Okay, okay, let me do this. The Prince George's County Planning Board is now in session. Again,
we had a morning session and that was to do the agenda that would have been held on March
19th, but we completed that agenda now, so we are now commencing with the March 26, 2020
agenda. And I'm going to do roll call pursuant to our legal council. I know the IT folks just
checked, but just for the sake of the public. Madam Vice-Chair, here. Okay, Commissioner Washington.
Present. Commissioner Giroldo. Present. Commissioner Giorno. Yes, I'm here. Okay, thank you. So before we
commence, again, we want to thank everyone for your involvement and for your patience and for your
creativity and for your ingenuity as we navigate this process together. We're able to move the
business of the county forward in an innovative way while still keeping everyone safe and practicing
safe distancing. So thank you so very much. I'm going to ask for a motion to approve the draft
minutes of the planning board meeting of February 27, 2020. So move. That was Commissioner Giroldo.
Commissioner Giroldo. Commissioner Washington, second. Thank you. All in favor, Madam Vice-Chair?
Yeah. Okay. Commissioner Garner. Yes. Commissioner Washington. Yes. Commissioner Giroldo.
Yes. The ayes have it. Thank you. Five zero. We then have the consent agenda. Is there anyone to
oppose the staff's recommendations on items 4b or 4c, which are the plan board resolutions
20-31 for a specific design plan 1202-07 for Cantor Creek, Pays 3 and 4. Also the zoning item
Prince George's County Planning Board number 2020-30 for departure from sign design standards 696
for Collin Book at Rodenhauser. Is there any, is there a motion? The ayes move for civil
all items on the consent agenda. Thank you. Commissioner Washington, second. All in favor,
indicate by saying aye. Vice-Chair? Vice-Chair. Aye. Okay. Commissioner Washington. Aye.
Commissioner Garner. Aye. Commissioner Giroldo. Aye. Thank you. We are going to proceed down
our agenda in this order. We have companion cases, detailed site plan 0403101 for easy
storage capital heights, departure from parking and loading spaces. There's a companion with that
for easy storage capital heights, followed by conceptual site plan CSP19009 for 5600 Agar Road.
And the other one is a detailed site plan, which will be heard after the conceptual site plan
for DSP190535600 Agar Road. Okay. So with that, I'm going to turn to, we're going to proceed
with detailed site plan and departure from parking and loading spaces for easy storage
and capital heights. And that would be Mr. Burke. Yes. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Everyone
can hear me clearly. Yes. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the planning board
for the record, I'm Thomas Burke with the urban design section. Project Before You is listed on
the agenda as detailed site plan DSP0413101 for easy storage capital heights, which includes
type 2 tree conservation plan, TCP2-087-04-01, and the departure from parking and loading
standards, DPLS465. Oh, I'm sorry. You know what? I'm sorry. Let me, I'm so sorry. Before you
finish, Mr. Burke, let me make sure I do a roll call for this case. So I obviously have you,
Mr. Burke. I have Jill Kosak. Yes. Okay. The attorney for the applicant, Brad Ferrar.
You present? I was looking at you, so I know you're here.
We told him to mute his phone, so he probably needs to unmute. Okay. I mute your phone,
Mr. Ferrar, just to let us know that you're here. We were doing a roll call.
Okay. There you are. We're looking at you. We see you.
And his phone is unmuted. There he is. Mr. Ferrar? Can you hear me? Yes. We just want,
we're just doing a roll call to make sure that everyone who has signed up for this case
is actually present. Okay. So we're good there. Okay. And Glen Burton?
Madam Chair, I'm here. I suspect there are others in transportation
that are here also for this case. Okay. Who might that be? Tom Mason?
Brian Barnett Woods? Hi. Good afternoon. This is Brian Barnett Woods. A
Crystal Hancock is online. She is reviewing this case for transportation and is here.
Okay. Thank you, Crystal Hancock. Okay. And Tom Mason is here. Okay. Thank you so much.
And is it Chuck Schneider or Megan Reiser who's here for environmental?
Megan Reiser for environmental planning. Okay. This is not up to date. Okay. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you so much. Okay. Mr. Burke, I'm sorry, but you can continue. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The applicant is seeking approval of a detailed site plan
to develop the site with a 50,000 square foot addition to the existing and solidated
storage facility. Staff recommend that the board incorporate the record from these two cases.
They will indeed be incorporated. Thank you. Thank you. So next slide, please.
The site is located in the central part of Prince George's County in planning area 75A
and Council District 6. Next slide, please. More specifically, the site is located
on the east side of Richie Road and Capitol Heights. Next slide, please.
The subject property is zone I1. Consolidated storage facilities are permitted in the I1 zone
but have specific requirements addressed in the findings starting on page 5 of the staff report.
The site is contiguous to other I1 zone and developed properties to the north, south, east,
and west across Richie Road. May I ask all of you who are not presenting now to mute your phones?
Thank you. Thank you. Next slide, please.
The site is also located inside the military installation overlay zone for height in the
north end area V, which this proposal remains well below the maximum height. Next slide, please.
This aerial photo illustrates the current conditions of the property.
The existing building was constructed at a 135,780 square foot easy storage facility
in 2004, pursuant to a detailed site plan, also shown under the surrounding industrial and commercial
uses. Next slide, please. The site is relatively flat, sloping slightly toward the southwest.
There are no regulated environmental features located on or near this property. Next slide,
please. The site access is from Richie Road, a master plan on a curable road. Next slide, please.
This bird's eye view shows the existing conditions on the site and the surrounding uses.
Next slide, please.
This 3.9 acre site is developed with a single three-story 135,780 square foot
building with a total of 1,020 consolidated storage units. The applicant is seeking approval of a
50,000 square foot addition in the rear, which will contain 430 additional units,
shown in the shaded area on the visible plan. The site has a single access point
from Richie Road, which leads to the parking for the office, for customers, and for the
resident manager. As part of the proposal, the applicant is seeking a departure from the
parking loading standards to allow a reduction of one parking space and two loading spaces.
The applicant has redesigned the existing parking layout to incorporate compact spaces,
and the statement of justification indicates that these facilities typically have a lower
parking turnover and are not typically fully utilized with same-time business.
Staff recommends approval of this request based on the findings found starting on page
7 of the staff report. The applicant provided schedules with a landscape plan, demonstrating
that all landscaping is all landscaping as proposed shall be maintained in accordance
with the landscape manual. Existing landscaping to be removed for this project will be
replaced in kind. Next slide, please.
The proposed building will be three stories following the design, roofline, and color scheme
of the existing building, with only a change in materials from the existing concrete masonry
on the existing section to metal panels and exterior insulated finishing systems,
otherwise known as EPIS, for the parapet on the addition.
The existing signage on the site will remain the same for the building and the pre-stand
signs. The European design section recommends that the planning board adopt the findings of
this report and approve detailed site plan DSP04013-01, TCP2-087-04-01,
and DPLS-465 for a reduction of one parking space and two loading spaces from the 35 parking spaces
and seven loading spaces required for easy storage capital heights subject to the conditions
contained in the staff report dated March 10, 2020. This concludes staff's presentation. Thank you.
Thank you. Let me see if there are any questions of Mr. Burke. Madam Vice Chair.
I don't have a question regarding his report, but I do have a question in the
backup. There was some information about a bike lane, and that I knew had to do with
DPW. But when communities notify that there is a bike lane coming, and how does that all happen?
Because it is in one of the older communities, and those of us in the older communities
are not accustomed to bike lanes. So I'm wondering how do we notify the public that that's
something that's going to happen? Mr. Burke? This is Tom Burke with the European Design
Section. I'll refer to the transportation planning section to answer those questions.
I can wait on it, of course, but I'm just curious about that.
As someone from transportation, I know we have Crystal Hancock on the line for that. If
she can address, or perhaps if Mr. Ferrar can address.
Hi. Good afternoon. This is Brian Burnett with the Transportation Planning Section.
So when bike lanes come in, traditionally what happens is the Department of Public Works and
Transportation or the State Highway Administration in the event that the state wrote would end
up doing either a repaving project or a capital improvement project, and then they would
install the bike lane as part of that project. In many cases, if there are changes to the roadway
as part of their process, they would do a notification outreach. For this site,
there is a bike lane that is recommended along the road. However, because of the limited,
I guess, width that the frontage has, a bike lane that only went for a few hundred feet
wouldn't really have the value of a bicycle facility for people biking along the road.
So at this time, we recommend that the applicant provide the bikeway signage fee that would say
share the road for a bike, or share the roads with the bicyclists, and that could be put up.
And they do that by providing the fee to the public parks that work in transportation
who installs a sign on their own. And then at a later time, when this road is either
repaved or there's a capital improvement project, they could strike that bike.
We're basically talking about signage now. At the moment, yes. Okay, okay, that's good.
Thank you. Commissioner Washington, any questions?
None here, Madam Chair. Commissioner Gerardo?
No questions, Madam Chair. Commissioner Dauner?
No, no. Okay. So now we will turn to Council. Mr. Ferrar.
Thank you, Madam Chair and other members of the Board. I want to begin by thanking you all for
having this meeting virtually. And thank you for your innovation and flexibility in doing this
in these times in which we live.
And for the record, your name is?
And I apologize. For the record, Your Honor, for the record, Madam Chair, my name is Brad
Ferrar.
I'm going to turn you with the law offices of Shipland Horn and Largo Mara. And with me
virtually in today is representing Capitol Heights LLLP. We have Craig Fittinger, who's
with E.D. Sorge, John Bondi, who is the engineer of the project, with Bica Engineering, and
John Ferante, who is a land planner who's also with Shipland Horn. We worked with staff
for the past several months to have a plan that we all thought would help to move this project
forward and give us a project that we think that should help the county continues
to grow and provide the type of amenity in terms of some storage that benefits the community.
And so we've reviewed the plans that staff has put forward, their recommendations.
We are in agreement with their recommendations and we would move, we would ask respectfully
to ask the planning board to adopt their recommendations and approve the project.
With that being said, I don't have any further questions or any further comments
and I stand open to answering questions. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ferrar. Thank you,
Mr. Ferrar. I'm going to turn to our board to see if they have any questions for you, okay?
Madam Vice Chair? No questions. Commissioner Washington? No questions. Commissioner Dorner?
No. Commissioner Gerardo?
For questions. Okay. That completes the sign-up sheet. There's no one else signed up on this case.
Is there a motion? Madam Chair, this is Commissioner Washington and I move that we
adopt the binding to staff and approve DSP-04013-01 and TCP2-087-04-01, along with the associated
conditions as outlined in staff's report in addition to approving DPLS-465.
We have a motion and Vice Chair Bailey seconded. Okay, is Commissioner Washington?
Yes. Vice Chair Bailey?
Yes. Mr. Dorner? Yes. Mr. Gerardo? Yes. The ayes have it, 5-0. Thank you so very much.
Okay, we're moving on to the next case. Coming down the home stretch.
The next items are 5600 Agar Road. They are two separate cases that are combined
in one staff report but will require two separate motions. Okay, this first is
conceptual site plan CSP-19009 and the second is detailed site plan 19053 both for 5600 Agar
Road. I'm going to do a roll call. Adam Bossi? Present. Ms. Kozak? Present. Okay, Chris Hatcher?
Representing the applicant? Present. I have community planning staff, Karen Nero and David
Green. Are you present? I had them listed here. I also have Kate Powers from Hydeville.
Thank you. And Mr. Hatcher? There's feedback. There's an echo.
So if you're not speaking, please turn your mic off. And then Mr. Hatcher, I have
Ryan McCallister, Kevin Mack and Paul Nichols all from Dewberry Engineering. I presume they're here
if there are any questions? If there are any. Yes, my manager. Okay, thank you. Mr. Bossi,
it may proceed. And I should say we have our own counsel, Mr. David Warner,
principal counsel on the phone and perhaps I think we have Deborah Board and our deputy
general counsel on the phone as well. And we have our acting planning director here,
Mr. Derek Berlage. Okay, thank you. Well, thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Good afternoon,
members of the board. For the record, I am Adam Bossi with the Urban Design Section.
As you previously mentioned, this presentation will simultaneously review two cases,
which are item number seven, the conceptual site plan for CSP 1-9009 and item eight,
the detailed site plan for DSP 1-9053. The request that's made in both applications
is to change the list of allowed uses for the subject property. Next slide, please.
So, this subject site is located in Planning Area 68, Council District 2,
and is within the municipal limits of the City of Hyatt'sville. Next slide, please.
Subject property outlined in red is in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of
Ager Road and Jamestown Road, which is also the entrance to the metro station bus loop. The
entrance to the metro station is about 900 feet southwest of this site. Next slide, please.
As you're going on the zoning map, the subject site is Zoned Mixed Use Transportation,
that is the MXT zone. Next slide. The site and surrounding area are within the
West Hyatt'sville Transit District overlay zone. Within the zone, development is required to
be supportive of transit-oriented uses and not focus on auto-centric uses. The Transit District
Development Plan further defines the site is located within the Townhouse 2-4 story preferred
land use category. The applicants filing of CSP and DSP at this time is required by the
Administration and Applicability section of the Transit District Development Plan,
as the uses being requested do not conform with the allowed uses of the Townhouse 2-4
story land use category. Next slide, please.
The area limit shows that the site is located adjacent to the bus drop-off loop for the metro
station and is otherwise abundant by naked land that is proposed for future mixed use
development in the development that's known as Riverfront at the West Hyatt'sville
Metro Station. Next slide, please.
Site map shows topography in the area and on the site is relatively flat. Next slide.
Agar Road, which invites the property to the east, is classified as an arterial roadway.
Next slide, please.
As the bird's eye view shows, there is a single existing 1,134 square foot building on the site.
Metro railcars that are shown in this image are actually no longer there.
The remainder of the site outside of the building is paved. There are no trees,
landscaping, or other major features present. The property was originally developed in the
late 1950s at a gas station and repair shop and that use continued through 1998. Next slide, please.
The CSP and the DSP are not proposing any physical development of the site at this time,
so the site plan does show existing conditions. The building itself was converted to a grocery
store in 2000, which operated into 2010. In 2006, the TDDP and TDOZ for West Hyatt'sville
was approved and placed the property in its present land use category, which actually
largely prohibits commercial uses. The grocery store used ceased in 2010 for a period of
approximately 16 months and the commercial use of the site was then considered non-conforming.
Several commercial operations attempted to operate at the site post-2010,
but were denied permits as the site no longer supported the commercial uses.
The current proposal is to provide for nine additional commercial uses on the site.
Next slide, please.
So as shown on the left, highlighted in blue, the only existing allowed commercial use is for
seasonal decoration displays and the applicant has proposed a total of nine additional commercial
uses as outlined on the slide here. So those consist of eating and drinking establishments,
food of average store, hair salon, barbershop, hardware store, etc. Again, as written on the
slide, any future, I'm sorry, staff supports these uses as they are not automobile dependent
as required by the TDOZ and staff has recommended a series of conditions of approval to ensure
future uses of the site follow this requirement. Any future physical development on the site
may require a new detailed site plan to be reviewed. Staff is conferred with the applicant in
City of Hyattville and all parties are in agreement with the findings and recommendations provided
in the technical staff report. With that, staff recommends approval of both CSP 19009
and DSP 19053 with conditions recommended in the technical staff report. As the chairman noted
at the start of the meeting, please note that board you will need to make separate
motions and votes on each application. That concludes staff's presentation.
Thank you, Mr. Basi. Let me see if any of the board members have questions. Madam Vice Chair?
I was just having Chair try to make sure that we have responded to all of the items
in the letter from the mayor of Hyattville. Yeah, we're going to we have a representative
from Hyattville who's going to speak shortly. Okay, thank you. Commissioner Washington?
No questions, Madam Chair. Commissioner Garner? No, no questions. I think Commissioner Bailey
that we actually we have there's just two things that they suggested that we're doing
slightly different. Okay. Commissioner Gerardo? Madam Chair, I have no questions. Okay,
thank you. So let's start off with a Council for the Applicants. Mr. Hatcher,
please identify yourself first for the record. For the record, my name is Chris Hatcher with the
Law Firm of Lurcher and Bird here on behalf of the applicant. I would first like to
echo the sentiments of my colleagues in the Wendy's Bar. I think it's extremely impressive
what the planning board and the staff have been able to do. I think you guys deserve a lot
of appreciation and accolades for it. I'd also like to thank the City of Hyattville for working
with the applicant on this particular site and sort of expanding the table of uses so that
this site could be used at least in the short term as the area continues to redevelop with that.
The applicant has reviewed the staff report and can end with respect for your requests
at the planning board. I recommend the approval of the conclusions of law and the findings of fact
associated with CSP19009 and ESP19053 and the applicant is prepared to respond to any questions
that you may have. Thank you, Mr. Hatcher. Are there any questions for Mr. Hatcher at this
time from the board? Madam Vice Chair? No. Okay, Commissioner Washington? No, Madam Chair.
Commissioner Gerardo? I have one. Commissioner DeWarner? No. Okay, so let me now turn to
the City of Hyattville. Kate Powers? Hi, yes. Good afternoon, Chairman and members of the
Planning Board. Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Kate Powers. I am the City Planner for
the City of Hyattville and today I'm representing the City regarding both the conceptual site plan
as well as the detailed site plan for 5600 Ager Road. The City is in support of the findings
and recommendations within the park and planning staff report. In addition, the City really appreciates
the park and planning staff addition of specific limitations to the permitted uses,
in particular the elimination of automobile-dependent uses, drive-through services,
as well as cash-in businesses. So, on behalf of the City, I think the Planning Board in advance
for your consideration of our comments. Thank you so much, Ms. Powers. I appreciate it.
I don't know that there are any questions for you from our board members. If so,
someone please indicate. If not, I'll proceed. Madam Chair, I'm sorry, it jilted back here.
I'm sorry to interrupt for the record. I've just synchronized what I hear is maybe to be a
mistake in the staff report. In the slides, it is listed as a hardware, dry goods, or
clothing store. But in the staff report, both under the CSP recommendation and the CSP recommendation,
it just listed as a hardware store. I just wanted to clarify with maybe Mr. Glossy and Mr. Hatcher
that if that should be revised to say hardware, dry goods, or
Retail. Door. Clothing, yeah. Clothing, yeah. Clothing, yeah, sorry. Clothing, yeah, sorry.
Chris Hatcher for the applicant. It should be updated to reflect the uses that Jill referenced,
Ms. Kosak referenced, which I believe is also listed on the table of use as well.
Yes, and it's set forth on page 5 of the technical staff report and with explanation.
Thank you. I'm sorry, Madam Chair. This is Commission of Washington. I'm getting play back.
So I'm not clear about the corrections that are being stated.
Can you turn to page 5 on your staff report? Yes, I'm there.
Okay, so if you look at the bullets that are set forth in the middle of the page,
which is made for the fifth bullet down, it should say part of where you're holding a five-glued drink in here.
Yes. It's in the condition. Yes.
Thank you.
There's actually a bunch of it.
The table at the bottom that are fine.
Okay. All right. Can we hold on a second?
Mr. Berlage has to add a comment. I'm sorry.
So this is Derek Berlage acting deputy planning director.
The list of uses on page 5 of the technical staff report and the list of uses in condition 1D of the technical staff report.
There are actually a number of minor inconsistencies for many of them,
but it is important that we be clear which is the list that staff is recommending.
Clearly, the list of uses as it's stated currently in the recommendation section is what would control,
but we should really clean that up if we can.
Mr. Bossy, can you help us with that?
Yes, sir. Thank you.
You know, I believe you are correct.
The staff report is written.
The findings that are presented are frankly just more detailed than the uses that are outlined in the recommendation section.
But I believe Ms. Kozak and yourself are correct that we should be looking to update those recommendations
and revise those recommendations, excuse me, in both the CSP and DSP staff report to probably read verbatim as they are in the findings
so that things are completely clear.
So it's staff record?
So again, this is Commissioner Washington.
So the definitions as outlined on page 5 are what is controlling?
Would that be accurate?
It should control.
Is that accurate, Mr. Bossy?
Yes, ma'am.
And I believe Mr. Hatcher and Ms. Kozak would also think of that.
So I would make a suggestion then that essentially the motion should include a clear statement that the uses listed in condition 1D
will be replaced with the specific exact language that's on page 5 of the staff report
rather than the language that's currently in condition 1D because of those minor discrepancies.
And everyone, it's the applicant and staff.
That's why we're asking, right?
Okay, perfect.
I guess we're going to go with the use of controlling language.
Okay, perfect.
So, okay, so you heard him then, correct?
That we'll go with what's on page 5.
And then we'll take a closer look at the resolution to it, okay?
Okay.
Is there a motion?
Madam Chair, this is Commissioner Washington.
I move that we adopt the findings of staff and recommend to the district council approval of CSP-19009
along with the conditions as outlined in staff's report
and further augmenting the conditional 1D
to ensure that the permitted uses are detailed to be consistent
with the finding on page 5 of the staff technical report.
Commissioner Gerardo first, second.
Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Washington, seconded by Commissioner Gerardo
for approval of the conceptual site plan 19009.
Is there any discussion?
I'll do a roll call.
Madam Vice Chair?
I'll roll a call.
Okay.
Yeah.
Okay.
Commissioner Washington?
Yes.
Commissioner Gerardo?
Yes, Madam Chair.
Commissioner Doherner?
Yes.
Okay, the ayes have it, 5-0, and then we need a similar motion for detail site plan 19053.
Madam Chair, this is Commissioner Washington
and I move that we adopt the findings of staff's report
and recommend approval to the district council or DSP-19053
along with the associated conditions as outlined in staff's report.
Further to reflect condition 1D, D is endowment,
D consistent with the finding as outlined on page 5 of the staff technical report.
Commissioner Gerardo?
Okay, so we had two seconds.
Good one.
I think Commissioner Gerardo seconded first.
Okay, I will do the vote.
Madam Vice Chair?
I vote aye.
Commissioner Washington?
Aye.
Commissioner Doherner?
Aye.
Commissioner Gerardo?
Aye.
The ayes have it.
Okay, so let me just say this.
This brings us to the end of our plan and board session for today
and for last week as well, which was added today.
I need to take a moment to commend everyone for your patience,
for your resilience, for your flexibility in working with us
as we try to propel Prince George's County forward
to not try to stop business yet while keeping everyone safe,
practicing safe distancing and letting our public,
our attorneys, our parking planning team,
and everyone know that we care and we are concerned about their safety.
This was a good way to do this while balancing the above.
So I just want to take a moment to say a huge thank you to everyone,
to our planning staff in particular,
to our IT folks who work with us, challenged people here.
So thank you so very, very much.
And then my final question of the day,
I don't know if Mr. Hunt is on or not,
but if Mr. Hunt is not, is Mr. Hunt on?
Yes, ma'am, I'm here.
Okay, Mr. Hunt, I'm here with the gavel.
Is there any additional business to come before planning board two-day?
We're live from Acton-Keith, Maryland.
We've done the pilot before, the planning board is two-day.
Then thank you so much, everyone.
Stay safe, we care, be healthy.
Planning board is adjourned.
Who needs this?
The phrase is, okay, we're signing off,
and we're signing off in here, and...
From you?