor Ln.

u rd Pu

Ru tg

d. lv

Proposed— Park/Open Space

242

t. eS

B ls

Existing— Park/Open Space

100

t. sS er

el W

LEGEND

Sta nf

University Hills Neigborhood Park

Lane Manor Aquatic Center

. Adelphi Rd

d or

n att L Mow

der

man

Com

Dr.

UMD Mayer Hall

Development Strategy | West Campus

View of proposed Campus Drive streetscape at Presidential Drive

Map 1.52 West Campus Street Network

Co ol

Adelphi Rd .

ive

rsi

Blv d. E.

e Radius 1/2-Mil

S p rin g Rd.

Cha

Temple St.

UMUC

University

Cam p

us D

Blvd. E.

University of Maryland College Park

. Tulane Dr P

an ylv

s nn

. St

Windsor Ln.

u rd Pu

. vd

Ru tg

Sta nf 600

400

t. eS

200

t. sS er

el W

100

LEGEND

. Adelphi Rd

d or

n att L Mow

der

man

Com

Dr.

SCALE: 1” = 200’

243

Part 3: Recommendations

Street Sections

5’

11’

8’

5’

Campus Drive Right-of-Way

Fig. 1.9: West Campus—Campus Drive Existing Street Section—Looking West

SF PZ

2’ 6’

10’

7’

38’

13’

11’

7’

6’

Campus Drive Right-of-Way

KEY L

Fig. 1.10: West Campus—Campus Drive Proposed Street Section—Looking West

11’ Travel Lane

PL Purple Line T

7’ Planting Zone

PZ 6-15’Pedestrian Zone SF 2’ Storefront Zone

Notes: Final dimensions and configuration to be coordinated with MTA, SHA, and DPW&T.

244

Development Strategy | West Campus

rsi

Blv d. E.

ive

ile

diu

Adelphi Rd .

S—

Map 1.53 West Campus Transit Recommendations

S p rin g Rd.

ile

diu

Cha

Co ol

Temple St.

UMUC

University

University of Maryland College Park

Blvd. E.

Campu s

. Tulane Dr

Dr.

d. t. sS er

ls el W

Proposed Bus Stop (Bench, Shelter, Real-time Systems)

n lva sy

. vd

Existing Bus Stop

Existing WMATA Bus Routes

t. eS

u rd Pu

n Pe

. St Windsor Ln.

Ru tg

Proposed Purple Line Station

Sta nf

d or

Purple Line PA Alignment

R Adelphi

Legend

n att L Mow

RECOMMENDATIONS Transit

der

man

Com

Dr.

Data Source: M-NCPPC/ Sabra-Wang & Associates 0

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

245

Part 3: Recommendations

rsi

Blv d. E.

ive

ile

diu

Adelphi Rd .

S—

Map 1.54 West Campus Pedestrian Recommendations

S p rin g Rd.

ile

diu

Cha

Co ol

Temple St.

UMUC

Pedestrian Lighting Data Source: M-NCPPC/ Sabra-Wang & Associates 200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

246

400

600

Rd. Adelphi ia

n Pe

n lva sy

. St

Windsor Ln.

Ru tg

t. eS

u rd Pu

. vd Bl

Proposed Side Path

Proposed Sidewalk

t. sS er

el W

Proposed Purple Line Station

100

Sta nf

Purple Line PA Alignment

d or

Dr.

Legend

Campu s

. Tulane Dr

n att L Mow

RECOMMENDATIONS Pedestrian

University of Maryland College Park

Blvd. E.

University

der

man

Com

Dr.

Development Strategy | West Campus

Blv d. E. ty rsi ive

ile

ius

Adelphi Rd .

d Ra

S—

Map 1.55 West Campus Bicycle Recommendations

S p rin g Rd.

ile

diu

Cha

Co ol

Temple St.

UMUC

n Pe

t. aS

lva

y ns

Windsor Ln.

Rd. Adelphi

u rd Pu

. vd

Proposed Side Path

Proposed Bike Lane

t. eS

Proposed Bike Route

t. sS er

el W

Proposed Purple Line Station

Ru tg

Purple Line PA Alignment

d or

Dr.

Legend

Campu s

. Tulane Dr

n att L Mow

RECOMMENDATIONS Bike

University of Maryland College Park

Blvd. E.

Sta nf

University

der

man

Com

Dr.

Data Source: M-NCPPC/ Sabra-Wang & Associates 0

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

247

Part 3: Recommendations

Vehicular Recommendations

Parking Recommendations

rsi

Blv d. E.

ive

ile

diu

Adelphi Rd .

S—

Map 1.56 West Campus Vehicular Recommendations

S p rin g Rd.

ile

diu

Cha

Co ol

Temple St.

UMUC

University

University of Maryland College Park

Blvd. E.

Campu s

. Tulane Dr

Dr.

Ru tg

Proposed Purple Line Station

t. t. sS er

el W

t. eS

Potential Future Connections Data Source: M-NCPPC/ Sabra-Wang & Associates 0

100

200

SCALE: 1” = 200’

248

400

600

n Pe

y ns

t. aS

lva

. vd

Proposed Street

Intersection Improvement

u rd Pu

Windsor Ln.

d or

Sta nf

Purple Line PA Alignment

Rd. Adelphi

Legend

n. att L Mow

RECOMMENDATIONS Vehicular

der

man

Com

Dr.

Development Strategy | West Campus

This page intentionally left blank

249

Part 3: Recommendations

250

2. Zoning Template 2.1 Overview

252

2.2 TOD Zoning Standards

254

2.1 Overview Purpose

Zoning Template

253

Part 3: Recommendations

TOD ZONES

Park/Open Space

Uses

Cultural/Civic

Densities (du/acre); Intensities (FAR)

Not Applicable

Building Heights

Not Applicable

Front Setbacks

Not Applicable

Frontage

Not Applicable

Parking

Not Applicable

Open Space Types

Park

254

Size: 1 acre min. Greenways Size: Varies

Zoning Template

TOD A

TOD B

TOD C

District

Primarily single-use; Office, Industrial, and Institutional

4 - 35 du/acre 1.0 FAR min.

8 - 75 du/acre 1.5 FAR min.

35 - 175 du/acre 1.0 FAR min.

Not Applicable

2-Story or 30’ min. 3-Story max.

2-Story min. 5-Story max.

TOD C.1 (4-Story min., 6-Story max.) Not Applicable TOD C.2 (5-Story min., 8-Story max.)

5’ min.-20’ max. (excepting Civic) Shallow to medium front setbacks

0’min.-10’ max. (excepting Civic) Shallow front setbacks or none; buildings define the street wall

0’min.-20’max.

50% - 80%

60% - 100%

80% - 100%

Not Applicable

Residential (Single-family): Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Squares Size: 1/4 - 2 Acres Greens Size: 1 - 4 Acres

Plazas Size: 1/8 - 1 Acre Squares Size: 1/4 - 2 Acres Pocket Parks Size: 1/16 - 1/8 Acre

TOD Zones Matrix 255

Part 3: Recommendations

256

TOD ZONES

Park/Open Space

TOD A

Uses

Cultural/Civic

Densities (du/acre); Intensities (FAR)

Not Applicable

4 - 35 du/acre 1.0 FAR min.

8 - 75 du/acre 1.5 FAR min.

Building Heights

Not Applicable

2-Story or 30’ min. 3-Story max.

2-Story min. 5-Story max.

Front Setbacks

Not Applicable

5’ min.-20’ max. (excepting Civic) Shallow to medium front setbacks

0’min.-10’ max. (excepting Civic) Shallow front setbacks or none; buildings define the street wall

Frontage

Not Applicable

50% - 80%

60% - 100%

Parking

Not Applicable

Residential (Single-family): 1/4 mile radius: 1.00 sp/du - 1.75 sp/du 1/2 mile radius: 1.25 sp/du - 2.00 sp/du Residential (Multifamily): 1/4 mile radius: .8 sp/du - 1.5 sp/du 1/2 mile radius: 1.0 sp/du - 2.0 sp/du Commercial (Retail, Office) 1/4 mile radius: 1.75 sp/1000 sf - 2.5 sp/1000 sf 1/2 mile radius: 2.00 sp/1000 sf - 1.0 sp/1000 sf Other Uses: 1/4 mile radius: 25% reduction1 1/2 mile radius: 15% reduction1 Further Shared Parking reductions allowed.2

Open Space Types

Park Size: 1 acre min. Greenways Size: Varies

Squares Size: 1/4 - 2 Acres Greens Size: 1 - 4 Acres

Plazas Size: 1/8 - 1 Acre Squares Size: 1/4 - 2 Acres Pocket Parks Size: 1/16 - 1/8 Acre

TOD B

Zoning Template

Map 2.1 Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Zoning Template 1/2-Mile Radius

th 67

67t

h P l.

ran

t e rson St.

67th

Ave.

66th Ave .

Dr.

Eastp ine

Baltimore-Washington P kwy.

64th Ave. 63rd Pl.

Ve te

Powhatan St.

r. Te

Patterson St.

Riverdale Rd.

oo w rn Fe

Ct .

eR 1/4-Mil adius

etwork e ine LPA 2 Mile N

Park/Open Space TOD A TOD B

Street Network Rail Line Purple Line PA 1/4 & 1/2 Mile

TOD C.1 TOD C.2 DISTRICT

257

Part 3: Recommendations

258

TOD ZONES

Park/Open Space

TOD B

Uses

Cultural/Civic

Densities (du/acre); Intensities (FAR)

Not Applicable

8 - 75 du/acre 1.5 FAR min.

Building Heights

Not Applicable

2-Story min. 5-Story max.

Front Setbacks

Not Applicable

0’min.-10’ max. (excepting Civic) Shallow front setbacks or none; buildings define the street wall

Frontage

Not Applicable

60% - 100%

Parking

Not Applicable

Residential (Single-family): 1/4 mile radius: 1.00 sp/du - 1.75 sp/du 1/2 mile radius: 1.25 sp/du - 2.00 sp/du Residential (Multifamily): 1/4 mile radius: .8 sp/du - 1.5 sp/du 1/2 mile radius: 1.0 sp/du - 2.0 sp/du Commercial (Retail, Office) 1/4 mile radius: 1.75 sp/1000 sf - 2.5 sp/1000 sf 1/2 mile radius: 2.00 sp/1000 sf - 1.0 sp/1000 sf Other Uses: 1/4 mile radius: 25% reduction1 1/2 mile radius: 15% reduction1 Further Shared Parking reductions allowed.2

Open Space Types

Park Size: 1 acre min. Greenways Size: Varies

Plazas Size: 1/8 - 1 Acre Squares Size: 1/4 - 2 Acres Pocket Parks Size: 1/16 - 1/8 Acre

Zoning Template

Map 2.2 Riverdale Park Zoning Template

Kenilworth Ave.

1/2-Mile Radius

ale

Patterson St.

n St.

nS t.

62nd Pl.

a St.

Riverdale

63rd Ave.

Patte rso

at a

Riv erd

Quintan

Quinta

na St.

ighw ay Po wh

St.

58th Ave .

West H

Ave.

60th Pl.

Quin tana

e. Av th

East

e. Av

t 57

oke

Roan

61st Pl.

eR 1/4-Mil adius

Rd .

st 61

54t

ral

Av e.

hA ve.

Mustang Dr.

Nichols

on St.

Av e.

Jeff erso

Ave .

Gr ee

nv ale

wy .

56th

55t

Ken ilw ort h

n St .

t Network ine e Line LPA 1/2 Mile 600

Park/Open Space TOD A TOD B

Street Network Rail Line Purple Line PA 1/4 & 1/2 Mile

TOD C.1 TOD C.2 DISTRICT

259

Part 3: Recommendations

TOD ZONES

Park/Open Space

TOD A

Uses

Cultural/Civic

Residential: Multifamily (apartments, condos) Employment: Commercial Office Commercial Retail (entertainment, community-serving) Other Uses: Institutional, Cultural/Civic

Densities (du/acre); Intensities (FAR)

Not Applicable

4 - 35 du/acre 1.0 FAR min.

8 - 75 du/acre 1.5 FAR min.

35 - 175 du/acre 1.0 FAR min.

Building Heights

Not Applicable

2-Story or 30’ min. 3-Story max.

2-Story min. 5-Story max.

TOD C.1 (4-Story min., 6-Story max.) TOD C.2 (5-Story min., 8-Story max.)

Front Setbacks

Not Applicable

5’ min.-20’ max. (excepting Civic) Shallow to medium front setbacks

0’min.-10’ max. (excepting Civic) Shallow front setbacks or none; buildings define the street wall

Frontage

Not Applicable

50% - 80%

60% - 100%

80% - 100%

Parking

Not Applicable

Residential (Single-family): 1/4 mile radius: 1.00 sp/du - 1.75 sp/du 1/2 mile radius: 1.25 sp/du - 2.00 sp/du Residential (Multifamily): 1/4 mile radius: .8 sp/du - 1.5 sp/du 1/2 mile radius: 1.0 sp/du - 2.0 sp/du Commercial (Retail, Office) 1/4 mile radius: 1.75 sp/1000 sf - 2.5 sp/1000 sf 1/2 mile radius: 2.00 sp/1000 sf - 1.0 sp/1000 sf Other Uses: 1/4 mile radius: 25% reduction1 1/2 mile radius: 15% reduction1 Further Shared Parking reductions allowed.2

Residential (Single-family): Not Applicable

Squares Size: 1/4 - 2 Acres Greens Size: 1 - 4 Acres

Plazas Size: 1/8 - 1 Acre Squares Size: 1/4 - 2 Acres Pocket Parks Size: 1/16 - 1/8 Acre

Open Space Types

260

Park Size: 1 acre min. Greenways Size: Varies

TOD B

TOD C

Map 2.3 MÂ Square (River Road) Zoning Template

Zoning Template

Pain t Bra nch Pkw y.

Rhode Isla

nd Ave.

1/2-Mile Radius

lwo

rth

Ave .

Univ . Research Ct.

Ken i

Riv ert e

ch Ct.

MAR C/M etro Rail

eR 1/4-Mil adius

Rive

r Rd.

Haig Dr.

Lafa yett e

Ave.

Taylor R d.

Tuckerman St.

East W est H

wy. (M

D 410

)

Park/Open Space TOD A TOD B

Street Network Rail Line Purple Line PA 1/4 & 1/2 Mile

TOD C.1 TOD C.2 DISTRICT

261

Part 3: Recommendations

TOD ZONES

Park/Open Space

TOD A

Uses

Cultural/Civic

Residential: Multifamily (apartments, condos) Employment: Commercial Office Commercial Retail (entertainment, community-serving) Other Uses: Institutional, Cultural/Civic

Densities (du/acre); Intensities (FAR)

Not Applicable

4 - 35 du/acre 1.0 FAR min.

8 - 75 du/acre 1.5 FAR min.

35 - 175 du/acre 1.0 FAR min.

Building Heights

Not Applicable

2-Story or 30’ min. 3-Story max.

2-Story min. 5-Story max.

TOD C.1 (4-Story min., 6-Story max.) TOD C.2 (5-Story min., 8-Story max.)

Front Setbacks

Not Applicable

5’ min.-20’ max. (excepting Civic) Shallow to medium front setbacks

0’min.-10’ max. (excepting Civic) Shallow front setbacks or none; buildings define the street wall

Frontage

Not Applicable

50% - 80%

60% - 100%

80% - 100%

Parking

Not Applicable

Residential (Single-family): 1/4 mile radius: 1.00 sp/du - 1.75 sp/du 1/2 mile radius: 1.25 sp/du - 2.00 sp/du Residential (Multifamily): 1/4 mile radius: .8 sp/du - 1.5 sp/du 1/2 mile radius: 1.0 sp/du - 2.0 sp/du Commercial (Retail, Office) 1/4 mile radius: 1.75 sp/1000 sf - 2.5 sp/1000 sf 1/2 mile radius: 2.00 sp/1000 sf - 1.0 sp/1000 sf Other Uses: 1/4 mile radius: 25% reduction1 1/2 mile radius: 15% reduction1 Further Shared Parking reductions allowed.2

Residential (Single-family): Not Applicable

Squares Size: 1/4 - 2 Acres Greens Size: 1 - 4 Acres

Plazas Size: 1/8 - 1 Acre Squares Size: 1/4 - 2 Acres Pocket Parks Size: 1/16 - 1/8 Acre

Open Space Types

Park Size: 1 acre min. Greenways Size: Varies

TOD Zones Matrix—College Park-UMD 262

TOD B

TOD C

Zoning Template

Map 2.4 College Park-UMD Zoning Template

nd A ve.

1/2-Mile Radius

e Isla

Colle g

Colu m

e Av e.

Rd.

Erskine Rd.

Drexel Rd.

Ave.

r Rd .

Fordham

Pain t

Bra

nch

Pkw

Rive

tro R

Guilf ord R

51st

t Rd.

Bow doin Ave ail .

Calve r

bia A ve.

Ave.

Rd.

outh

Knox

Dart m

Hop ki

ns A ve.

Rhod

eR 1/4-Mil adius

/ Me

e Ave .

MAR C

Colle g

100

200

400

600

SCALE: 1” = 200’

Park/Open Space TOD A TOD B

Street Network Rail Line Purple Line PA 1/4 & 1/2 Mile

TOD C.1 TOD C.2 DISTRICT

263

Part 3: Recommendations

Park/Open Space

TOD A

Uses

Cultural/Civic

Primarily single-use; Office, Industrial, and Institutional

Densities (du/acre); Intensities (FAR)

Not Applicable

4 - 35 du/acre 1.0 FAR min.

8 - 75 du/acre 1.5 FAR min.

Not Applicable

Building Heights

Not Applicable

2-Story or 30’ min. 3-Story max.

2-Story min. 5-Story max.

Not Applicable

Front Setbacks

Not Applicable

5’ min.-20’ max. (excepting Civic) Shallow to medium front setbacks

0’min.-10’ max. (excepting Civic) Shallow front setbacks or none; buildings define the street wall

0’min.-20’max.

Frontage

Not Applicable

50% - 80%

60% - 100%

Not Applicable

Parking

Not Applicable

Residential (Single-family): 1/4 mile radius: 1.00 sp/du - 1.75 sp/du 1/2 mile radius: 1.25 sp/du - 2.00 sp/du Residential (Multifamily): 1/4 mile radius: .8 sp/du - 1.5 sp/du 1/2 mile radius: 1.0 sp/du - 2.0 sp/du Commercial (Retail, Office) 1/4 mile radius: 1.75 sp/1000 sf - 2.5 sp/1000 sf 1/2 mile radius: 2.00 sp/1000 sf - 1.0 sp/1000 sf Other Uses: 1/4 mile radius: 25% reduction1 1/2 mile radius: 15% reduction1 Further Shared Parking reductions allowed.2

Not Applicable

Open Space Types

Park Size: 1 acre min. Greenways Size: Varies

Squares Size: 1/4 - 2 Acres Greens Size: 1 - 4 Acres

Plazas Size: 1/8 - 1 Acre Squares Size: 1/4 - 2 Acres Pocket Parks Size: 1/16 - 1/8 Acre

Plazas Size: 1/8 - 1 Acre Greens Size: 1 - 4 Acres Park Size: 1 Acre min.

TOD Zones Matrix—West Campus 264

District

Zoning Template

Map 2.5 Zoning Plan West Campus Template

Adelphi Rd .

Un ive rsi ty

Bl v d. E.

1/2-Mile Radius

Co ol

eR 1/4-Mil adius

S p rin g Rd.

Cha

Temple St.

UMUC Cam p

y Blvd. E. Universit

us D

Tulane D

t. t. sS er

. vd

n Pe

an ylv

. St

Windsor Ln.

el W

t. eS

u rd Pu

d. Adelphi R

Ru tg

Sta nf

n att L Mow

d or

University of Maryland College Park

der

an mm

Park/Open Space TOD A TOD B

Dr.

Street Network Rail Line Purple Line PA 1/4 & 1/2 Mile

TOD C.1 TOD C.2 DISTRICT

265

Part 3: Recommendations

266

3. Implementation Strategies 3.1 Business Technical Assistance

269

3.2 Business Financial Assistance

270

3.3 Mitigation of Construction-Related Impacts 271 3.4 Residential Implementation Strategies

272

3.5 Federal Affordable Housing Tools

273

3.6 Expanded State/Local Affordable Housing Tools

273

3.7 Redevelopment Funding Alternatives

274

Implementation Strategies

Promote Business Leadership and Partnership

Within Prince George’s County, the University of Maryland at College Park is a key anchor institution with capacity to assist local businesses.

Assist in Business Location and Relocation

Adjust Regulatory Environment

269

Part 3: Recommendations

2 McConnell, J. Katie; McFarland, Christiana; Common, Brett Supporting Entrepreneurs and Small Business: A Tool Kit for Local Leaders, p 19.

270

Implementation Strategies

Construction Parking Strategies During the construction of new infrastructure investments, the change in traffic patterns and barricades make access to traditional parking in

3 Sound Transit, “Capitol Hill Station Construction”. http://projects.soundtransit.org/ProjectsHome/University-Link/Capitol-Hill-Station.xml

271

Part 3: Recommendations

272

Implementation Strategies

3.6 Expanded State/Local Affordable Housing Tools In addition to the funding alternatives mentioned previously, there are a variety of programs that may assist in offsetting the public investment.

Inclusionary Zoning—Bonus Density

Low-Income Housing Tax Credits

Pooled Investment Fund

The LIHTC is based on Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code and provides a credit against tax liability or a dollar-for-dollar reduction in the amount of

273

Part 3: Recommendations

274

Many of the private foundation funds provide direct assistance to improve homeownership opportunities.

Implementation Strategies

275

Part 3: Recommendations

276

4. Next Step

Next Steps

279

Part 3: Recommendations

280

Purple Line TOD Study Part 4: Appendices Existing Conditions Report May 2013 2012 February

Purple Line TOD Study

282

Contents 1. Appendix A

287

A.1 M Square Survey Outcome 289 A.2 Area Traffic and Transportation Conditions Analysis 299

2. Appendix B

317

3. Appendix C

331

C.1 TOD Design Standards

333

283

Purple Line TOD Study

List of Figures Fig. C.1: Fig. C.2:

284

Transit Station Mode of Hierarchy Complete Street Diagram

List of Tables 334 335

Table A-2.1 Transit—Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Study Area Table A-2.2 Attribute & Efficiency Table—Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Study Area Table A-2.3 Transit—Riverdale Park Table A-2.4 Attribute & Efficiency—Riverdale Park Table A-2.5 Transit—M Square (River Road) Table A-2.6 Attributes & Efficiency—M Square (River Road) Table A-2.7 Transit—College Park Table A-2.8 Attributes & Efficiency—College Park Table A-2.9 Attribute and Efficiency Table— West Campus Table B-1 Population and Age Distribution and Households by Type, 2010 Table B-2 Household Size and Vehicle Ownership Table B-3 Tenure by Age of Householder, 2000 Table B-4 Households by Income, 2010 Table B-5 Housing Units by Number of Units in Structure, 2000 Table B-6 Housing Units by Year Built, 2000 Table B-7 Owner-Occupied Housing Units by Value, 2010 Table B-8 Annual Number of Units Authorized by Building Permits Table B-9 Employed Population Aged 16 and Over by Industry and Occupation, 2010 Table B-10 2008 Geographic Mobility in the Past Year by Tenure

300 301 303 304 308 309 311 312 315 319 320 321 323 324 325 326 327 328 329

285

Purple Line TOD Study

286

Appendix A A.1 M Square Survey Outcome

289

A.2 Area Traffic and Transportation Conditions Analysis 299

Purple Line TOD Study

288

Appendix A | M Square Survey Outcome

A.1

M Square Survey Outcome Introduction 290 Data Collection Process

290

Findings 290

289

Purple Line TOD Study

Introduction The purpose of the Purple Line TOD Study survey was to understand workers’ daytime habits, their use of nearby Riverdale Park and College Park retail establishments, and their ideas for future uses to benefit the M Square area. The survey was for workers in the M Square area only. Invitation to participate letters, which provided a link to the online survey, were e-mailed to staff contacts of M Square area businesses and institutions. These contacts agreed to be liaisons who would disseminate the letters to fellow employees. The survey was open for participation between January 31, 2012 and February 15, 2012.

However, it does not mean that ALL questions have been answered on every page. It means that the respondent moved through all pages using the navigation buttons, clicked the [Next] button on every page, and answered at least one question to finally click the [Done] button. Keep in mind that the respondent may have only answered a few questions on each page.” Data from the participants’ responses were downloaded into Excel spreadsheets. Open-ended questions were organized into categories, which are themes that emerged from the range of responses.

The following businesses and institutions agreed to participate in the survey:

Findings

Business/Institution Name and Address

Geographical Data

1. UMD Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center 5825 University Research Court, Ste 4001, College Park, MD 20740 2. Joint Global Change Research Center 5825 University Research Court, Ste 3500, College Park , MD 20740 3. Optimal Solutions Group 5825 University Research Court, Ste 2800, College Park, MD 20740 4. UMD Maryland Transportation Technology Transfer Center 5000 College Avenue, College Park, MD 20740 5. Enterprise Sciences Inc. 5000 College Avenue, College Park, MD 20740 6. USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 4700 River Road, # 147, Riverdale, MD 20737 7. UMD/FDA Joint Institute for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition 2134 Patapsco Building, College Park, MD 20742 8. Center for Advanced Study of Language (CASL) 7005 52nd Avenue, College Park, MD 20742 9. National Foreign Language Center Mail Services Building, #343 P.O. Box 93 College Park, MD 20742 10. Raytheon 5700 Rivertech Court, Riverdale, MD 20737 11. American Center of Physics One Physics Ellipse, College Park, MD 20740

Do You Work in the M Square Area?

Data Collection Process The Purple Line TOD Study survey was conducted using the web-based tool, SurveyMonkey.org. Through this tool we designed the survey, created an on-line link, collected and analyzed the data. On-line survey link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/purpleline • 195 people started the survey • 183 people completed the Purple Line survey

Explanation of “started” and “completed” the survey from SurveyMonkey.org: “Those that have clicked the [Done] button AND answered at least one question will be included in the Total Completed Survey number.

290

Response (%)

Response Count

8.5

Yes

91.3

178

For participants who answered “No,” they were thanked for their participation and directed to the project web site. The survey was for workers in the M Square area only. Typically, How Do You Get to Work?

Transportation Method Drive alone Metrorail TheBus or Metrobus Walk Carpool Shuttle-UM Bike MARC Other

Response (%)

Response Count

69.5 23.7

123 42

14.1

11.3 11.3 10.7 9.6 2.3 3.4

20 20 19 17 4 6

Other includes: • Fairfax Connector Bus

• Ride On Bus

• Taxi

• Telecommute; Amtrak then public transit

• MTA Bus

• Montgomery County Ride On

While the majority of participants drive to M Square, many of their comments suggest a willingness to use public transportation, including the Purple Line, with transit connections near their homes.

Appendix A | M Square Survey Outcome

In What Zip Code Is Your Home Located?

Zip Code Locator Zip Code Valid 10007 19713 20002 20003 20005 20007 20008 20009 20010 20011 20012 20020 20024 20036 20037 20148 20191 20601-5417 20601 20607 20623 20637 20659 20705 20706 20707 20708 20712 20715 20716 20721 20723 20724

Frequency 20 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 6 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 5 1 2 4 1 3 2

Percent 10.3 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 1.0 1.5 .5 3.1 1.0 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 1.0 .5 1.5 2.6 .5 1.0 2.1 .5 1.5 1.0

Valid Percent 10.3 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 1.0 1.5 .5 3.1 1.0 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 1.0 .5 1.5 2.6 .5 1.0 2.1 .5 1.5 1.0

Cumulative Percent 10.3 10.8 11.3 11.8 12.3 12.8 13.8 15.4 15.9 19.0 20.0 20.5 21.0 21.5 22.1 22.6 23.1 23.6 24.1 24.6 25.1 25.6 26.2 26.7 27.7 28.2 29.7 32.3 32.8 33.8 35.9 36.4 37.9 39.0

Zip Code Location New York, NY Newark, DE Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. Ashburn, VA Reston , VA Waldorf, MD Waldorf, MD Accokeek, MD Cheltenham, MD Hughesville, MD Mechanicsville, MD Beltsville, MD Lanham, MD Laurel, MD Laurel, MD Mt. Rainier, MD Bowie, MD Bowie, MD Bowie, MD Laurel, MD Laurel, MD

291

Purple Line TOD Study

Zip Code Locator Zip Code 20732 20736 20737 20740 20744 20748 20759 20770 20772 20774 20781 20782 20784 20785 20816 20817 20832 20850 20851 20855 20866 20874 20878 20879 20886 20901 20902 20904 20906 20910 20912 21012 21014 21029 21043 21044

292

Frequency 1 1 8 8 1 1 1 7 2 5 6 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 3 2 1 9 6 1 1 1 1 1

Percent .5 .5 4.1 4.1 .5 .5 .5 3.6 1.0 2.6 3.1 1.5 1.5 .5 .5 1.0 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 1.5 .5 .5 1.5 1.5 1.0 .5 4.6 3.1 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5

Valid Percent .5 .5 4.1 4.1 .5 .5 .5 3.6 1.0 2.6 3.1 1.5 1.5 .5 .5 1.0 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 1.5 .5 .5 1.5 1.5 1.0 .5 4.6 3.1 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5

Cumulative Percent 39.5 40.0 44.1 48.2 48.7 49.2 49.7 53.3 54.4 56.9 60.0 61.5 63.1 63.6 64.1 65.1 65.6 66.2 66.7 67.2 67.7 68.2 69.7 70.3 70.8 72.3 73.8 74.9 75.4 80.0 83.1 83.6 84.1 84.6 85.1 85.6

Zip Code Location Chesapeake Beach, MD Owings, MD Riverdale, MD College Park, MD Ft. Washington, MD Temple Hills, MD Fulton, MD Greenbelt, MD Upper Marlboro, MD Upper Marlboro, MD Hyattsville, MD Hyattsville, MD Hyattsville, MD Hyattsville, MD Bethesda, MD Bethesda, MD Olney, MD Rockville, MD Rockville, MD Derwood, MD Burtonsville, MD Germantown, MD Gaithersburg, MD Gaithersburg, MD Montgomery Village, MD Silver Spring, MD Silver Spring, MD Silver Spring, MD Silver Spring, MD Silver Spring, MD Takoma Park, MD Arnold, MD Bel Air, MD Clarksville, MD Ellicott City, MD Columbia, MD

Appendix A | M Square Survey Outcome

Zip Code Locator Zip Code 21045 21046 21054 21104 21108 21113 21144 21146 21228 21230 21401 21403 21666 21701 21777 22101 22150 22191 22207 22301 Total*

Frequency 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 195

Percent .5 1.5 .5 .5 .5 1.5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 1.0 1.0 1.5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 100.0

Valid Percent .5 1.5 .5 .5 .5 1.5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 1.0 1.0 1.5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 100.0

Cumulative Percent 86.2 87.7 88.2 88.7 89.2 90.8 91.3 91.8 92.3 92.8 93.3 94.4 95.4 96.9 97.4 97.9 98.5 99.0 99.5 100.0

Zip Code Location Columbia, MD Columbia, MD Gambrills, MD Marriottsville, MD Millersville, MD Odenton, MD Severn, MD Severna Park, MD Catonsville, MD Baltimore, MD Annapolis, MD Annapolis, MD Sherwood, MD Frederick, MD Point of Rocks, MD McLean, VA Springfield, VA Woodbridge, VA Arlington, VA Alexandria, VA

*These totals were rounded off.

Ninety-nine percent of the survey participants live in Maryland. Sixty-two (31.7 percent) of the 195 who answered commute five miles or less to MÂ Square. These locations include Washington, D.C.; Lanham, Mt. Ranier, Riverdale, College Park, Greenbelt, Hyattsville, Silver Spring, and Takoma Park, MD.

Zip Code Locations with the Highest Number of Commuters to MÂ Square Location Washington, D.C. Silver Spring, MD Hyattsville, MD Laurel, MD College Park, MD Riverdale, MD Bowie, MD Greenbelt, MD Takoma Park, MD

Percent 11.3 9.2 6.6 6.6 4.1 4.1 3.6 3.6 3.7

Number of Commuters 22 18 13 13 8 8 7 7 6 293

Purple Line TOD Study

Characteristic Data

How long is your lunch break?

Sixty-two males (37.8 percent) and 102 females (62.2 percent) took the survey. Which category below includes your age?

Age Categories Age 17 or younger 18-20 21-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-65 66 or older

Response Percent Response Count 0.0 0 0.0 0 12.2 20 22 36 25 41 31.7 52 7.9 13 1.2 2 answered question 164 skipped question 31

The majority of participants at 31 percent were within the 50–59 age range, followed by 40–49-year-olds at 25 percent and 30–39-year-olds at 22 percent.

Income Categories Income Range Under $30,000 $30,000-$39,999 $40,000-$49,999 $50,000-$59,999 $60,000-$69,999 $70,000-$79,999 $80,000-$89,999 $90,000-$99,999 $100,000-$149,999 $150,000- $174,999 $175,000 - $199,999 $200,000- $249,999 $250,000 or more

294

Response Percent Response Count 3.9 6 0.6 1 3.9 6 7.8 12 5.8 9 9.7 15 4.5 7 8.4 13 26.6 41 11 17 5.2 8 7.1 11 5.2 8 answered question 154 skipped question 41

Length of Lunch Break Categories Age Response Percent Response Count Less than 30 minutes 40.3 71 31 to 45 minutes 37.5 66 46 to 60 minutes 21 37 More than 60 minutes 1.1 2 answered question 176 skipped question 19 In a cross-tab analysis between gender and lunch break length, a higher percentage of females (87 percent) reported a lunch break of 45 minutes or less than males (41 percent).

Appendix A | M Square Survey Outcome

Note: Data for questions six through nine were run through a Microsoft program, SPSS, and cleaned of zeros (for example, someone who enters $0 dollars for a meal means they did not eat out.)

Average Meal Time Q 6 6 6

Descriptive Statistics Average times per week eat breakfast at M Square Average times per week eat lunch at M Square Average times per week eat dinner at M Square

No. 39 49 2

Minimum 1 1

Maximum 5 5 2

Mean 2.2821 2.3469 1.5

Std. Deviation 1.55511 1.33153 0.70711

Workers at M Square eat breakfast and lunch in the office building an average of two times per week. Only two workers answered that they eat dinner at M Square. When it comes to purchasing dinner, workers are most likely to leave the office building.

Average Cost per Meal Q 7

7 7

Descriptive Statistics Average spent per meal for breakfast at M Square Note: Only two out of 40 responders spent $300 for breakfast. Below is the recalculated mean minus the two $300 responses and the maximum spent changes to $25. Average spent per meal for breakfast at M Square Average spent per meal for lunch at M Square Note: Only one out of 48 responders spent $500 for lunch. This person also was one of the two who spent $300 for breakfast. Below is the recalculated mean minus the one $500 response and the maximum spent changes to $12. Average spent per meal for lunch at M Square Average spent per meal for dinner at M Square

No. 40

Minimum $2

Maximum $300

Mean 19.375

Std. Deviation 65.29958

38 48

$2 $1

$25 $500

4.605 16.7708

3.702004378 71.26792

47 2

$1 $5

$12 $10

6.489 7.5

2.28294566 3.53553

Workers spend more for dinner. On average a person will spend $4.61 for breakfast, $6.50 for lunch, and $7.50 for dinner when they purchase food at M Square. When workers leave M Square to eat, they tend to spend more per meal.

295

Purple Line TOD Study

Q 8 8 8 8

Average Meals Times per Week Outside of M Square Descriptive Statistics No. Minimum Maximum How many times per week you eat/carry-out breakfast 9 1 5 within easy walking distance from your work How many times per week you eat/carry-out lunch within 43 1 6 easy walking distance from your work How many times per week you eat/carry-out dinner within 12 1 3 easy walking distance from your work How many times per week you eat/carry-out social eating/ 23 1 4 drinking within easy walking distance from your work

Mean

Std. Deviation

2.1111

1.2693

2.3256

1.47553

1.75

0.75378

1.3478

0.77511

Lunch is the primary meal that workers will leave M Square to eat.

Q 9 9

9 9 9

Average Price Paid for Meals Outside of M Square Descriptive Statistics No. Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation How much do you spend when you eat/carry-out 8 $4 $15 7 3.77964 breakfast within easy walking distance from your work How much do you spend when you eat/carry-out lunch 49 $5 $700 25.8367 98.73077 within easy walking distance from your work Note: Only one out of 49 responders spent $700 for eat/carry-out lunch. Below is the recalculated Mean minus the one $700 response; the Maximum spent changes to $50. How much do you spend when you eat/carry-out lunch 48 $5 $50 11.791 9.141810271 within easy walking distance from your work How much do you spend when you eat/carry-out dinner 14 $10 $30 16.2143 5.80687 within easy walking distance from your work How much do you spend when you eat/carry-out for social eating/drinking within easy walking distance from 22 $3 $50 18.3182 9.48375 your work

The average spent for breakfast is $7. Workers tend to spend close to $12 for lunch, $16 for dinner, and $18 for socializing.

Purple Line Potential Commuters Reasons to Use the Purple Line Response Percent Commute to work 60.3 Socialize after work 54.3 Take lunch breaks 49 Run errands 45.7 Go shopping 41.1 Take weekend trips 28.5 Other 16.6 answered question skipped question

296

Response Count 91 82 74 69 62 43 25 151 44

Other includes business travel, travel to UMD, connections to the airport and to Metro stations, and a few who would not use it.

Count 111 7 7 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 150

Second Choice Category % Restaurants 40 Convenience Stores 7 Drugstores 6 Others 6 Grocery Store 4 Dry Cleaners 4 Retail 4 Banking 3 Fitness Center 3 Office Supply Store 2 Entertainment 2 Hotel 2 Gas Station 1 I Do Not Know 0 Garage 0 Office Buildings 0 Uncategorized 0 Response Count Total Count 60 11 10 10 7 6 6 5 5 4 3 3 2 1 0 0 0 133

Third Choice Category % Restaurants 24 Drugstores 8 Others 6 Grocery Store 5 Banking 4 Convenience Stores 4 Dry Cleaners 4 Retail 4 Fitness Center 2 Entertainment 1 Garage 1 Gas Station 0 Hotel 0 I Do Not Know 0 Office Buildings 0 Office Supply Store 0 Uncategorized 0 Response Count Total answered question skipped question Count 37 12 10 8 7 7 6 6 4 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 104 150 45

Others includes specific types of retail stores such as hardware, computer, sporting goods, auto service, and more. Each type of store was a one-time reference. Others also include hair and nail salons. The USDA and FDA were also specifically listed as well as the presence of high-tech companies.

Convenience store is defined as a small store near a residential area that stocks food and general goods and is open long hours. Twice 7-Eleven was listed and is categorized as a type of convenience store. Whole Foods, a type of grocery store, was listed four times. Drug stores and pharmacies are treated as one category. CVS, a pharmacy, was listed four times.

Restaurants are a broad business category for places to eat. Subcategories for restaurants include coffee shops and cafes, delicatessens and sandwich shops, fast food places, bars, and choices for healthy foods. Participants listed coffee shops and cafes most often as a choice of place to eat. Starbucks was listed as a choice six times.

First Choice Category % Restaurants 74 Grocery Store 4 Others 4 Drugstores 2 Dry Cleaners 2 Fitness Center 2 Hotel 2 Office Buildings 2 Retail 2 Convenience Stores 1 I Do Not Know 1 Garage 0 Gas Station 0 Banking 0 Entertainment 0 Office Supply Store 0 Uncategorized 0 Response Count Total

What Are the Top Three Types of Businesses that You Think Would Benefit People Who Work in the MÂ Square Area?

Appendix A | M Square Survey Outcome

297

298

% 18 17 14 10 9 7 5 4 3 3 3 1 0 0

Count 22 21 17 13 11 9 7 5 4 4 4 2 1 0 120

Second Choice Category % Pedestrian Improvements 15 Traffic Calming 9 Parks & Green Space 8 Public Safety 7 Bicycle Accommodations 6 Lighting 6 Outdoor Amenities 5 Metro Improvements 5 Parking 3 Trees 3 Other 2 Street Improvements 1 I Don't Know 0 Uncategorized 0 Response Count Total Count 18 11 10 9 8 8 7 6 4 4 3 2 0 0 90

Category % Pedestrian Improvements 8 Outdoor Amenities 5 Public Safety 5 Lighting 5 Metro Improvements 5 Other 4 Bicycle Accommodations 3 Street Improvements 2 Traffic Calming 2 I Don't Know 1 Parking 1 Parks & Green Space 1 Trees 0 Uncategorized 0 Response Count Total answered question skipped question

Third Choice Count 10 7 6 6 6 5 4 3 3 2 2 2 1 0 57 120 75

Pedestrians and public transit users would like to see more benches. While workers want more choices in places to purchase food, they would like the option of eating outside at covered picnic tables. Joggers and walkers would like to have designated paths or tracks and exercising areas within seeing distance of each other. Other outdoor amenities include trash containers, water features such as a pond, an amphitheater for concerts, and an adult swing set.

Traffic calming features are needed to manage pedestrians and vehicles at the intersection of River Road at Rivertech Court. Many cars are turning “from all directions” during morning and evening rush hours. At this intersection a traffic light is the preferred solution. To slow down traffic on River Road, suggestions include speed cameras and traffic circles.

Survey participants listed four concerns for pedestrian improvements: accessible and well-maintained walkways and trails, pedestrian bridges, safe crosswalks, and more sidewalks in good condition. Eleven percent of responders walk to work. It was noted that walking trails are popular and widely used by employees. Walking routes are also used to access the MARC trains and the Riverdale Farmers’ Market. Of concern is the safe crossing of the train tracks, River Road, and Paint Branch Road. Pedestrian bridges and visible crosswalks are cited as a safety solution. Better sidewalks are especially needed along Kenilworth Avenue and River Road. Better lighting is important along streets, at stations, in parking lots, and in front of office buildings. Fourteen percent of responders listed lighting as a first choice.

Category Pedestrian Improvements Traffic Calming Lighting Public Safety Bicycle Accommodations Other Parks & Green Space Street Improvements Outdoor Amenities Parking Trees I Don't Know Metro Improvements Uncategorized Response Count Total

First Choice

What Are the Top Three Streetscape, Open Space, or Safety Improvements that You Think Would Benefit the M Square Area?

Purple Line TOD Study

Appendix A | Area Traffic and Transportation Conditions Analysis

A.2

Area Traffic and Transportation Conditions Analysis

299

Purple Line TOD Study

Table A-2.1 Transitâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Study Area Roadway MD 410 (Riverdale Road) Auburn Ave. 1

300

Peak Hour Headways from WMATA's posted bus schedules

Bus Route

Peak Hour Headway1

WMATA 84 WMATA F4 WMATA F6 WMATA 84 WMATA F4/F6

20 Mins 15 Mins 30 Mins 20 Mins 30 Mins

Residential

Powhattan Street

63rd Avenue

64th Avenue

Oliver Street

Ingraham Street

Furman Parkway

Beacon Place

Beacon Light Road

69th Avenue

67th Avenue

3,3411

Open Parking Open Parking

Open Parking

No Sidewalks

5' Sidewalks

No Sidewalks

5' Sidewalks

Private Complex Permit Only Open Parking

5' Sidewalks North of Riverdale

No Sidewalks

None None

Sidewalk Gaps/ Reconstruct

None

N/A

Bike Lanes

Existing Bicycle Bicycle Deficiencies/ Accommodations Needs

N/A

No Sidewalks

5' Sidewalks

Pedestrian Deficiencies/ Needs Sidewalk Gaps/ Reconstruct

Existing Pedestrian Accommodations

Open Parking

Not Available Not Available Not Available Not Available Not Available Not Available Not Available

Direct Purple Parking Line Regulations Station Access No Parking Y Permitted No Parking Y Permitted

Not Available

Not Available Not Available

21,4101

Commercial

Residential

38,1111

Average Daily Traffic

Resid./ Comm.

Type Parcels

Patterson Street

MD 410 (Riverdale Road) MD 410 (Veterans Pkwy)

Roadways

Table A-2.2 Attribute & Efficiency Table—Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Study Area

Appendix A | Area Traffic and Transportation Conditions Analysis

301

302

Residential

67th Street

67th Place

67th Court

Fernwood Terrace

66th Avenue

Roanoke Ave.

Eastpine Dr.

62nd Place

Auburn Ave.

From SHA Internet TMS

Type Parcels

Roadways

Open Parking Open Parking

Open Parking

Open Parking Open Parking

Not Available

Private Complex Permit Only Private Complex Permit Only

Open Parking

Not Available

Not Available Not Available Not Available Not Available

Direct Purple Parking Line Regulations Station Access

Not Available

Average Daily Traffic Not Available Not Available

5' Sidewalks

No Sidewalks

N/A

Sidewalk Gaps

Sidewalk Gaps/ Reconstruct Sidewalk Gaps/ Reconstruct

Sidewalk Gaps/ Reconstruct

5' Sidewalk North of Patterson St Only 5' Sidewalks

Sidewalk Gaps/ Reconstruct

Pedestrian Deficiencies/ Needs Sidewalk Gaps/ Reconstruct Sidewalk Gaps/ Reconstruct

5' Sidewalks

No Sidewalks

Existing Pedestrian Accommodations

None

Shared Use Roadway

N/A

None None

N/A

None

Existing Bicycle Bicycle Deficiencies/ Accommodations Needs

Table A-2.2 Attribute & Efficiency Table—Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Study Area

Purple Line TOD Study

Appendix A | Area Traffic and Transportation Conditions Analysis

Table A-2.3 Transitâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Riverdale Park Roadway

Bus Route

Peak Hour Headway1

MD 201

WMATA R12

30 Mins

MD 410 (Riverdale Rd.)

WMATA 84 WMATA F6

20 Mins 30 Mins

Peak Hour Headways from WMATA's posted bus schedules

303

304

Residential

Quintana Street

Patterson Road

Tuckerman Street

Somerset Road

Resid./ Comm.

Resid./ Comm. Resid./ Comm.

Open Parking Open Parking

Open Parking

Not Available Not Available Not Available Not Available

Not Available

No Parking Permitted

Existing Pedestrian Accommodations

No Sidewalks

5' Sidewalks

5' Sidewalks South of MD 410 only 5' Sidewalks East of Roanoke Ave only

5' Sidewalks

5' Sidewalks East of MD 201 only

No Sidewalks

North of MD 410: No Parking West Side, Open Parking 5' Sidewalks East Side South of South of MD 410 only MD 410: No Parking Permitted

Parking Regulations

Direct Purple Line Station Access

Not Available

39,6901

41,9301

33,5311

Resid./ Comm.

54th Ave.

Riverdale Rd.

MD 410 (Riverdale Rd.)

MD 410 (East West Hwy)

MD 201

Roadways

Average Daily Traffic

Type Parcels

N/A

None

N/A

Shared Use Roadway

Sidepath

Shared Use Roadway

Bike Lane

N/A

Pedestrian Existing Bicycle Deficiencies/ Bicycle Deficiencies/ Needs Accommodations Needs

Sidewalk Gaps/ Reconstruct Sidewalk Gaps/ Reconstruct

Table A-2.4 Attribute & Efficiency—Riverdale Park

Purple Line TOD Study

Residential

57th Avenue

60th Place

62nd Avenue

62nd Place

60th Avenue

61st Avenue

Ravenswood Road

Madison Street

Longfellow Street

Powhattan Road

Jefferson Street

58th Ave.

59th Ave.

61st Place

Roadways

Type Parcels Not Available Not Available Not Available Not Available Not Available Not Available Not Available Not Available 1,2261 Not Available Not Available Not Available Not Available Not Available

Average Daily Traffic

Open Parking Open Parking Open Parking

Open Parking

No Parking Permitted

Open Parking

Parking Regulations

Direct Purple Line Station Access

5' Sidewalks

No Sidewalks

5' Sidewalks

No Sidewalks

5' Sidewalks

No Sidewalks

Existing Pedestrian Accommodations

N/A

None

Shared Use Roadway Shared Use Roadway Shared Use Roadway

N/A

Pedestrian Existing Bicycle Deficiencies/ Bicycle Deficiencies/ Needs Accommodations Needs

Sidewalk Gaps/ Reconstruct Sidewalk Gaps/ Reconstruct Sidewalk Gaps/ Reconstruct

Table A-2.4 Attribute & Efficiency—Riverdale Park

Appendix A | Area Traffic and Transportation Conditions Analysis

305

306

1,5841

Not Available

Residential

Resid./ Comm.

Residential

Sheridan St.

Roanoke Ave.

Quesada Rd.

Mustang Dr.

Greenvale Pkwy

Open Parking

Parking Regulations

Residential

Rittenhouse St.

Direct Purple Line Station Access

Residential

Not Available Not Available Not Available

Average Daily Traffic

62nd Pl.

Roadways

Type Parcels

5' Sidewalks

No Sidewalks

5' Sidewalks

Existing Pedestrian Accommodations

None

Shared Use Path

None

N/A

Shared Use Path

None

New Roadway

Shared Use Path

Shared Use Roadway

New Roadway

Shared Use Roadway

Shared Use Path

New Roadway

Shared Use Roadway Shared Use Roadway Shared Use Roadway Shared Use Roadway

Pedestrian Existing Bicycle Deficiencies/ Bicycle Deficiencies/ Needs Accommodations Needs Sidewalk Gaps/ Reconstruct Sidewalk Gaps/ Reconstruct Sidewalk Gaps/ Reconstruct Sidewalk Gaps/ Reconstruct

Table A-2.4 Attribute & Efficiency—Riverdale Park

Purple Line TOD Study

From SHA Internet TMS

Carters La.

Resid./ Comm. Resid./ Comm.

Residential

57th Ave.

Kennedy St.

Residential

3,0181

5601

Not Available Open Parking Open Parking

Open Parking

4,5991

Parking Regulations No Parking Permitted

Direct Purple Line Station Access

Not Available

Resid./ Comm.

56th Ave.

Nicholson Rd.

Roadways

Average Daily Traffic

Type Parcels

5' Sidewalks

Existing Pedestrian Accommodations

Sidewalk Gaps/ Reconstruct Sidewalk Gaps/ Reconstruct Sidewalk Gaps/ Reconstruct

N/A

None

N/A

Shared Use Roadway Shared Use Roadway

Pedestrian Existing Bicycle Deficiencies/ Bicycle Deficiencies/ Needs Accommodations Needs Sidewalk Gaps/ Reconstruct

Table A-2.4 Attribute & Efficiency—Riverdale Park

Appendix A | Area Traffic and Transportation Conditions Analysis

307

Purple Line TOD Study

Table A-2.5 Transit—M Square (River Road) Roadway River Road Rivertech Court 1 Peak Hour Headways from WMATA's posted bus schedules

308

Bus Route

Peak Hour Headway1

UM Shuttle WMATA R12 WMATA F6 UM Shuttle

15 Mins 30 Mins 30 Mins 15 Mins

Type Parcels

Commercial

Resid./Comm.

Residential

Residential Residential Residential Residential

Roadways

River Road

Rivertech Court

University Research Court

Lafayette Avenue

Somerset Road

Taylor Road

Tuckerman Street

Sheridan St. Ravenswood St. 48th Avenue 49th Avenue

Not Available Not Available Not Available Not Available

Not Available

8,8921

Average Daily Traffic

No Parking Permitted North Side, Open Parking South Side Open Parking Open Parking Open Parking Open Parking

Open Parking

No Parking Permitted No Parking Permitted No Parking Permitted Open Parking West of Taylor Rd, Permit Parking Only East of Taylor Rd

5' Sidewalks 5' Sidewalks 5' Sidewalks 5' Sidewalks

5' Sidewalks

10' Sidewalks

None

Sidewalk Gaps/ Reconstruct

N/A N/A N/A N/A

None None None None

None

Sidewalk Gaps/ Reconstruct

None

N/A

None

Northeast Branch Ped/Bike Trail

10' Sidewalks & Northeast Branch Ped/Bike Trail

No Parking Permitted

N/A

Existing Bicycle Accommodations

Existing Pedestrian Pedestrian Deficiencies/ Accommodations Needs

Parking Regulations

Direct Purple Line Station Access

Table A-2.6 Attributes & Efficiency—M Square (River Road)

N/A N/A N/A N/A

Shared Use Roadway

N/A

Bicycle Deficiencies/ Needs

Appendix A | Area Traffic and Transportation Conditions Analysis

309

310

Residential

51st Avenue

From SHA Internet TMS

Type Parcels

Roadways

Not Available

Average Daily Traffic

Direct Purple Line Station Access Open Parking South of Sheridan Street, Permit Only North of Sheridan Street

Parking Regulations

5' Sidewalks Sheridan to Rittenhouse St. Only Sidewalk Gaps/ Reconstruct

Existing Pedestrian Pedestrian Deficiencies/ Accommodations Needs

Table A-2.6 Attributes & Efficiency—M Square (River Road)

None

Existing Bicycle Accommodations

N/A

Bicycle Deficiencies/ Needs

Purple Line TOD Study

Appendix A | Area Traffic and Transportation Conditions Analysis

Table A-2.7 Transitâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;College Park

Roadway

Bus Route

Peak Hour Headway1

River Road

UM Shuttle WMATA R12 WMATA C8 WMATA J4 WMATA F4

15 Mins 30 Mins 30 Mins 20 Mins 30 Mins

Peak Hour Headways from WMATA's posted bus schedules

311

312

Not Available

Commercial

Resid./ Comm.

River Rd

College Ave

Columbia Ave

Knox Rd

Calvert Rd

17,532

Commercial

Paint Branch Pkwy 1

Roadways

Average Daily Traffic

Type Parcels

Direct Purple Line Station Access

No Parking Permitted

10' Sidewalks

5' Sidewalks

No Parking Permitted on North Side, Permit Parking Only on South side

West of MARC: Permit Parking Only on North Side, No Parking Permitted on South Side, East of MARC: Open Parking

5' Sidewalks

No Parking Permitted, Except for within Metro Parking Lot

Permit Parking Only

10' Sidewalks

No Parking Permitted

N/A

Sidewalk Gaps/ Reconstruct

Shoulder

None

Sidewalk Gaps/ Reconstruct N/A

None

N/A

Sidewalk Gaps/ Reconstruct

N/A

None

Paint Branch Ped/ Bike Trail

10' Sidewalks, & Paint Branch Ped/ Bike Trail N/A

Existing Bicycle Accommodations

Existing Pedestrian Pedestrian Deficiencies/ Accommodations Needs

Parking Regulations

Table A-2.8 Attributes & Efficiency—College Park

N/A

Shared Use Roadway

N/A

Shared Use Roadway

N/A

Bicycle Deficiencies/ Needs

Purple Line TOD Study

Not Available

Resid./ Comm.

Residential

Resid./ Comm.

Residential

Roadways

Rhode Island Ave

Norwich Rd

Guilford Rd

Princeton Ave

Dickinson Ave

Hopkins Ave

Not Available

Average Daily Traffic

Type Parcels

Direct Purple Line Station Access

No Parking Permitted on West Side, Permit Parking Only on East Side No Parking Permitted on West Side, Permit Parking Only on East Side No Parking Permitted on West Side, Permit Parking Only on East Side

N/A

5' Sidewalks

Sidewalk Gaps/ Reconstruct 5' Sidewalks

5' Sidewalks

N/A

None

Sidewalk Gaps/ Reconstruct

Permit Parking Only

None

N/A

5' Sidewalks Princeton Ave to Rhode Island Ave only

Permit Parking Only on North Side, No Parking Permitted on South Side

Rhode Island Trolley Ped/Bike Trail

N/A

Existing Bicycle Accommodations

No Parking Permitted North of Harvard Rd, 5' Sidewalks & Permit Parking Only Rhode Island Trolley Harvard Rd to Drexel Rd, Ped/Bike Trail Open Parking South of Drexel Rd

Parking Regulations

Existing Pedestrian Pedestrian Deficiencies/ Accommodations Needs

Table A-2.8 Attributes & Efficiency—College Park

N/A

Shared Use Roadway

N/A

Bicycle Deficiencies/ Needs

Appendix A | Area Traffic and Transportation Conditions Analysis

313

314

Not Available Not Available

Residential

Resid./ Comm.

From SHA Internet TMS

Bowdoin Ave

Not Available

Residential

Drexel Rd

Not Available

Not Available Not Available Not Available

Residential

Fordham Rd

Not Available

Residential Residential Residential

Residential

Harvard Ave

Not Available

Residential

Dartmouth Ave

Average Daily Traffic

Residential

Roadways

Wake Forest Dr. Clemson Rd 51st Avenue 52nd Avenue Frank S. Scott Drive Lehigh Road

Type Parcels

Direct Purple Line Station Access

Permit Parking Only

Open Parking

No Parking Permitted

Permit Parking Only No Parking Permitted Open Parking

Permit Parking Only

No Parking Permitted on East Side, Permit Parking Only on West Side Permit Parking Only

Parking Regulations

N/A

5' Sidewalks Rhode Island Ave to Dartmouth Ave only

No Sidewalks 5' Sidewalks Calvert Rd to Harvard Rd only

No Sidewalks

No Sidewalks No Sidewalks No Sidewalks

N/A Sidewalk Gaps/ Reconstruct

N/A

N/A N/A N/A

N/A

5' Sidewalks Rhode Island Ave to Dartmouth Ave only

No Sidewalks

N/A

5' Sidewalks

Existing Pedestrian Pedestrian Deficiencies/ Accommodations Needs

Table A-2.8 Attributes & Efficiency—College Park

None

None None None

None

Existing Bicycle Accommodations

N/A

N/A N/A N/A

N/A

Bicycle Deficiencies/ Needs

Purple Line TOD Study

Institutional

Residential

Adelphi Road

Campus Drive

University Boulevard

Residential

*Stanford Street

*Rutgers Street

Perdue Street

Residential

Roadways

Cool Spring Road *Tulane Drive

Type Parcels

Not Available No

Not Available

Yes - UMD

No No

Prohibited

Yes – UMD

Prohibited

Yes

5’ Sidewalks

No Sidewalks

5’ Sidewalks

Direct Purple Existing Parking Pedestrian Line Regulations Station Accommodations Access

Not Available

Not Available Not Available

30,182

5,997

12,743

Average Daily Traffic

Sidewalks along both sides street

Curb Extensions Sidewalks on the southeast side of Rutgers Street because there is room to construct the sidewalk behind the curb, whereas existing constraints on the north/west side would necessitate the sidewalk to be located within the existing paving, reducing on-street parking availability.

Sidewalks along both sides street.

N/A

None

Sidewalk Widen/Reconstruct/ Sidewalk Gaps at Tulane Drive to Adelphi Road Sidewalks or Sidepath

None

No- South of MD 193

Yes – North of MD 193

Existing Bicycle Accommodations

Sidewalk Widen/Reconstruct

Sidewalks or Sidepath west/south side/Sidewalk Reconstruct

Pedestrian Deficiencies/Needs

Table A-2.9 Attribute and Efficiency Table—West Campus

N/A

Shared Use Roadway

Sidepath

Shared Use Path south of MD 193 TBD - Bicycle Lanes, Cycle Track or Sidepath TBD – Bicycle Lanes and/or Sidepath

Bicycle Deficiencies/ Needs

Appendix A | Area Traffic and Transportation Conditions Analysis

315

316

Adelphi Residential Court Cool Springs Residential Road Chatham Residential Road No No No

No No No

Direct Purple Existing Parking Pedestrian Line Regulations Station Accommodations Access

Sidewalks

Sidewalks or Sidepath

Sidewalks

Pedestrian Deficiencies/Needs

None

Existing Bicycle Accommodations

N/A

Sidewalks or Sidepath

N/A

Bicycle Deficiencies/ Needs

Additional Source Material - University Hills Green Street Project, 2010

*Note: The City of Hyattsville annexed the University Hills neighborhood in 2006. The majority of the streets in the neighborhood do not have sidewalks that would provide a safe and simple connection to Adelphi Road and the future Purple Line station on Campus Drive. As a part of a pavement management program, the city is interested in installing sidewalks throughout the University Hills neighborhood. There are three roads where a portion of the road is within a half-mile of walking distance from the future Purple Line station. These roads are Sanford Street, Rutgers Street and Perdue Street. New sidewalks on these roads would go a long way toward creating a pedestrian-friendly, transit-accessible, and sustainable environment within the University Hills neighborhood. Tulane Drive is not located within the City of Hyattsville.

Not Available Not Available Not Available

Type Parcels

Roadways

Average Daily Traffic

Table A-2.9 Attribute and Efficiency Tableâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;West Campus

Purple Line TOD Study

Appendix B Table B-1 Population and Age Distribution 319 and Households by Type, 2010 Table B-2 Household Size and Vehicle Ownership

320

Table B-3 Tenure by Age of Householder, 2000

321

Table B-4 Households by Income, 2010

323

Table B-5 Housing Units by Number of Units in Structure, 2000 324 Table B-6 Housing Units by Year Built, 2000 325 Table B-7 Owner-Occupied Housing Units by Value, 2010

326

Table B-8 Annual Number of Units Authorized by Building Permits

327

Table B-9 Employed Population Aged 16 and Over by Industry and Occupation, 2010 328 Table B-10 2008 Geographic Mobility in the Past Year by Tenure

329

Overview

(69)

-0.2

Source: ESRI, 2012; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2012.

(6)

-19.5

713

(13)

-2.1 17

579 596

57.1 542

Household Trends 633 620

10.7

2.9

36.3

17,443

286,599 304,042

61,947

6.1

7.7

611,175 652,230

119,001

1,674,856 1,793,857

801,473 863,420

7.1

26.6 6.8 14.1 14.4 15.3 11.8 6.1 3.3 1.5 99.9

353 284

-1.0

Population by Age (2010) 27.4 488,965 Under 20 Years 2,054 33 1,990 32 1,542 25 1,351 22 417 20.5 236,408 20 to 24 Years 469 7.6 662 10.7 716 11.6 3,010 48.8 567 27.9 70,644 8.2 124,675 25 to 34 Years 1,104 17.9 1,297 21.0 1,018 16.5 543 8.8 481 23.7 125,740 14.6 258,133 35 to 44 Years 944 15.3 928 15.0 814 13.2 278 4.5 158 7.8 123,932 14.4 264,497 45 to 54 Years 753 12.2 629 10.2 907 14.7 339 5.5 124 6.1 128,053 14.8 281,534 635 10.3 345 5.6 156 7.7 97,130 11.2 216,111 55 to 64 Years 487 7.9 379 6.1 65 to 74 Years 247 4.0 194 3.1 352 5.7 185 3.0 65 3.2 50,100 5.8 112,641 75 to 84 Years 99 1.6 68 1.1 197 3.2 86 1.4 48 2.4 23,125 2.7 60,922 43 0.7 37 0.6 17 0.8 8,288 1.0 27,719 85 Years and Over 25 0.4 23 0.4 100.1 1,835,197 Total Population 6,182 99.9 6,170 99.6 6,224 100.9 6,174 100.2 2,033 100.1 863,420 Median Age 29.8 28.0 33.1 22.9 25.5 35.0 37.3 Note: Each station area covers a half-mile radius around each station and suburban Maryland includes both Prince George's and Montgomery Counties.

44.7

540

2,401 2,395

(92)

9,109 9,017

Number

Suburban Maryland

Prince George's County

6.7

18.9

982

1,209 1,749

5,187 6,169

M Square (River College ParkWest Campus Road) Station UMD Station Station Area Area Area Number % Number % Number % Population Trends 1,493 802 1,249 888 1,962 2,035

41,055

2000 2010 2000-2010 Change

Riverdale Road Riverdale Park (Beacon Heights) Station Area Station Area Number % Number %

Table B-1 Population and Age Distribution and Households by Type, 2010

Appendix B | Tables

319

320

M Square (River Road) Station Area Number % Number

College ParkUMD Station Area Number

West Campus Station Area Number

Prince George's County

Source: ESRI, 2012: Partners for Economic Solutions, 2012.

855 48.9 956 39.9 208 73.2 207 33.4 259 43.5 190,993 62.8 894 51.1 1,439 60.1 76 26.8 413 66.6 337 56.5 113,049 37.2 Total 1,749 2,395 284 620 596 304,042 Households by Size, 2010 1 Person 326 18.6 385 16.1 64 22.5 155 25.0 137 23.0 73,274 24.1 Household 2 Person 362 20.7 418 17.5 80 28.2 187 30.2 235 39.4 88,172 29.0 Household 3-4 Person 587 33.6 823 34.4 79 27.8 140 22.6 156 26.2 102,766 33.8 Household 5+ Person 474 27.1 770 32.2 61 21.5 138 22.3 68 11.4 39,830 13.1 Household Households, 2010 Average Household 3.52 3.76 3.13 2.20 2.90 2.78 Size Vehicle Ownership 1,068 1,969 338 607 545 256,229 None 144 13.5 421 21.4 18 5.3 42 6.9 52 9.5 30,266 11.8 Owns 1 vehicle 428 40.1 1,116 56.7 145 42.9 290 47.8 240 44.0 110,631 43.2 Owns 2 or more 640 59.9 853 43.3 193 57.1 317 52.2 305 56.0 145,598 56.8 vehicles Average Vehicles 1.60 1.30 1.80 1.90 1.70 1.60 Note: Each Station Area covers a half-mile radius around each station and Suburban Maryland includes both Prince George's and Montgomery Counties.

Tenure, 2010 Owner Renter

Riverdale Road Riverdale Park (Beacon Heights) Station Area Station Area Number % Number %

Table B-2 Household Size and Vehicle Ownership

65.4 34.6 25.5 29.3 31.7 13.5

9.9 39.9 60.1

168,639 193,814 209,606 89,069

2.73 556,170 55,006 221,857 334,313 1.70

432,458 228,670 661,128

Number

Suburban Maryland

Purple Line TOD Study

Age of Householder Householder 15 to 24 years Householder 25 to 34 years Householder 35 to 44 years Householder 45 to 54 years Householder 55 to 64 years Householder 65 to 74 years Householder 75 to 84 years Householder 85 years and over Total

0.9

11.6

27.1

26.2

14.8

11.5

6.3

1.5

205

198

112

756

452

132

133

0.2

1.5

3.8

8.0

21.7

29.2

29.4

6.2

Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Station Area Owner Renter No. % No. %

945

102

160

232

249

109

1.7

6.7

10.8

16.9

24.6

26.3

11.5

1.5

1,455

208

440

501

167

0.1

1.0

2.2

6.3

14.3

30.2

34.4

11.5

Renter No. %

Owner No. %

Riverdale Park Station Area

271

1.8

7.7

16.6

22.5

30.3

12.2

1.1

Owner No. %

1.2

2.4

3.6

4.8

18.1

25.3

26.5

18.1

Renter No. %

M Square (River Road) Station Area

Table B-3 Tenure by Age of Householder, 2000

252

2.8

12.7

9.1

14.7

24.6

20.6

11.5

4.0

Owner No. %

381

106

184

0.0

1.6

4.2

5.8

10.8

27.8

48.3

Renter No. %

College Park-UMD Station Area

Appendix B | Tables

321

322

West Campus Station Area Owner Renter No. % No. %

Prince George's County Owner Renter No. % No. %

Suburban Maryland Owner Renter No. % No. %

Source: 2000 U.S. Census; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2012.

305,019 242,775 153,173 80,561 55,805 45,831 18,360

12.4 25.2 25.3 16.7 10.9 6.9 1.6

1,005,437

103,913

0.9

1.8

4.6

5.6

8.0

15.2

24.1

30.3

10.3

Washington Metro Area Owner Renter No. % No. %

Age of Householder Householder 15 3 1.4 51 14.1 1,455 0.8 12,210 11.2 2,775 0.7 19,719 9.3 17,632 to 24 years Householder 25 18 8.3 149 41.3 20,532 11.6 35,718 32.6 43,869 11.0 66,799 31.7 231,448 to 34 years Householder 35 42 19.3 86 23.8 46,113 26.0 28,749 26.3 101,561 25.4 55,209 26.2 471,225 to 44 years Householder 45 57 26.1 45 12.5 47,448 26.8 17,086 15.6 106,328 26.6 33,413 15.8 472,340 to 54 years Householder 32 14.7 16 4.4 32,227 18.2 8,011 7.3 70,239 17.6 15,378 7.3 311,694 55 to 64 years Householder 31 14.2 9 2.5 18,364 10.4 4,330 4.0 43,146 10.8 9,129 4.3 204,080 65 to 74 years Householder 26 11.9 3 0.8 9,194 5.2 2,560 2.3 26,331 6.6 7,542 3.6 128,896 75 to 84 years Householder 85 9 4.1 2 0.6 1,844 1.0 769 0.7 5,945 1.5 3,792 1.8 29,109 years and over Total 218 361 177,177 109,433 400,194 210,981 1,866,424 Note: Each Station Area covers a half-mile radius around each station and Suburban Maryland includes both Prince George's and Montgomery Counties.

Table B-3 Tenure by Age of Householder, 2000

Purple Line TOD Study

No.

Riverdale Park Station Area

M Square (River Road) Station Area No. %

College ParkUMD Station Area No. % No.

West Campus Station Area No.

Prince George's County

Source: ESRI, 2011; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2012. *Note Less than $10,000 combined with $10,000 to $14,999.

Household Incomes Less than $10,000 46 3.9 125 5.6 8 2.5 111 17.8 * 12,687 4.3 $10,000 to $14,999 22 1.9 95 4.2 4 1.2 25 4.0 82 13.8 5,690 1.9 $15,000 to $24,999 61 5.2 216 9.7 22 6.8 67 10.8 99 16.6 15,828 5.3 $25,000 to $34,999 97 8.2 311 13.9 36 11.1 33 5.3 56 9.4 21,704 7.3 $35,000 to $49,999 192 16.3 373 16.7 56 17.3 77 12.4 66 11.1 40,732 13.6 $50,000 to $74,999 342 29.0 508 22.7 91 28.1 123 19.7 73 12.2 66,390 22.2 $75,000 to $99,999 219 18.5 373 16.7 46 14.2 93 14.9 76 12.8 64,135 21.5 $100,000 to $149,999 168 14.2 183 8.2 46 14.2 60 9.6 64 10.7 48,653 16.3 $150,000 to $199,999 17 1.4 24 1.1 8 2.5 17 2.7 40 6.7 14,824 5.0 $200,000 or More 17 1.4 28 1.3 7 2.2 17 2.7 40 6.7 7,771 2.6 Total Households 1,181 2,236 324 623 596 298,414 Median Household $60,100 $49,891 $60,921 $49,276 $48,536 $68,575 Income Mean Household $69,383 $58,090 $69,506 $58,068 $75,704 $78,286 Income Note: Each Station Area covers a half-mile radius around each station and Suburban Maryland includes both Prince George's and Montgomery Counties.

Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Station Area No. %

Table B-4 Households by Income, 2010

3.7 1.6 4.6 5.8 11.5 17.9 20.1 19.5 8.0 7.2

$79,471 $99,021

24,110 10,528 30,292 37,752 75,070 116,869 131,416 127,140 52,238 46,815 652,230

No.

Suburban Maryland

Appendix B | Tables

323

324

Source: ESRI, 2012; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2012.

Riverdale Road M Square (River College ParkRiverdale Park West Campus Prince George's Suburban Maryland (Beacon Heights) Road) Station UMD Station Station Area Station Area County Station Area Area Area No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Units in Structure 1, Detached 774 60.8 815 31.8 326 84.9 358 53.4 339 60.4 151,888 50.2 323,165 50.7 1, Attached 125 9.8 219 8.5 0.0 0.0 4 0.7 45,366 15.0 105,317 16.5 2 7 0.5 28 1.1 2 0.5 9 1.3 6 1.1 1,634 0.5 2,888 0.5 3 to 4 25 2.0 173 6.7 20 5.2 53 7.9 12 2.1 6,755 2.2 11,884 1.9 5 to 9 194 15.2 683 26.6 3 0.8 94 14.0 63 11.2 27,820 9.2 45,882 7.2 10 to 19 100 7.8 126 4.9 17 4.4 109 16.2 86 15.3 43,276 14.3 73,156 11.5 20 to 49 44 3.5 121 4.7 12 3.1 48 7.2 51 9.1 6,593 2.2 16,071 2.5 50 or More 4 0.3 389 15.2 4 1.0 0.0 0.0 17,473 5.8 56,449 8.9 Mobile Home 1 0.1 4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,504 0.5 2,122 0.3 Other 0.0 6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 69 0.0 76 0.0 Total 1,274 2,564 384 671 561 302,378 637,010 Note: Each station area covers a half-mile radius around each station and suburban Maryland includes both Prince George's and Montgomery Counties.

Table B-5 Housing Units by Number of Units in Structure, 2000

Purple Line TOD Study

6 52 46 47 183 942 1,276 1961

0.5 4.1 3.6 3.7 14.3 73.8

15 28 21 121 367 2,017 2,569 1961

0.6 1.1 0.8 4.7 14.3 78.5

1 1 18 4 18 338 380 1950

0.3 0.3 4.7 1.1 4.7 88.9

No.

M Square (River Road) Station Area

Riverdale Park Station Area

5 12 9 17 77 549 669 1949

No.

0.7 1.8 1.3 2.5 11.5 82.1

College ParkUMD Station Area

4 21 6 36 78 417 562 1965

No. 0.7 3.7 1.1 6.4 13.9 74.2

West Campus Station Area

Source: ESRI, 2012; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2012.

Note: Each Station Area covers a half-mile radius around each station and Suburban Maryland includes both Prince George's and Montgomery Counties.

Year Built 1999 to March 2000 1995 to 1998 1990 to 1994 1980 to 1989 1970 to 1979 1969 or Earlier TOTAL Median Year Built

Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Station Area No. %

Table B-6 Housing Units by Year Built, 2000

5,140 17,840 24,190 43,845 59,266 152,096 302,377 1970

No.

1.7 5.9 8.0 14.5 19.6 50.3

Prince George's County

12,103 35,036 49,050 121,669 121,669 298,121 637,648 1972

No.

1.9 5.5 7.7 19.1 19.1 46.8

Suburban Maryland

Appendix B | Tables

325

326

0.0 0.0 1 0.1 5 0.7 14 2.0 32 4.6 224 32.2 329 47.3 80 11.5 10 1.4 695 $217,439

0.0 1 0.1 2 0.2 0.0 0.0 23 2.8 351 42.0 397 47.5 58 6.9 3 0.4 835 $207,472

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0.8 3 1.3 39 16.5 132 55.7 57 24.1 4 1.7 237 $245,427

No.

M Square (River Road) Station Area

Riverdale Park Station Area %

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 2.5 47 19.7 155 64.9 31 13.0 239 $368,557

No.

College ParkUMD Station Area %

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22 8.5 46 17.8 48 18.5 104 40.2 39 15.1 259 $307,900

No.

West Campus Station Area

Source: ESRI, 2010; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2012.

Note: Each Station Area covers a half-mile radius around each station and Suburban Maryland includes both Prince George's and Montgomery Counties.

Housing Units by Value Under $20,000 $20,000 to $39,999 $40,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $69,999 $70,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $150,000 to $199,999 $200,000 to $299,999 $300,000 to $499,999 $500,000 and Over Total Median Value

Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Station Area No. %

Table B-7 Owner-Occupied Housing Units by Value, 2010

298 0.2 590 0.3 409 0.2 861 0.5 2,948 1.6 7,987 4.4 23,450 12.9 76,159 42.0 55,138 30.4 13,332 7.4 181,172 $270,668

No.

Prince George's County %

633 0.2 1,222 0.3 712 0.2 1,483 0.4 5,630 1.3 16,589 3.9 40,977 9.7 126,712 30.1 128,140 30.5 98,531 23.4 420,629 $318,301

No.

Suburban Maryland

Purple Line TOD Study

Single-Family Number Percent 2,485 97.0 2,808 95.6 1,875 96.3 3,255 95.0 2,918 96.2 1,462 67.0 1,264 96.8 811 64.4 702 99.3

Multifamily Number Percent 78 3.0 130 4.4 73 3.7 170 5.0 115 3.8 721 33.0 42 3.2 448 35.6 5 0.7

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2012.

Â Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Table B-8 Annual Number of Units Authorized by Building Permits

2,563 2,938 1,948 3,425 3,033 2,183 1,306 1,259 707

Total Units

Appendix B | Tables

327

328

% 0.1 8.2 2.7 0.4 7.3 7.5 3.7 6.1 51.3 12.7 % 32.4 7.0 11.0 4.2 10.1 9.5 12.9 0.2 4.3 1.7 2.0 4.6

No. 2 129 43 6 114 118 58 96 806 200 1,578 No. 933 202 317 120 292 275 371 5 125 50 58 133 2,881

Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights) Station Area

537 194 501 860 913 7 484 115 138 171 5,732

290

No. 7 540 86 72 250 175 82 194 1,654 231 3,291 No. 1,522

9.4 3.4 8.7 15.0 15.9 0.1 8.4 2.0 2.4 3.0

5.1

% 0.2 16.4 2.6 2.2 7.6 5.3 2.5 5.9 50.3 7.0 % 26.6

Riverdale Park Station Area

196 41 91 61 79 43 24 3 9 1,016

No. 2 51 5 14 56 12 18 29 293 58 538 No. 399

19.3 4.0 9.0 6.0 7.8 0.0 4.2 2.4 0.3 0.9

6.9

% 0.4 9.5 0.9 2.6 10.4 2.2 3.3 5.4 54.5 10.8 % 39.3

M Square (River Road) Station Area

442 76 131 107 49 22 11 6 10 1,784

141

No. 10 43 13 13 85 10 44 63 593 71 945 No. 789

24.8 4.3 7.3 6.0 2.7 0.0 1.2 0.6 0.3 0.6

7.9

% 1.1 4.6 1.4 1.4 9.0 1.1 4.7 6.7 62.8 7.5 % 44.2

College ParkUMD Station Area

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a -

n/a

No. 12 1 1 26 20 280 150 774 571 1,835 No. n/a

Source: ESRI, 2010; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2012.

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a -

n/a

% n/a

% 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.1 1.4 1.1 15.3 8.2 42.2 31.1

West Campus Station Area

Note: Each Station Area covers a half-mile radius around each station and Suburban Maryland includes both Prince George's and Montgomery Counties.

Industry Agriculture, Mining Construction Manufacturing Wholesale Trade Retail Trade Transportation, Utilities Information Finance, Insurance, Real Estate Services Public Administration Total Occupation White Collar Management, Business, Financial Professional Sales Administrative Support Services Blue Collar Farming, Forestry, Fishing Construction, Extraction Installation, Maintenance, Repair Production Transportation, Material Moving Total

108,335 35,013 78,265 61,376 61,376 412 18,536 13,593 8,650 20,184 762,464

67,555

No. 412 23,479 9,474 7,415 35,425 25,539 14,417 24,715 205,137 65,907 411,920 No. 289,169

14.2 4.6 10.3 8.0 8.0 0.1 2.4 1.8 1.1 2.6

8.9

% 0.1 5.7 2.3 1.8 8.6 6.2 3.5 6.0 49.8 16.0 % 37.9

Prince George's County

Table B-9 Employed Population Aged 16 and Over by Industry and Occupation, 2010

10.3

% 0.1 5.3 2.6 1.5 8.4 4.1 3.7 7.0 54.5 12.8 % 40.5

293,219 17.6 79,321 4.8 131,904 7.9 114,079 6.8 100,710 6.0 891 0.1 32,976 2.0 21,390 1.3 16,042 1.0 29,411 1.8 1,667,515 100

172,010

No. 891 47,236 23,172 13,369 74,864 36,541 32,976 62,387 484,836 114,079 890,351 No. 675,562

Suburban Maryland

Purple Line TOD Study

92.7 3.5 1.0 2.3 0.4

496,594 18,724 5,440 12,536 2,297 535,591

Source: American Community Survey, 2009; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2011.

Geographic Mobility Same house 1 year ago Moved within same county Moved from different county within same state Moved from different state Moved from abroad Total

19,221 4,830 296,117

7,208

209,598 55,260

Prince George's County Owner Renter Number % Number

6.5 1.6

2.4

70.8 18.7

23,930 11,289 1,203,397

8,488

1,112,013 47,677

Owner Number

Table B-10 2008 Geographic Mobility in the Past Year by Tenure

2.0 0.9

0.7

92.4 4.0

43,452 12,843 585,840

17,256

404,209 108,080

Renter Number

Suburban Maryland

7.4 2.2

2.9

69.0 18.4

Appendix B | Tables

329

Purple Line TOD Study

330

Appendix C C.1 TOD Design Standards

333

Appendix C | TOD Design Standards

C.1

TOD Design Standards C.1a Transit Connectivity

334

C.1b Complete Streets

335

C.1c Open Space

344

C.1d Pedestrian Access

351

333

Purple Line TOD Study

C.1a Transit Connectivity

Since all modes of access cannot be given equal priority, a hierarchy needs to be established to provide a rationale for station design. In its Station Site and Access Planning Manual, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority has defined a hierarchy of access priority where pedestrians are assigned the highest priority, followed by bicycle access and local bus transit as illustrated in Figure A-2.1. For the safety of all transit customers, pedestrians should be provided the highest priority in station site and access planning. Providing a safe and convenient walking environment that includes clear, unfragmented, and integrated pedestrian paths to the station can encourage transit riders to walk to the station, thus eliminating the need for parking facilities or increased bus service. To encourage cycling, an efficient and environmentally friendly mode of access, bicycles are given priority over motorized vehicles. Since buses and connecting rail generate a higher share of concentrated pedestrian activity on station sites, buses should be given priority over all private vehicular modes of access. Personal automobile access provides a low share of transit riders per vehicle and can detract from other more efficient modes of access. MTA and Prince Georgeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s County have adopted a policy of no dedicated parking at Purple Line stations within the county. This policy assumes that Purple Line riders will arrive at each station by bus, bicycle, or foot. However, based on feedback received at M-NCPPCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s community planning workshops, the issue of Kiss & Ride access at Purple Line stations is an important one for many community residents. At the same time, accommodating Kiss & Ride drop-offs will complicate planning and design of transit bus connections at the Purple Line stations. MTA and Prince Georgeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s County have agreed to consider the inclusion of Kiss & Ride features at one or more selected Purple Line stations on a case-by-case basis as MTA completes preliminary engineering and preparation of the final environmental impact statement for the Purple Line.

334

Fig. C.1: Transit Station Mode of Hierarchy credit: WMATA Station Site and Access Planning Manual

Appendix C | TOD Design Standards

C.1b Complete Streets

Storefront Zone

Pedestrian Zone

Amenity Zone

Planting Zone

Zone

Step-Off Zone

Zone Parking

Bicycle

Travel Lane

Median/

Turn Lane

Travel Lane

Zone

Bicycle

Zone

Crosswalk

Parking

Planting Zone

Step-Off Zone

Amenity Zone

Pedestrian Zone

Storefront Zone

Complete streets are designed to enable safe access for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit vehicles, and motorists. Additionally, complete streets should be designed to address local context and needs. Complete streets standards aim to create a comprehensive, integrated, and connected network with flexibility to account for the unique needs of each street. Prince George’s County adopted a complete streets policy in 2009 under its Master Plan of Transportation to ensure that “all users are safely, comfortably, and adequately accommodated along area roads.” More recently, the County Council enacted the Adequate Public Pedestrian and Bikeway Facilities in Centers and Corridors Act that requires the Planning Board to ensure that complete streets principles are applied when new developments are proposed and constructed.

Fig. C.2: Complete Street Diagram 335

Purple Line TOD Study

On-Street Facilities—Crosswalks A crosswalk is the portion of a roadway designated for pedestrians to use in crossing the street and may be either marked or unmarked. Crosswalk markings advise motorists of the potential presence of pedestrians and help guide pedestrians to locations for safe crossing. Though usually found at intersections, crosswalks can be found at other points on roads that would otherwise be too unsafe to cross without assistance or where large numbers of pedestrians are attempting to cross. Crosswalks of a different paving material, texture, or color from the street paving material are encouraged for all crosswalks, particularly in areas of retail concentration or near transit stations.

Crosswalk—Victoria Gardens, Los Angeles, CA

Crosswalk paving materials and textures should be chosen for ease of pedestrian movement, safety, and maintenance. Crosswalks should be a minimum of eight feet wide but typically 10 feet wide. Crosswalk dimensions, materials, and configurations shall conform to Prince George’s County Design Manual and the State Highway Administration (SHA) requirements, as applicable.

Clarendon Crosswalk—Radial Pattern Painted

Types of crosswalk markings

336

Appendix C | TOD Design Standards

On-Street Facilitiesâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Dedicated Bicycle Lanes Dedicated bike lanes designate an exclusive space for cyclists through the use of pavement markings and signage. Dedicated bike lanes afford bicyclists greater comfort and confidence when traveling on busy streets. The separation between bicyclists and automobiles allows cyclists to travel at their preferred speed without interfering with automobile traffic, increasing the total capacity of a street carrying mixed traffic.

Bike lanes on roadway

Dedicated bicycle lane delineation should be marked with a six-inch, solid white line. Solid colors may be used to fill in bicycle lanes to make drivers more aware of bicycle traffic. Bicycle lane width shall be a five-foot minimum from edge of curb to furthest edge of bicycle lane stripe. This solid color painted area should be four feet wide to allow one foot of unpainted concrete lip. All bicycle lane markings should be white and retroreflective.

credit: www.flickr.com, gary rides bikes

Bike Box, Portland, OR

337

Purple Line TOD Study

On-Street Facilities—Shared Use Roadways To varying extent, bicycles will be used on all roadways where they are permitted. Design features that can make streets more compatible to bicycle travel include bicycle-safe drainage grates and bridge expansion joints, improved railroad crossings, smooth pavements, adequate sight distances, and signal timing and detector systems that respond to bicycles. In addition, more costly shoulder improvements and wide curb lanes can be considered. Shared lane markings, or “shared use roadways”, indicate a shared lane environment for bicycles and vehicles. They reinforce the legitimacy of bicycle traffic on the street and recommend proper cyclist positioning.

Precedent of shared use roadway lanes

Shared use roadways are appropriate for local streets and lower design speed streets (35 miles/hour or lower). Shared use roadway bicycle symbols should be placed on roadway with 200 feet between each symbol. For road conditions with curb/shoulder parking, shared use roadway bicycle symbols should be 11 feet from edge of curb to centerline of symbol, comprised of a 7-foot minimum for a parked passenger vehicle width from curb, a 2.5foot open door width, and 1.5-foot gap from centerline of symbol to open door swing area. For road conditions with only a curb edge, and no shoulder parking, shared use roadway bicycle symbols should be 4 feet from edge of curb to centerline of symbol.

338

credit: SWA

Shared use roadway indicating shared use lane

Appendix C | TOD Design Standards

On-Street Facilitiesâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Signed Shared Bicycle Routes Signed shared routes are designated by bike route signs and serve to either provide continuity to other bicycle facilities or designate preferred routes through high-demand corridors to and from the proposed Purple Line transit stations. These designations indicate to cyclists that particular advantages exist to using these routes compared to alternatives. Therefore, the routes need to be suitable for cyclists and maintained in a manner consistent with the needs of cyclists. The signage also serves to alert vehicle drivers that bicycles are present. credit: SWA

Designated shared bicycle route

credit: SWA

Bike route signage

339

Purple Line TOD Study

Off-Street Facilitiesâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Sidewalks with Tree Pits and/or Planting Strips As a general practice, sidewalks should be constructed in areas of high pedestrian concentration and along any street or highway in suburban and urban areas. Within a half-mile of transit stations, sidewalks should be mandatory along any new streets with anticipated building frontage. Where sidewalks are built along high-speed thoroughfares, they should be buffered from the vehicular travel lanes with trees in planting strips or pits. Trees planted along the street edge can increase comfort for pedestrians by creating a more well-defined separation from traffic and providing shade. Rainwater Tree Pits Rainwater tree pits can provide two advantages over the typical tree pit: longevity and stormwater infiltration. Rainwater tree pits capture and infiltrate stormwater along a street. When combined with a structural grid (such as Silva Cells or structural soil) the capacity to capture rainwater is increased, creating a cavity to store additional water while allowing tree root growth. The structural grid supports the hardscape and pedestrian or vehicular loads above while keeping the soil around tree roots from compacting and stunting the growth of the tree.

credit: SWA

Sidewalk with Tree Cover

Recommended Rainwater Tree Pits Details: Rainwater tree pits can be detailed in three ways: with tree grates, permeable pavers, or plant materials at the surface (see images on the facing page). The method should be chosen appropriate to the volume of pedestrian traffic, the surrounding materials, and soil conditions.

credit: SWA

Sidewalk with Planting Strip

Tree Pitâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Larimer Square 206, Denver, CO

340

Appendix C | TOD Design Standards

Off-Street Facilities—Rainwater Planters Rainwater Planters Rainwater planters should be used along streets as a means of capturing, treating, and returning rainwater to the ground or allowing for evaporation. Along streets, rainwater planters should be incorporated to increase the permeability of the ground plane and capture stormwater runoff from paved areas. These planters should be integrated into the overall design of the streetscape. credit: www.flowstobay.org

Rain Garden, Brisban City Hall

credit: www.portlandonline.com

Rainwater planter—Portland, OR

credit: www.portlandonline.com

Rainwater planter—Portland, OR

Recommended Rainwater Planter details follow: • Rainwater planters shall be a minimum of 30 square feet and a minimum of 4 feet wide; 5 feet by 8 feet is recommended. Along residential streets or where limited pedestrian activity is anticipated, planters may be elongated. • Rainwater planters shall be recessed to accommodate stormwater collection with a 4–6 inch curb or border or a low, 8–12 inch fence. • The design should be consistent along both sides of the street and for the entire block. However, the design of rainwater planters may vary from block to block as long as the placement and rhythm is logical. • Narrow, street edge rainwater planters should have a more formal planting arrangement. • Transition zones close to natural or restoration areas or amenity spaces should have a more informal planting plan arrangement. • Select plant species native to Maryland and the Piedmont physiographic province. • Choose plants that are tolerant of well-drained conditions, periods of drought, and periodic inundation, depending on the hydrologic design of the stormwater practice, per the Maryland Department of the Environment regulations. • Select shade-tolerant, partial-shade, or full sun-tolerant species based on site location, orientation, and proximity to tree cover and buildings. • Consider maintenance and management (weeding) when designing, and allow for access needs. • Consider plant height at maturity, and include consideration for sight lines (e.g., vehicular and pedestrian), safety and security, access to sidewalks, and overhead height restrictions. • Along the street edge, trees shall be limbed to eight feet clear for visibility and safety. • Design for complementary mixtures of foliage to provide interest and contrast in form, texture, and color; select plants that provide diverse seasonal color and texture as well as fragrance.

341

Purple Line TOD Study

Off-Street Facilitiesâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Sidepath Sidepaths are facilities for nonmotorized users on exclusive rights-of-way and with minimal crossings by motor vehicles. These types of paths are located adjacent to roadways. Sidepaths can provide pedestrian and bicycle access to areas that are only served by highways on which bike lanes are not appropriate due to high vehicular volumes and speeds.

credit: SWA

Bicyclist on sidepath

credit: SWA

Sidepath on MD 175

342

Appendix C | TOD Design Standards

Off-Street Facilitiesâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Bus Stop Bus stops require curb space for transit services pick up and drop off of passengers. Bus stops should be located adjacent to travel lanes where riders waiting to board can see approaching buses. Bus stop amenities should minimally include shelter, lighting, seating, and rider information.

credit: kevin s berry

Bus stop

credit: LandForms_Metro40

Transit Shelter

343

Purple Line TOD Study

C.1c Open Space Overview

The public open spaces within the Purple Line Corridor TOD station areas are important components of the overall vision. Open spaces provide relief from the urban environment; are ideal locations for public art, fountains, and landscape; and will contribute to the overall character and success of the Purple Line Corridor. Open spaces should be designed as a coherent system; with similarities from one place to the other so the Purple Line Corridor TOD areas are perceived as a single connected transit line; although slight variations should occur from station to station to express the individual identity of the community. The primary types of open spaces will include plazas, squares, greens, pocket parks, greenways, and parks. Plazas, squares, and pocket parks are placed in the more urbanized areas where spontaneous activity is generated by people entering and exiting buildings and shops and where restaurants will have outdoor dining. These spaces may also have planned activities. Greens, by contrast, are typically found in more quiet, residential areas. Greenways and parks are typically on the periphery of developed areas or used to link to naturalized areas. The zoning template in Section 2 on page 251 of the Recommendations report identifies the types of open spaces suitable for the Purple Line Corridor TOD study areas, recommends locations, and illustrates examples of how they may be designed and activated. Criteria for each type of open space follows.

344

Appendix C | TOD Design Standards

Plazas Plazas are public amenity spaces at the intersection of important streets between buildings along a street or sidewalk and/or at the junction of important commercial and civic buildings set aside for civic purpose and intense human activity.

credit: www.flickr.com, Adam THEO

Reston Fountain Plaza—Reston, VA

Typically, plazas are circumscribed on all sides by building frontages and/ or streets. Plazas may contain large areas of durable pavement as well as furniture, public art, fountains, and trees, all formally arranged. Located at the core of the neighborhood and intended for large gatherings and events, provisions within plazas for lighting, sound, and similar infrastructure needs should be considered. Size: 1/8–1 acre Character: Mostly hardscape; activated by both planned and spontaneous activities; attached minimally on one side. Adjacent Ground Floor Uses: Retail (restaurants, cafes, and other), office, hotel, civic.

credit: www.flickr.com, dan reed

Rockville Town Center—Rockville, MD

Legacy Village—Lyndhurst, OH

345

Purple Line TOD Study

Squares Squares are placed in the more urban areas where spontaneous activity is generated by people entering and exiting lobbies and shops and where restaurants have outdoor dining. These spaces may also have planned activities. Typically, squares are circumscribed on all sides by building frontages and/ or streets and consist of more planted landscape areas rather than paved hardscape areas. Squares may contain furniture, public art, fountains, and trees, all formally arranged. Located at the core of the neighborhood and intended for large gatherings and events, provisions within plazas for lighting, sound, and similar infrastructure needs should be considered. Size: 1/4–2 acre; minimally 100’ width

Easton Town Center Commons—Columbus, OH

Character: Mix of landscape (greater than 50 percent) and hardscape (less than 50 percent)’ activated by both planned and spontaneous activities; may be fully detached (surrounded by streets) or attached on one side. Adjacent Ground Floor Uses: Retail (restaurants, cafes, and other), office, residential lobby, hotel, civic.

Town Square—Pittsburgh, PA

346

Appendix C | TOD Design Standards

Greens Greens are small spaces available for public use and enjoyment and are typically, but not required to be, defined by building frontages and/or streets. Greens typically consist of more planted landscape areas rather than paved hardscape areas but include paths or sidewalks for pedestrian crossings. Greens are typically informal in their design and help create an identity for areas of the neighborhood outside the core. Size: A small to moderate publicly accessible but privately owned and maintained tract of land (minimally 2,400 square feet but not more than 1 acre). Post Office Square—Boston, MA

Character: The design consists primarily of trees and lawn areas, informally or formally disposed, and should not include excessive amounts of hardscape that will generally appear unoccupied and uninviting. Greens are available for unstructured recreation and passive and reflective open space. Surrounding Ground Floor Uses: Often circumscribed on all sides by both building frontages and thoroughfares.

credit: AntyDiluvian www.flickr.com

Post Office Square—Boston, MA

Center Park—Baltimore, MD

347

Purple Line TOD Study

Pocket Park Pocket parks are small spaces available for public use and enjoyment and are typically located on vacant building lots or on small, irregular pieces of land. Pocket parks typically consist of a mix of planted landscape and paved hardscape areas and include outdoor seating and occasionally playground equipment. Pocket parks are typically informal in their design and provide usable open space in areas where land is limited for establishing larger greens and squares. Size: A small publicly accessible tract of land (minimally 22 foot width, 1/16–1/8 acre) Character: The design consists of a mix of landscape and hardscape, providing areas for passive activities. Pocket parks generally are attached on two to three sides with one side open to street and may include blank walls lining park.

credit: www.flickr.com, J0N6 photo credit

Paley Park—New York City

Adjacent Ground Floor Uses: retail (restaurants, cafes, and other) at street edge/corner; residential.

credit: www.flickr.com, J0N6

Paley Park—New York City

348

Appendix C | TOD Design Standards

Park A park is a large public tract available for active and passive recreation. The landscape generally consists of lawn and trees, informally and naturalistically disposed, and requiring limited maintenance. Parks often accommodate active recreation, including tennis, multipurpose courts, ballfields, garden plots, playgrounds and tot lots, picnic areas, pools and pool houses, community buildings, and similar uses, including parking. Size: 1 acre minimum, (could range anywhere from 2 to 3 acres to as large as 10 to 20 acres). FDR Memorial, Washington, D.C.

Character: Parks should remain mostly natural in character with informal and naturalistic plantings, largely lawn and trees. Limited areas may be more intensely landscaped as appropriate to the intended function of the specific area. Parks should not include excessive amounts of hardscape that will generally appear unoccupied and uninviting. Surrounding Ground Floor Uses: Typically located at the edge of the neighborhood, connected to the natural areas and with immediate and adjacent access from a public thoroughfare.

credit: www.flickr.com, Portland Urban Condos

Tanner Springs Parkâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Portland, OR

Post Office Squareâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Boston, MA

349

Purple Line TOD Study

Greenway Greenways are vegetated, linear, and multipurpose parks that incorporate trails and sidepaths. Greenways typically consist of mostly natural landscape. Greenways are designed to connect two or more locations and are generally located near natural corridors such as rivers and streams or man-made corridors such as railroads beds or utility corridors. Size: A publicly accessible tract of land that varies in size based on location. Character: The design consists of a natural landscape that acts as a vegetated buffer protecting natural habitats. Trails or sidepaths within the greenway can be paved or unpaved and accommodate a variety of users including bicyclists, walkers, hikers, and joggers.

credit: bp-blogspot.com

Central Park Pond, NY

Adjacent Ground Floor Uses: Varies

Park Edge, Dennis Scivally Park

Open Spaceâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Greenway

350

Appendix C | TOD Design Standards

C.1d Pedestrian Access

The removal of a pedestrian route, even for a short time, may severely limit or totally preclude pedestrian access to employment centers, schools, commercial establishments, etc. Consequently, it is imperative that impacts to existing pedestrian routes be minimized. If an existing pedestrian route is blocked by construction, alteration, maintenance, or other temporary conditions, an alternate route should be provided to maintain the continuity of movement. The existing facility should be replaced with a reasonably safe, convenient, and accessible pathway that replicates, as much as possible, the desirable characteristics of the existing pedestrian facility or route. (An existing pedestrian route may be a sidewalk, a roadway shoulder, or another facility

that is recognized as being used by pedestrians.) Completely closing a sidewalk for construction and rerouting pedestrians to the other side of the street should only be done as a last resort. To the maximum extent feasible, the alternate pedestrian route should be provided on the same side of the street as the disrupted route. The alternate route shall be appropriately delineated with directional signs, markings, channelization devices, and barricades. The alternate route shall provide access to existing or temporary transit stops. The alternate route shall comply with SHAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Accessibility Policy & Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities along state highways.

351

Purple Line TOD Study

352

Acknowledgments The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission Prince George’s County Planning Department Fern V. Piret, Ph.D. Albert G. Dobbins III, AICP

Planning Director Deputy Planning Director

Project Team Core Members Community Planning Division Vanessa C. Akins** Chief for Strategy and Implementation

Ivy A. Lewis, AICP Chief, Community Planning Division Robert Duffy, AICP* Planning Supervisor J. Steven Kaii-Ziegler, AICP Supervisor, Community Planning Division William Washburn, AICP Project Manager Chad Williams, LEED BD+C Planner Coordinator Hyojung Garland, LEED BD+C Senior Planner Tamara Jovovic Senior Planner Jeanette Silor* Planner Daisy Avelar* Public Affairs Specialist

*Former Employee **Former Division Chief † Deceased

Project Team Resource Members Historic Preservation

Daniel Sams

Senior Planner

Parks and Recreation Eileen Nivera

Planner Coordinator

Research Section/Countywide

Ted Kowaluk Transportation Planning/Countywide Harold Foster† Daniel Janousek Faramarz Mokhtari

Senior Planner Planner Coordinator Senior Planner Planner Coordinator

Technical and Administrative Assistance

Susan Kelley Susan Smith Ralph Barrett James Johnson M’Balu Abdullah Mandy Li

Administrative Manager Publications Specialist Clerical/Inventory Operations Supervisor Senior Clerical/Inventory Operations Assistant Senior IT Support Specialist Programmer Analyst III

Consultant

Design Collective, Inc. PRR Sabra, Wang, & Associates, Inc. Partners for Economic Solutions

Lead, Urban Design Public Outreach Transportation Market & Economics