Community Petition to the M-NCPPC Prince George’s Acting Director of Planning 

Request for a Comprehensive Public Benefit Analysis of the Metropolitan (The Boulevard) Development 

To: James Hunt, Acting Director of Planning 

Prince George's County Planning Department

 

We, the undersigned residents, property owners, business owners, and stakeholders of the City of College Park, respectfully submit this petition to express our concerns regarding the proposed amendments to the Metropolitan (aka The Boulevard) development. This petition is not intended to oppose redevelopment. 

We support thoughtful redevelopment that strengthens our community and advances the long-term vision for the Route 1 corridor. Our concern is that the current proposal appears to substantially reduce certain public benefits that were central to the original Detailed Site Plan (DSP) approval while maintaining much of the project's approved residential density. 

Nearly twenty years ago, the community accepted significant compromises to support redevelopment of this site because the project was presented as a mixed-use development that would create a vibrant, walkable destination anchored by approximately 41,540 square feet of neighborhood-serving retail and commercial space. Those public benefits were an important component of the project's vision and a significant factor in the community's support.

Today, the applicant proposes a materially different development program. 

According to the applicant's presentation materials, the current proposal includes approximately 3,739 square feet of retail space, consisting primarily of a private health club. Many residents question whether a membership-based health club provides the same public benefit as the diverse neighborhood-serving retail, restaurants, services, and commercial activity contemplated under the original approval.

Similarly, the applicant cites a variety of other features as public benefits. We respectfully request that the Planning Department independently evaluate the extent to which these represent new public benefits, previously required elements, or amenities that primarily serve project residents. 

For example: 

·       The applicant identifies 66 ground-level parking spaces as a public benefit. However, 45 of those spaces are reserved for adjacent townhomes, leaving 21 spaces available for visitors, retail patrons, and the general public.

·       The applicant highlights improvements along U.S. Route 1. We respectfully request clarification regarding which improvements constitute development-related benefits and which involve facilities under the jurisdiction of the Maryland State Highway Administration.

·       The applicant identifies a University of Maryland shuttle service as a public benefit while also characterizing the project as housing intended primarily for working professionals rather than students. 

·       The applicant cites an affordable housing program that distributes approximately 10 percent of units among households at 60%, 80%, 100%, and 120% of Area Median Income (AMI). We respectfully request an evaluation of the extent to which these affordability levels provide meaningful housing opportunities relative to market conditions and the overall scale of the development. 

Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Planning Department prepare, as part of its review, a Public Benefits Balance Sheet comparing the originally approved development with the proposed amendment and evaluating whether the amended project provides public benefits equal to, greater than, or less than those supporting the original approval. 

Specifically, we request that the Staff Report include:

·       A side-by-side comparison of originally approved and proposed retail and commercial square footage; 

·       A comparison of originally approved and proposed affordable housing commitments; 

·       An evaluation of changes to transportation, parking, infrastructure, open space, and community-serving amenities; Identification of the findings and assumptions that supported the original DSP approval and an assessment of whether those findings remain applicable under the amended proposal;

·       An evaluation of whether the amended project continues to advance the planning objectives of a vibrant, walkable, mixed-use community; and 

·       A clear explanation of any public benefits that have been reduced, eliminated, added, or modified. 

Finally, we respectfully ask the Planning Department to recognize that this petition reflects a broader interest in maintaining public confidence in the development review process. 

Many residents believe that confidence in that process is strengthened when significant amendments to long-approved projects are accompanied by a clear and transparent explanation of how changes affect the public benefits, planning objectives, and findings that supported the original approval. Regardless of differing viewpoints regarding this application, we believe this review presents an opportunity to reinforce public trust through a thorough, objective, and evidence-based analysis. 

Our goal is simple: to ensure that redevelopment continues to advance the long-term vision for College Park, honors the commitments that helped secure community support, and delivers public benefits that remain proportional to the scale and intensity of the development. 

We respectfully request your careful consideration of these concerns and ask that the Planning Department provide a comprehensive public-benefit analysis as part of the Staff Report and public record for this application.

 Respectfully submitted,

The Undersigned Residents, Property Owners, Business Owners, and Community Stakeholders of the City of College Park