REGULAR MEETING OF THE GREENBELT CITY COUNCIL held January 23, 2006.

Mayor Pro Tem Roberts called the meeting to order at 8:03 p.m.

ROLL CALL was answered by Councilmembers Konrad E. Herling, Leta M. Mach, Edward V. J. Putens, and Mayor Pro Tem Rodney M. Roberts. Mayor Judith Davis was out of town.

ALSO PRESENT were Michael P. McLaughlin, City Manager; Robert A. Manzi, City Solicitor; David E. Moran, Assistant City Manager; and Kathleen Gallagher, City Clerk.

Mayor Pro Tem Roberts asked that everyone observe a moment of silence in honor of residents Encarnasión Serrato and Michael F. Kadziel. He then led the pledge of allegiance to the flag.

CONSENT AGENDA: It was moved by Mr. Putens and seconded by Ms. Mach that the consent agenda be approved as presented. The motion passed 4-0.

Council thereby took the following actions:

MINUTES OF COUNCIL MEETINGS
- Four Cities Meeting, January 5, 2006
- Interview, January 9, 2006
- Regular Meeting, January 9, 2006
- Interview, January 11, 2006
- Interview, January 18, 2006
Approved as presented.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Advisory Planning Board, Report #06-01 (Greenbelt Station – Conceptual Site Plan): Council received this report and agreed to consider it with this topic later on tonight’s agenda.

Arts Advisory Board/Park & Recreation Advisory Board, Report #06-1 (Eligibility Criteria for Recognition/Contribution Groups): Council received this report tonight and agreed to consider it on the agenda of the next meeting.

Park & Recreation Advisory Group, Report #02-2 (Recognition Group): Council accepted this report and agreed to consider it on the agenda of the next meeting.

EDUCATION CAMPAIGN ON GREENBELT WEST: Council approved submission of another five or six articles to the Greenbelt News Review. These articles will run as advertisements and will cost approximately $700. The articles will also be posted on the City’s Web site.

ADVISORY GROUP RESIGNATION: Council accepted with regret the resignation of Danita Elkerson from the Employee Relations Board, effective January 31.

ADVISORY GROUP APPOINTMENTS AND REAPPOINTMENTS: Council made the following appointments: Keith Chernikoff to the Advisory Planning Board; Neal Ewen to the Senior Citizens Advisory Committee; Maia McWilliams and John Flanagan to the Youth Advisory Committee, with a waiver granted to permit John Flanagan’s appointment despite his part-time employment by the Recreation Department. Council also reappointed Dorothy Lauber to the Board of Elections.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Mayor Pro Tem Roberts asked to add “Post Office in Roosevelt Center” as #16 on the agenda. It was moved by Mr. Putens and seconded by Mr. Herling that the agenda be approved as amended. The motion passed 4-0.

PRESENTATIONS

Anacostia Sub-Watershed Group Expansion: John Galli of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG) spoke to Council about this program to establish citizen-based groups in each of the Anacostia River’s 14 major subwatersheds. He said that COG and the Anacostia Watershed Citizens Advisory Committee are currently working to establish new groups in both Upper Beaverdam Creek and Still Creek. Creating these groups is one aspect of implementing an agreement to restore the watershed by 2010. He said Greenbelt citizens are already involved in the effort. He also briefly addressed the Potomac “Trash Treaty” and the upcoming Potomac Watershed Trash Summit to be held March 16 at the World Bank. Mayor Pro Tem Roberts asked if there was any funding available for the groups, and Mr. Galli said there was a modest amount of seed money. Council thanked him for coming.

Award – Citizens Concerned for a Cleaner County: Mayor Pro Tem Roberts announced that that this organization had sent the City a certificate of appreciation for its efforts in support of its goals to create a “cleaner county.”

PETITIONS AND REQUESTS: Luis Vázquez, 4-H Gardenway, said there is concern about an apparent increase in crime in the Gardenway area, including recent incidents of slashed automobile tires and young people carrying knives. He said he would return to another meeting with a petition from residents of the area requesting that a gate be put in the Baltimore-Washington Parkway pedestrian overpass so that it can be closed at night from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. Putting a camera at the overpass was another possible suggestion. Mr. Putens said he could sympathize with the concerns, which he thought were Citywide, and he noted an increase in theft from mailboxes in Greenbelt East. Mr. Herling added that a number of cars had been broken into near 11 Court Ridge.

MINUTES OF COUNCIL MEETINGS

Executive Session of January 4, 2006: Mr. Herling moved that the minutes of the executive session of the City Council held Wednesday, January 4, 2006, be approved as presented. He further requested that the minutes of this meeting reflect that the Council met in executive session at 8:20 p.m. in the Multipurpose Room of the Community Center. Council held this closed meeting in accordance with Section 10-508 (a) (7) of the State Government Article of the Annotated Code of Public General Laws of Maryland to consult with legal counsel on a legal matters related to the annexation of the “South Core” property at the Greenbelt Station development. Ms. Mach seconded the motion.

ROLL CALL: Mr. Herling - yes
Ms. Mach - yes
Mr. Putens - yes
Mr. Roberts - yes

Executive Session of January 11, 2006: Mr. Herling moved that the minutes of the executive session of the City Council held Wednesday, January 11, 2006, be approved as presented. He further requested that the minutes of this meeting reflect that the Council met in executive session at 8:33 p.m. in the Multipurpose Room of the Community Center. Council held this closed meeting in accordance with Section 10-508 (a) (9) of the State Government Article of the Annotated Code of Public General Laws of Maryland to consider matters related to negotiations for collective bargaining. Mr. Putens seconded the motion.

ROLL CALL: Mr. Herling - yes
Ms. Mach - yes
Mr. Putens - yes
Mr. Roberts - yes

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS

Mr. McLaughlin announced that Greenbelt has been recommended to hold the Fall 2007 Maryland Municipal League (MML) Conference. Action will be taken by the MML board this weekend. He also announced that the Prince George’s County Municipal Association would hold its legislative reception in Annapolis one week from tonight.

Mr. Putens said he and other members of Council and staff had attended the retirement event for Sergeant Love of the Police Department the prior week.

Mr. Herling listed a number of meetings he had attended, including one in College Park related to Route 1 development. He pointed out that Councilmember Bob Catlin from College Park was in the audience tonight.

LEGISLATION: None

GREENBELT STATION – SOUTH CORE ANNEXATION AGREEMENT: Mayor Pro Tem Roberts read the agenda comments. Celia Craze, Director, Planning and Community Development, gave a presentation to put the annexation agreement into the broader context not only of the entire Greenbelt Station project but also of the City’s past annexations. She said the annexation agreement, which sets forth certain terms requested by the developer for public financing assistance for the Greenbelt Station project, was being brought for Council action tonight in order to preserve the applicant’s right to petition the City’s resolution annexing the South Core before its January 26 effective date. She said the annexation agreement would obligate the City to finance $8.4 million. The developer had originally negotiated $150 million in public financing with Prince George’s County. With annexation by the City, the county’s financing would decrease by approximately $10 million. Ms. Craze said a significant package of public improvements would be needed for the development of Greenbelt Station, some of which fall outside the City limits or outside the City’s jurisdictional authority. She said the North-South Connector Road had been focused on as a project in order to limit the City’s expenditure to an area falling completely within the City’s jurisdiction.

Ms. Craze acknowledged that concerns about public financing had been raised by residents over the last several weeks and reviewed the types of public support the City had provided for newly annexed development areas in the past. She also reviewed the benefits the City had negotiated through this type of partnership, including negotiations for such things as development caps, road and trail improvements, and parkland dedications. In the current situation, the following commitments have been made either prior to or as part of the development agreement:

Land Dedication: 111 acres of non-recreational stream valley parkland; 3.7 acres of open space in the South Core; an additional 11.2 acres of additional stream valley parkland; and trail connections between Cherrywood Lane and the North and South Cores.

Financial Contributions: $720,000 toward six additional police officers; $2 million for public recreational facilities; at least another $1.1 million for on-site public recreation facilities; $300,000 for a stream valley interpretive panels, etc.; $500,000 for Cherrywood Lane beautification; and $500,000 in improvements for the existing Police Station.

Development Commitments: commitment to annexation; detailed site plan and sign plan approval authorities; increase in residential density, with a decrease in non-residential density; construction of a roundabout and gateway at Metro Access Drive and a sidewalk on west side of Cherrywood Lane; operation of trolley/tram service between the Cores; commitment to significant urban design guidelines.

In addition to these commitments, Ms. Craze cited other benefits to be gained from the annexation itself: design control and construction oversight for all roads; sediment and erosion control inspection and enforcement authority; at least $340,000 for street construction permit fees; at least $171,750 for building permit fees; and annual revenues of at least $3 million annually by the build-up date through property taxes and income, personal property taxes, and highway user fees. She said that since 1980, the City has completed five annexations and that in all four of those involving undeveloped land, there were financial incentives attached. (It was clarified later in the meeting that none of these mechanisms was a TIF.) She said that in addition to the public policy issue of using a TIF for this development, the critical question is whether the future revenues will carry the costs. She then described the methodology staff had undertaken to make this determination, in which they had attempted to make very conservative estimates of revenues versus service costs.

Mayor Pro Tem Roberts asked what would happen if it turned out that more police officers were needed than the six who were funded. Ms. Craze said the assumption was that the City would continue to provide on the basis of the population. She said the goal in getting the funding for the six was to be able to establish the positions before the tax revenue stream began. Mr. Roberts questioned the relationship of the number of officers to population, noting that the number of police officers in the City has increased “tremendously” with no increase in population. He said he was afraid that the calculations did not adequately take into account the policing needs that would be generated by the increased population in Greenbelt West.

Mayor Pro Tem Roberts said his other concern continued to be recreation. He said he thought there was no dispute at this point that active recreation facilities in Greenbelt West are inadequate; he said he did not see provision being made for this, and he asked if it was considered in the cost. Ms. Craze said it was not but that resources were being assembled pending evaluation of what was needed throughout Greenbelt West, including the plans for Springhill Lake as they came forward. She also mentioned the 3.7 acres now available for use in the South Core. Mr. Roberts questioned the value of this area for spontaneous play and pick-up games, adding that some residents might not appreciate having ball games so close to their homes. Mr. Herling took issue, saying that when he was growing up, he and his friends managed very well with half that amount of space in front of the Community Center. He added that he thought there was a great deal to be said for having space for spontaneous play that was near housing and adult supervision. He said such a concept was very much in the spirit of the original Greenbelt plan and that he was quite enthused about it.

Ms. Mach agreed with Mr. Herling, saying she, too, was strongly in favor of informal play areas. She said the decision to make this financial commitment was a big one, on which City staff, as well as the City’s financial consultant, had done a great deal of work. She asked Ms. Craze to expand on the financial protections that would be in place for the City. Ms. Craze first noted that Sam Ketterman, the City’s financial advisor from Davenport & Co., would continue to work with the City if the annexation agreement were approved. She also noted that one initial consideration had been to assure that the amount to be financed did not exceed the approximately $10 million in county TIF that would be lost to the developer as a result of the annexation. A second consideration was that at no point in the phased development of the project would the City not be able to pay its costs and the debt service. She enumerated the following protections: a cap in the agreement such that no more than 50% of the incremental tax revenues would be devoted to debt service; a provision for a “back-up” special tax district to kick in for that district, only in the event that there is a shortfall in projected revenues; City approval of the cost estimate for the construction; the absence of an escalator clause, so that the principal to be lent will not exceed $8.4 million. She added that the debt would be attached to the project—not to the general fund or to the tax-payers in the rest of the City.

Mr. Putens complimented Ms. Craze on her work and that of her staff, stating that she had been overly generous in giving credit to the City Council for its negotiations. He added that historically, however, it has always been Council’s strong policy to negotiate to increase parkland and recreation facilities. He agreed that the inclusion of the 3.7-acre green space was significant but only the beginning of what he ultimately hoped to see in Greenbelt West. He said, “We’re not done yet on recreation.” He said the benefits of the control the City would gain by virtue of annexation were critical.

Mayor Pro Tem Roberts said he was concerned that if the City accepted this agreement, it would be losing $8.4 million that it might need later to provide the recreation facilities needed in Greenbelt West. Mr. Herling responded that he would be extremely concerned, too, if the $8.4 million were coming from the City’s budget, but it would not be. He asked Ms. Craze to address Mr. Roberts’ statement further. He also noted his ongoing concern about having a coordinated transportation plan for the area and the City. Ms. Craze agreed with Mr. Herling, saying the TIF funding would come from future tax revenues. She said Mr. Roberts was right that there would be an “opportunity cost” since there would be $8.4 million in future tax revenues that would not be available for other purposes, but if the annexation did not take place, there would be no future revenues whatsoever. She compared it to buying a property or business with a lien: it will not be free and clear until the lien is paid off. She again said that there would be no impact on the City’s operational budget and that any excess debt would be assumed by the developer. Mayor Pro Tem Roberts again disagreed, saying that the $8.4 million would come from everyone if the City later had to fund recreational facilities that were not paid for by the developer.

Mr. Putens asked Mr. Ketterman to comment on the TIF. Mr. Ketterman stated strongly that getting the tax revenues was dependent upon doing the annexation. If the City does not do the annexation, there will be no additional revenues at all and no $8.4 million to spend on anything. If the City does the annexation, it is expected to generate $33 million in revenues over 20 years; if it does not, there will be no revenues generated. He said he was not taking a position on the annexation, just stating the facts of it from a financial standpoint. He further confirmed that this would not be a full faith and credit transaction of the City. Mr. Roberts commented that if the annexation did not occur, the City would also not have the added costs of providing services to the area.

Norman Rivera introduced the other individuals in the audience representing Metropark, including Daniel Colton, Marva Jo Camp, Sandi Gallagher, and others. He spoke of the economic benefits of the project to the City and the region. He stated that they were ready to move forward with the annexation agreement and that, as stated in the staff recommendation, he would affirm for the record that they would sign the agreement and pledge not to file a petition on the annexation.

Mr. Herling asked about the commitment to addressing transportation needs. Mr. Rivera replied that they were committed to taking the lead on this but that they were only one of three developers in Greenbelt West and could not commit to results involving others.

Mr. Putens commented that another need that had to be addressed jointly for Greenbelt West was school facilities.

Mr. McLaughlin said he wanted to clarify one point that had been made in Ms. Craze’s presentation. He said this would be the first time the City had supported a TIF, since the public financing done at Maryland Trade Center and Greenway Center was done through special obligation bonds.

Mayor Pro Tem Roberts then asked for any comments or questions from the audience.

The following people spoke against approval of the annexation agreement:

Robert Fireovid, 114 Julian Court, distributed and presented handouts written by himself and Joan Falcão expressing the opinion that the TIF funding was a “subsidy” to the developer and a mistake on the part of the City Council. He said the City staff had overestimated the potential revenues and underestimated the cost of extending services. He said the TIF would not be “fair” or fiscally responsible and that, contrary to how it was being represented by the staff, Council, and Mr. Ketterman, the entire City would be responsible for the debt, which would indeed affect the City’s credit. He said nothing would be lost in not annexing, since the City would still have control via approval of the detailed site plan. He also opposed use of a special taxing district since that would put a burden on new residents rather than the developer. Don Comis, 3-G Laurel Hill Road, said he had been unaware of the TIF request and urged delaying the decision on the annexation agreement until more information was available. He asked for the amounts of the debt incurred for Greenway Center and the Maryland Trade Center relative to the City’s budgets at the time so that the proposed $8.4 obligation, with a current City budget of about $20 million, could be compared. Mr. McLaughlin said these were no longer active debts and the information would have to be researched. Later he provided the information that in 1982-83, the Greenway Center debt was sold for $2 million, when the City budget was $3.2 million. The Maryland Trade Center debt was sold for $2.7 million in 1985, when the City’s budget was $4.6 million. Bertram Donn, 19 Woodland Way, agreed with Mr. Comis. Ruth Kastner, 125 Hedgewood Drive, expressed serious reservations and said Mr. Fireovid had raised many unanswered questions that the City should pause to review. Charles Hagelgans, also of 125 Hedgewood Drive, questioned how the service cost per person could be $500 if the City has a $20 million budget for 20,000 people. He also questioned how the City could afford to defer taking taxes from new residents of Greenbelt West while needing to raise taxes on residents overall. Mr. McLaughlin said the analysis was very specific to the neighborhood, which is overwhelmingly residential, and that there is a daytime/business population to the City that has to be taken into account with regard to service provision. Alan Turnbull, 45-H Ridge Road, spoke in favor of the annexation, which he described as a “rational expansion” that would give the City some control over development that would occur on its borders. He said that he was skeptical of the TIF, however, which he described as a “sweetheart deal.” He said he thought the same principle applied as when the City Council had opposed state funding for the new beltway interchange, which would benefit private development. Bill Orleans, 2-A Eastway, expressed concern about developing the South Core without coordination with the North Core. He thought there were enough issues involving all of Greenbelt West (e.g., the recently raised schools issue) that the planning by the three separate owners for the three areas should be done and reviewed by the City and county in concert rather than sequentially. He also urged going more slowly. Susan Barnett, 51-C Ridge Road, expressed concern that the TIF would ultimately compete with other City needs in the absence of any setting of priorities. John Mason, 13 Lakeside Drive, said, “Don’t do it.” He said that $8.4 million is a lot of money to a small community like Greenbelt, but “it’s chump change” to the developers. Clement Lau, 6 Greentree Place, said he was neither for nor against the annexation agreement, but he gave a long list of issues, including recreation and public facilities, as well as a potential financial risk, as being concerns. Mr. Turnbull spoke again to remind people that this annexation was not directly connected to the issue of having improved retail. The South Core annexation is primarily residential; the shopping will be in the North Core. He said the issue tonight did not relate to the upscale retail.

The following people spoke in favor of approving the annexation agreement:

Anita Rapaport, managing member of a business on Hanover Parkway, urged approval of both the annexation agreement and the conceptual site plan, saying the project would enhance the City, with a design that was compatible with the original Greenbelt plan. She said the project would pay for itself many times over. Robert Burke, 8161 Mandan Terrace, said he was impressed by the project and would consider moving there if he could afford it. Desmon Lee, 6522 Lake Park Drive, spoke in favor of the improved retail that Greenbelt Station would bring and encouraged annexation of the South Core. Sylvia Lewis, 2-C Gardenway, said she had opposed the City’s last attempted annexation but was very strongly in favor of this one. She said the City Council and staff had been working on this project for years. She said this work had resulted in a much better plan than she had ever thought possible but that this result had taken “a long, long time.” She disagreed with those who suggested that Council was moving too quickly, and she stated emphatically, “If we go any slower, we’ll be walking backwards.” Bernie Granzo, 7921 Mandan Road, agreed with Ms. Lewis. He said, “The quicker, the better,” and he commented that the state of the existing property along Greenbelt Road was an embarrassment. Alan Johnson, 6522 Lake Park Drive, said that as a relatively new resident of Greenbelt who had lived in the county for more than 30 years, he would like to see the Greenbelt Station development go forward as quickly as possible. Kendra Marinaccio, 9010 Breezewood Terrace, said she was concerned with an overemphasis on structured recreation, and she liked the idea of providing free, casual recreation space. She said when she moved to Springhill Lake three years ago, there was talk of rebuilding it, and it was still just talk. She encouraged letting the development move forward while there was a plan and someone willing to do it. A resident of 5917 Cherrywood Terrace spoke positively of having new and improved development in Greenbelt West. He said he would like to be able to put his money back into the area that he is living in and encouraged the City to move forward. Carl Ranzo, who owns a business at 5400 Branchville Road, said his company looked forward to the improvements to come. Now, he said, they look out on trash and graffiti. He said they looked forward to staying in the new environment. Marva Jo Camp said although she works for the developer, she is also a Prince George’s County resident and believes the project to be a “win-win” situation. She said private-public partnerships are good things and benefit both sides, not just the developer. Alvin Peoples of Bowie said he wanted to remind everyone that this project is important to the neighboring communities as well. He said they would bring their money to Greenbelt, too. Wilbur Wilson, a former resident of Springhill Lake who now lives in Mitchelville, encouraged the use of the TIF to benefit economic development in the City. He said, “Get it done.” Mr. Roberts pointed out to him that this TIF was something the City was being asked to fund, not something that would be given to the City. Jennifer Jones Peoples said she was a resident of the county. She stressed that the new business infrastructure and upgrading of Greenbelt West would ultimately bring new people in and benefit the schools and the community, rather than being a drag on them.

In response to comments, Mr. Rivera asked to explain once more that the TIF would not come out of the existing taxpayers’ pockets, since it would be drawn from future tax revenues. Regarding what had been identified as the irrelevance of North Core issues, he said the connector road would lie in both Cores; it was all one interrelated project and, with the annexation, the entire property would be part of Greenbelt.

Mr. Putens and Mr. Roberts noted letters from Shanika Ratliff of 9106 Edmonston Court, Sonja Roy of 7907 Mandan Road, and Hifazat Sardar of 8153 Mandan Terrace in support of the annexation; a letter from Frances and Roger Johnson of 119 Lakeside Drive supporting taking the annexation agreement to referendum; and a telephone message from Richard Craig of 14 Maplewood Court, who said based on the information he read on a flier left at his house, he opposed the TIF for the connector road. Mr. Roberts said there was confusion in a number of the letters that supported the annexation agreement because they wanted retail shopping.

Mr. Herling asked Mr. Ketterman to address the risk issue one more time. Mr. Ketterman stressed again that this would not be a debt of the City. He said he wanted to repeat for at least the third time that the City’s credit was not on the line and that anyone who said the opposite was “absolutely wrong.” He said the money would come solely from tax increments, as well as the special tax district if necessary, and there would be no other liability. Mr. Roberts asked him if there would not have to be collateral for the City to borrow $8.4 million. Mr. Ketterman said there would not. Mr. Roberts said that on every bond the City had previously had, the City was ultimately responsible for paying it. Mr. Ketterman said there are two types of bond issues in the municipal market, and they are entirely different. He said Mr. Roberts was describing a general obligation pledge, on which the City would have to pledge its full faith and credit. He said that is not the situation under discussion here. This would be a revenue bond, payable only from future tax revenues of the TIF and, if activated, the special taxing district. He said they are “at entirely different ends of the spectrum.”Mr. Fireovid asked what would happen if neither the tax revenues nor the special taxing district provided enough money to cover the debt. Mr. Ketterman said it would fall to the owner, not the City.Vic Boswell, 169 Research Road, asked if the City currently was paying bond debt. Mr. Roberts said it was. Mr. Roberts went on to say that the prior bonds had been taken to referendum, and he thought that should be the case with the current issue. Mr. Roberts said he thought more public input was needed. He said other bonds had been taken to referendum. He said he had never seen the City Council take action on this much money at only one meeting and without more opportunity for public comment. He said he did not like the threat that the developer might withdraw from the annexation without the TIF and that Council had to act tonight. He said he did not think the City should fund the road, especially given that the developer was short-changing the City on recreation and public safety.

Mr. Herling said he would vote in support of the annexation.

Ms. Mach said this issue had been at the front of the agenda since she was elected to Council in 2003 and that it was not a new thing. She said she thought the risks were managed and that the benefits were many. She said she did not want to go backwards on this issue. She also noted that it had not been mentioned tonight that there is a benefit to the City in having control over the design and construction of the North-South Connector Road.

Mr. Putens said that Council had asked Mr. McLaughlin to prepare a series of articles for the purpose of correcting the misinformation that was being circulated in the community about this action. He said the issues are complex, and the public needs more information. He made a motion that the City Council approve the annexation agreement. Mr. Herling seconded the motion. Mayor Pro Tem Roberts read a statement from Mayor Davis supporting both the annexation agreement and approval of the conceptual site plan with conditions. Mr. Putens asked Mr. Rivera to reiterate the owner’s commitment, which he had stated earlier in the meeting, to sign the agreement and not petition the annexation. Mr. Rivera did as requested. When the vote was taken, the motion passed 3-1 (Roberts).

Mayor Pro Tem Roberts recessed the meeting for a short break prior to taking up the next item.

GREENBELT STATION – CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN: Citing the length of the agenda comments, Mayor Pro Tem Roberts asked Ethan Bindernagel, Community Planner, to give a brief summary instead. Mr. Bindernagel said that the developer had agreed to most of the conditions proposed by staff to be attached to the City’s approval of the conceptual site plan (CSP). He said staff wanted to bring the remaining “sticking points” to Council for direction tonight.

The number of units to be permitted. The developer had asked for an additional 39 condominium units to compensate for the loss of the townhouses with the dedication of the 3.7 acres. This would raise the unit cap from 983 to 1,022. Although the Advisory Planning Board found this request to be reasonable, staff recommended against changing it at the CSP stage in the absence of a specific proposal.

Neighborhood-Serving commercial: The development agreement between the City and the developer states a permissible range of 80,000-115,000 square feet gross floor area. The developer wished to change this range to 40,000-80,000. As in the instance above, staff recommended not making a change involving caps at the CSP stage in the absence of a specific proposal; rather, it might be considered at the detailed site plan (DSP) stage. Mr. Roberts questioned whether changing it at that point would be allowable or not.

Metro Access/Cherrywood roundabout: Although this is not technically required until the North Core phase of the project, staff would like to see it constructed as part of the South Core phase, since it is needed now and is an unfunded capital project.

Assumption by developer of conceptual design costs of civic building: Staff so recommends; the developer has objected.

Development district standards of the Greenbelt Area Sector Plan: As a way of condensing reference to other conditions, staff had said every DSP had to conform to these standards. The applicant has objected.

Trip capacity: The developer wishes to retain excess vehicle trip capacity that has resulted from the reduction in the total building program. Since this is a saleable commodity, staff’s position is that Council require the developer to honor its previous request to be consulted if a transfer of surplus trips is contemplated under the county’s surplus capacity road club provision.

Design and construction of South Core civic building: The staff condition says the planning must be underway by the time the 200th building permit is drawn. The developer has objected. The Advisory Planning Board recommended the City look at this again.

Although not part of the conditions, Mr. Bindernagel noted that Council has also stated concern regarding school capacity for Greenbelt West.

Mr. Herling expressed concern about making progress on an integrated transportation system to link Greenbelt West to the rest of the City.

Mr. Rivera said there were 10 items that needed more work to reach agreement. He said the level of detail being addressed was extraordinarily specific for a CSP. He suggested that rather than his having to go through the ten conditions tonight, they instead be made “considerations” of the DSP. Mr. Manzi said that, unlike conditions, considerations simply must be taken into account. He suggested another option would be a condition that the points of disagreement be resolved prior to action on the DSP. Ms. Craze objected to that, saying staff wanted the opportunity to argue the points to the Planning Board and District Council and had no intention of recommending that any of its conditions be removed from the approval tonight. Mr. Rivera therefore proceeded with his item-by-item response to the items raised.

The number of units to be permitted: Mr. Rivera noted that the City’s Advisory Planning Board had agreed with their request to increase the number of units due to the exchange of condominiums for townhouse.

Neighborhood-Serving commercial: Mr. Rivera made no allusion to wanting a change in the 115,000 square feet maximum that staff had mentioned, but he did say that they wanted to reduce the minimum from 80,000 to 40,000square feet (of gross floor area). He pointed out that Mr. Kapastin had concurred in discussion at a City Council work session that this was reasonable given the location of the site and market to be served. The reason for this request was to reduce the commercial floor area in order to balance the increased number of vehicle trips to be created if the number of residential units is raised.

Metro Access Drive roundabout: He said that although the City might like to have it for operational reasons, from a standpoint of traffic or adequate public facilities, there is no justification for constructing the roundabout in the South Core phase of the project.

Connections with Metrorail platform: The developer wants the tipping point to be the 600th, not the 400th, permit drawn.

Visibility of College Park overpass from connector road: Mr. Rivera said this requirement is too narrowly defined at this stage, given the wide range of possibilities for how it might be constructed. He said there are too many unknowns. They requested a change to say that it should be “visible or otherwise deemed safe.” Ms. Craze objected to the vagueness of the language. It was agreed to add language to say further review of the safety aspect shall be undertaken at DSP.

Pedestrian connections: Although, given the configuration of the site, the developer was concerned about the ultimate feasibility of making all these connections, Mr. Rivera agreed to leave that evaluation to the DSP stage.

Development district standards of the Greenbelt Area Sector Plan: Regarding the condensing of other conditions into one via this condition, he said this project is specifically exempt from the Sector Plan. He said these provisions are too detailed and they do not wish to be tied to conforming to them 100% since they will affect marketability. He suggested saying the DSPs “shall generally conform” to the standards. Mr. Bindernagel said there is flexibility in the language to allow changes where requirements might not make sense. Mr. Rivera replied that if this flexibility is there, he might concur, but he would like to have it pointed out, since he could not find it.

Conceptual design of civic building: Mr. Rivera said they want to delete “by the applicant, at the applicant’s cost.” He said they thought this should be done by the public agency to its own specifications. He said they made no commitment to building a building there but had earmarked $2 million to be put toward it. Mr. Roberts asked how the building would be funded if its costs exceeded the $2 million. Ms. Craze said the building would be programmed to whatever funds were budgeted for it and that staff recommended no change.

Connection of tree pits in DSPs: Mr. Rivera asked to add the words “to the degree possible,” since continuous non-compacted soil volume can cause deterioration. Ms. Craze said this had not been brought up previously and should be deferred.

Ms. Craze said staff did not intend to substantively change its conditions but could continue to work on language. With this understanding, it was moved by Mr. Herling and seconded by Ms. Mach that Council support the revised Conceptual Site Plan for Greenbelt Station, with conditions as provided for in the document titled, “Conceptual Site Plan for Greenbelt Station, Staff Conditions” (rev. 1/20/2006, 2 p.m.), further conditioned upon agreement in writing by the applicant to the City’s conditions. The motion passed 3-1 (Roberts). Mayor Pro Tem Roberts said he did not think the plan met Greenbelt standards.

POST OFFICE IN ROOSEVELT CENTER: Mayor Pro Tem Roberts said he added this item to the agenda because the new post office is on the verge of opening, and it appears that the old one will then be closing. He asked what the City would do. Mr. McLaughlin said a letter had gone out to Congressman Hoyer. Mayor Pro Tem Roberts asked if we had requested a meeting with the Postal Service. Mr. Putens agreed that the City should still attempt to hold this meeting, given how much the City had done for the Postal Service. He moved that the meeting be pursued and that Congressman Hoyer be invited. Mr. Herling seconded and asked that the Roosevelt Center merchants be invited, too. The motion carried 4-0.

MEETINGS: Council reviewed the meeting schedule.

ADJOURNMENT: A motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Ms. Mach and seconded by Mr. Herling. The motion carried 4-0. The Mayor Pro Tem adjourned the regular meeting of January 23, 2006, at 12:48 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Kathleen Gallagher
City Clerk

"I hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct report of the regular meeting of the City Council of Greenbelt, Maryland, held January 23, 2006.@

Rodney M. Roberts
Mayor Pro Tem

City of Greenbelt, Maryland
City Offices, 25 Crescent Road, Greenbelt, MD 20770
Phone: 301-474-8000 FAX: 301-441-8248