|
MINUTES OF GREENBELT CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION,
Held Saturday, May 20,
2000
Greenbelt Municipal Building

Mayor Davis called the meeting to order at 9:10 AM.
PRESENT were Mayor Judith F. Davis, Rodney Roberts, Alan Turnbull and
Thomas X. White.
ALSO PRESENT were Michael McLaughlin, City Manager; Celia Craze, Director
of Planning and Community Development; Terri Hruby, Community Planner:
Kap Kapistan, representing Beltway Plaza; and Virginia Beauchamp of the
Greenbelt News Review.
Review of Greenbelt Metro Area Sector Plan: Mayor Davis began the meeting
noting that the purpose of the meeting was to review the Sector Plan
for the Greenbelt Metro Area published by the Maryland-National Capital
Park and Planning Commission (MNCPPC). The plan was released on May 19,
2000.
Ms. Craze and Ms. Hruby briefed Council on issues related to the plan
and the results of their preliminary review. They distributed handouts
on existing conditions, issues for discussion, and density scenarios.
Council discussed the three sections of the issues handout: Springhill
Lake, Beltway Plaza and the Core Area.
A. Springhill Lake - Council did not agree with many of the Key Proposed
Actions that are included in the plan. In this regard, Council made the
following findings:
1. The density of Springhill Lake should not increase over existing
19 units/acre;
2. The plan should include how public facilities (i.e. schools) will
accommodate proposed growth;
3. A way to transition to ownership is needed;
4. It objects to the proposed R-10 zoning;
5. The plan should address how to make the existing retail center more
viable (similar to Roosevelt Center - 50,000 square feet); and
6. The plan should advocate for interconnections (e.g. overpasses) at
Kenilworth Avenue and Greenbelt Road.
B. Beltway Plaza - Council supported the Key Proposed Actions listed
in the staff memo for Beltway Plaza, but is looking for more detailed
information regarding orienting the Plaza to Springhill Lake and infill
development along Cherrywood Lane. Council asked Mr. Kapistan to be kept
advised about what Beltway Plaza thinks about the plan. Mr. Kapistan
indicated there are real time constraints to them responding timely.
There was a desire expressed by Council for a master plan to be done
for Beltway Plaza.
One suggestion included creating a boulevard in the rear of the property
as a way to reorient the focus. There was also support for maintaining
the configuration of Breezewood Drive. The State Highway Administration’s
(SHA) plan to improve MD 193 ought to be coordinated with MNCPPC.
C. Core Area - Council members did not support development of more than
750,000 square feet since it would require a Beltway interchange. They
also expressed a desire to define the environmental envelope.
It was noted that the City’s comments need to justify the City’s
previous position opposing the interchange and preserving the environmental
envelope. There was discussion of scheduling meetings for further consideration
and follow-up meetings. There was agreement to meeting on May 30 for
further discussion of the Core Area and on June 21 for follow-up to the
Sector Plan hearing on June 19.
The meeting was adjourned at 1:40 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael McLaughlin
City Manager
|