WORK SESSION OF THE GREENBELT CITY COUNCIL held Wednesday, January 18, 2006, for the purpose of receiving an update regarding the status of the conceptual site plan and annexation agreement for Greenbelt Station.

Mayor Davis called the meeting to order at 8:10 p.m. It was held in the Multipurpose Room of the Community Center.

PRESENT WERE: Councilmembers Konrad Herling, Leta M. Mach and Rodney M. Roberts and Mayor Judith F. Davis. Councilmember Edward Putens arrived later.

STAFF PRESENT WERE: Michael P. McLaughlin, City Manager; Celia W. Craze, Director, Planning and Community Development; David E. Moran, Assistant City Manager; and Kathleen Gallagher, City Clerk. Terri Hruby, Assistant Director, Planning, came in later in the evening, following an Advisory Planning Board meeting.

ALSO PRESENT WERE: Norman Rivera, Jim Brennan, Ben Burroughs, Sandi Gallagher, Metropark; Kap Kapastin, Beltway Plaza; and James Giese, Greenbelt News Review. Resident Bill Orleans came in later in the evening, following an Advisory Planning Board meeting.

Regarding the timing of this meeting, Mr. McLaughlin said that although both items were still being negotiated at the staff level, the conceptual site plan (CSP) and the annexation agreement were on the City Council’s January 23 agenda for action. The CSP was still on the county Planning Board’s January 26 agenda. Ms. Craze noted that the effective date for the annexation was also January 26, unless a petition were to be submitted.

Conceptual Site Plan

Ms. Craze said the CSP was much improved over the prior version and that Council would find that many of its concerns had been addressed. She said staff had attached about 59 conditions of approval to the plan, with which Metropark was for the most part in agreement. She said she wanted to discuss with Council some of those on which there continued to be differences.

Ms. Craze said a major improvement in the plan was the extension of the “civic area” to 3.7 acres and the opening of the west end of the property by the elimination of a row of townhouses. The street design for the surrounding area was also reconfigured to be more grid-like. The plan includes 340 units on the east side of the connector road, some of which might be residences over retail. Mayor Davis asked about increased density. Ms. Craze responded that the removal of townhouses to open the west end of the civic area had necessitated placing those units on the opposite side of the space. Since townhouses were being replaced with condominium apartments, more units were required to make up the lost value of the townhouses. The result was a request to increase the unit cap on the South Core from 983 to 1,022. Mayor Davis clarified that this was a total and included the 340 units on the east side of the connector road.

Ms. Craze said another point of disagreement was that the development agreement caps commercial at 115,000 sq. ft. but contains no floor. Staff recommends a floor of 80,000 sq. ft. on the belief that anything less is not really mixed-use in proportion to the residential. She said the staff recommendation is to hold to the 983 residential unit cap and establish the 80,000 sq. ft. floor for commercial, with any consideration of increasing either limit to be based only upon the proposal of a specific plan. The Mayor asked why the developer wanted to decrease the commercial space. Sandi Gallagher said it was largely the result of decreasing the size of the grocery store. Ms. Craze added that this was not inconsistent with Roosevelt Center, where the Coop is less than 20,000 sq. ft. Mr. Rivera added that what was being looked at was only a conceptual site plan and that the trip cap would put a limit on what retail could be sustained.

Ms. Mach commented that some of the recent concern about inadequate school capacity might have been avoided had the developer stuck with the earlier plan to have a significant amount of senior housing. Mr. Rivera replied that developers simply do not see a market for this type of senior housing right now. He said people want freestanding gated communities with golf courses and other adult amenities—a type of development that could not be created in this space. Mayor Davis encouraged the inclusion of some senior adaptations in some of the units. Councilmembers agreed with her that not everyone wanted—or could afford—Riderwood.

Mr. Roberts said he continued to believe that the benefits of the project to the City were overestimated. He said he thought the developer’s profit level would be high enough to absorb the difference between the value of the townhouses and replacement condominiums without increasing the number of units.

Mr. Putens said he wanted to see a higher commercial-to-residential balance.

Regarding the substation, Ms. Craze said the location had not yet been determined. She clarified that the purpose of the funding for six additional police officers was to permit establishing the positions before having the full revenue stream that would eventually support them. Mr. Herling asked how the number of needed officers was determined. Ms. Craze said it was evaluated by the Police Department based on the population, just as in other parts of the City.

The Mayor said a major concern was that Council had just recently learned that the plan for the new elementary and middle schools did not include the projections for Greenbelt Station. She asked whether, if the School Board offered to buy a parcel, it could be located in the South Core. Mr. Rivera said he could not say at this point and that they would have to take their direction from the School Board and the County Council. Mayor Davis said the plan was to hold a meeting to include all the stakeholders in the issue.

Regarding the enlarged civic space, Councilmembers were for the most part very positive, noting its potential for spontaneous play and pick-up games. Mr. Roberts maintained the space was too small to play ball games. Mr. Herling disagreed and clarifying with Ms. Craze that it was more than twice the size of the open space in front of the Community Center.

Mr. Kapastin said he would be pleased to attend a meeting to discuss the school situation. Regarding the retail in the South Core, he said he hoped it would not be too extensive so that residents would be motivated to come over to Beltway Plaza as well. He said that to that end, Beltway Plaza would consider participating in the tram system. He further noted that since the retail area would not have high visibility from the major roads, it probably could not afford to be too extensive. Mr. Putens suggested additional office space might be warranted, if not retail.

Ms. Craze said trip caps were another issue. She said they are a commodity that can be sold by the developer and that the trips attach to the land. She said there was not necessarily any way the City could control this but that she wanted Council to be aware of it. Mr. Rivera said the trips were supposed to be tracked by Park and Planning. In response to a question from Mr. Herling, Ms. Craze elaborated on the ways the trip cap could be reduced by methods to reduce demand or by providing other systems of transportation. Mr. McLaughlin suggested that for the time being the City should be silent on this topic. Mr. Putens said he thought the City should be a partner in any eventual decision.

Ms. Craze said one other difference in opinion she wanted to mention was the timing of the improvements to Metro Access Drive and Cherrywood Lane. Although the developer would prefer to fund this with the North Core, staff recommends doing it with the South Core, since it is already needed.

South Core Annexation Agreement

Ms. Craze gave a brief history of the request for the Tax Increment Financing (TIF). She said a range from $7.2 to $10.3 million had been discussed, with the roadway at $8.4 million having been selected as the best recommendation because it was a project that would be within the City’s area of authority and lie entirely within the City limits after the annexation. She described the three phases of development of the north-south connector road, noting that this phasing had already been agreed upon. She pointed out that the City’s maximum cost for principal is limited to the $8.4 million. She later clarified that there are other costs in addition to the $8.4 million, including certain fees and administrative costs.

Ms. Craze said there is disagreement in two areas: the sources of payment and what exactly qualifies for funding under the TIF. Regarding the first area, she said the developer objects to the City retaining the right to use any method for repayment of the interest: specifically, the developer believes that if the City has the right to impose a special taxing district (STD), it could impact marketability. She said the City’s financial advisor, Sam Ketterman, had indicated it was standard practice to use an STD as a back-up plan if anticipated revenues were not realized in a given year. She said it was staff’s recommendation that Council should not relinquish its authority to do this. Regarding the second area, she said there were issues on parts of the road that include reclamation work and that the developer thought this should be reimbursable. Staff also recommended against that.

Mayor Davis said she would prefer to keep the STD option as a back-up rather than risk difficulties later.

Mr. Roberts stated his continued opposition to the road project, saying he saw no justification for why the City should pay for it.

Mayor Davis said she wanted to correct the misapprehension of some residents that this financing would be a drain on the City’s budget. Mr. McLaughlin explained that the TIF would be more than paid for by new revenues generated by the development and that if an STD were needed, it would fall only on the new area, not on residents of other parts of the City. Mr. Roberts said it would still be the case that the City would be spending $8.4 million that it would not get back at the end of the day. Ms. Craze said that was true, but if the annexation did not take place, the City would not have the $8.4 million or the anticipated revenues over and above that amount either. Mr. Giese suggested specific clarification on two questions: whether the TIF was supported by the full faith and credit of the City, like general obligation bonds, and whether the debt limitations in the City Charter would be affected. The answer to both questions was “no.”

Mr. Burroughs said the reason Metropark objected to any possible imposition of an STD was that the City would be taxing the residents of this area twice. The Mayor replied that it would not be used unless absolutely necessary. Mr. Burroughs asked if the City could keep a reserve of excess revenues if they occurred in some years, in order to offset a deficit in other years rather than imposing an STD. Mr. McLaughlin said that would require discussion but that the City would certainly take the idea under advisement.

Mr. Putens said he also wanted to state again that the City has used other methods of public financing in the past with great success and that this idea was not new.

The Mayor and Councilmembers Herling, Mach, and Putens all agreed with the staff position on retaining the STD authority and on not reimbursing the developer for reclamation work done previously in the roadway.

Mayor Davis said she would be out of town for the January 23 meeting but would send comments on these items that she would like to have read.

Other Business

Mr. Kapastin provided an update on the remaining “8” AMC Theaters, which will close with the expiration of the least on April 30. He said Beltway Plaza might keep them open under its own management and was debating the justification for the investment.

It was agreed that Council would read Mr. McLaughlin’s quarterly report and forward questions if need be. The pre-budget briefing will be held on Tuesday, January 31.

Mr. McLaughlin asked for agenda items for the stakeholder meeting on February 8 with Charlie Watkins of the State Highway Administration. The Mayor also asked him to look into whether there was a function planned for Mr. Watkins’ retirement that the City could participate in.

Mayor Davis also said there was concern about the absence of municipalities’ names on the Prince George’s County’s Livable Communities signs.

Mr. Putens asked if the state legislature was going to look into the issue of gas prices in the state and whether this was included in the City’s legislative book.

Following several other informational announcements, the meeting was adjourned at 11:25 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Kathleen Gallagher
City Clerk

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