[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:00] Okay, okay, let me do this. The Prince George's County Planning Board is now in session. Again,
[0:18] we had a morning session and that was to do the agenda that would have been held on March
[0:24] 19th, but we completed that agenda now, so we are now commencing with the March 26, 2020
[0:31] agenda. And I'm going to do roll call pursuant to our legal council. I know the IT folks just
[0:39] checked, but just for the sake of the public. Madam Vice-Chair, here. Okay, Commissioner Washington.
[0:49] Present. Commissioner Giroldo. Present. Commissioner Giorno. Yes, I'm here. Okay, thank you. So before we
[1:01] commence, again, we want to thank everyone for your involvement and for your patience and for your
[1:06] creativity and for your ingenuity as we navigate this process together. We're able to move the
[1:13] business of the county forward in an innovative way while still keeping everyone safe and practicing
[1:19] safe distancing. So thank you so very much. I'm going to ask for a motion to approve the draft
[1:24] minutes of the planning board meeting of February 27, 2020. So move. That was Commissioner Giroldo.
[1:32] Commissioner Giroldo. Commissioner Washington, second. Thank you. All in favor, Madam Vice-Chair?
[1:39] Yeah. Okay. Commissioner Garner. Yes. Commissioner Washington. Yes. Commissioner Giroldo.
[1:50] Yes. The ayes have it. Thank you. Five zero. We then have the consent agenda. Is there anyone to
[1:57] oppose the staff's recommendations on items 4b or 4c, which are the plan board resolutions
[2:04] 20-31 for a specific design plan 1202-07 for Cantor Creek, Pays 3 and 4. Also the zoning item
[2:14] Prince George's County Planning Board number 2020-30 for departure from sign design standards 696
[2:19] for Collin Book at Rodenhauser. Is there any, is there a motion? The ayes move for civil
[2:27] all items on the consent agenda. Thank you. Commissioner Washington, second. All in favor,
[2:34] indicate by saying aye. Vice-Chair? Vice-Chair. Aye. Okay. Commissioner Washington. Aye.
[2:42] Commissioner Garner. Aye. Commissioner Giroldo. Aye. Thank you. We are going to proceed down
[2:49] our agenda in this order. We have companion cases, detailed site plan 0403101 for easy
[2:59] storage capital heights, departure from parking and loading spaces. There's a companion with that
[3:04] for easy storage capital heights, followed by conceptual site plan CSP19009 for 5600 Agar Road.
[3:12] And the other one is a detailed site plan, which will be heard after the conceptual site plan
[3:18] for DSP190535600 Agar Road. Okay. So with that, I'm going to turn to, we're going to proceed
[3:27] with detailed site plan and departure from parking and loading spaces for easy storage
[3:33] and capital heights. And that would be Mr. Burke. Yes. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Everyone
[3:44] can hear me clearly. Yes. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the planning board
[3:51] for the record, I'm Thomas Burke with the urban design section. Project Before You is listed on
[3:57] the agenda as detailed site plan DSP0413101 for easy storage capital heights, which includes
[4:06] type 2 tree conservation plan, TCP2-087-04-01, and the departure from parking and loading
[4:16] standards, DPLS465. Oh, I'm sorry. You know what? I'm sorry. Let me, I'm so sorry. Before you
[4:23] finish, Mr. Burke, let me make sure I do a roll call for this case. So I obviously have you,
[4:27] Mr. Burke. I have Jill Kosak. Yes. Okay. The attorney for the applicant, Brad Ferrar.
[4:43] You present? I was looking at you, so I know you're here.
[4:46] We told him to mute his phone, so he probably needs to unmute. Okay. I mute your phone,
[4:50] Mr. Ferrar, just to let us know that you're here. We were doing a roll call.
[4:58] Okay. There you are. We're looking at you. We see you.
[5:06] And his phone is unmuted. There he is. Mr. Ferrar? Can you hear me? Yes. We just want,
[5:14] we're just doing a roll call to make sure that everyone who has signed up for this case
[5:17] is actually present. Okay. So we're good there. Okay. And Glen Burton?
[5:22] Madam Chair, I'm here. I suspect there are others in transportation
[5:32] that are here also for this case. Okay. Who might that be? Tom Mason?
[5:40] Brian Barnett Woods? Hi. Good afternoon. This is Brian Barnett Woods. A
[5:46] Crystal Hancock is online. She is reviewing this case for transportation and is here.
[5:50] Okay. Thank you, Crystal Hancock. Okay. And Tom Mason is here. Okay. Thank you so much.
[5:55] And is it Chuck Schneider or Megan Reiser who's here for environmental?
[6:02] Megan Reiser for environmental planning. Okay. This is not up to date. Okay. Thank you.
[6:07] Okay. Thank you so much. Okay. Mr. Burke, I'm sorry, but you can continue. Thank you.
[6:14] Thank you, Madam Chair. The applicant is seeking approval of a detailed site plan
[6:20] to develop the site with a 50,000 square foot addition to the existing and solidated
[6:24] storage facility. Staff recommend that the board incorporate the record from these two cases.
[6:32] They will indeed be incorporated. Thank you. Thank you. So next slide, please.
[6:40] The site is located in the central part of Prince George's County in planning area 75A
[6:45] and Council District 6. Next slide, please. More specifically, the site is located
[6:54] on the east side of Richie Road and Capitol Heights. Next slide, please.
[6:59] The subject property is zone I1. Consolidated storage facilities are permitted in the I1 zone
[7:05] but have specific requirements addressed in the findings starting on page 5 of the staff report.
[7:11] The site is contiguous to other I1 zone and developed properties to the north, south, east,
[7:18] and west across Richie Road. May I ask all of you who are not presenting now to mute your phones?
[7:28] Thank you. Thank you. Next slide, please.
[7:33] The site is also located inside the military installation overlay zone for height in the
[7:41] north end area V, which this proposal remains well below the maximum height. Next slide, please.
[7:51] This aerial photo illustrates the current conditions of the property.
[7:54] The existing building was constructed at a 135,780 square foot easy storage facility
[8:00] in 2004, pursuant to a detailed site plan, also shown under the surrounding industrial and commercial
[8:07] uses. Next slide, please. The site is relatively flat, sloping slightly toward the southwest.
[8:17] There are no regulated environmental features located on or near this property. Next slide,
[8:23] please. The site access is from Richie Road, a master plan on a curable road. Next slide, please.
[8:34] This bird's eye view shows the existing conditions on the site and the surrounding uses.
[8:40] Next slide, please.
[8:44] This 3.9 acre site is developed with a single three-story 135,780 square foot
[8:52] building with a total of 1,020 consolidated storage units. The applicant is seeking approval of a
[8:59] 50,000 square foot addition in the rear, which will contain 430 additional units,
[9:06] shown in the shaded area on the visible plan. The site has a single access point
[9:13] from Richie Road, which leads to the parking for the office, for customers, and for the
[9:17] resident manager. As part of the proposal, the applicant is seeking a departure from the
[9:22] parking loading standards to allow a reduction of one parking space and two loading spaces.
[9:28] The applicant has redesigned the existing parking layout to incorporate compact spaces,
[9:34] and the statement of justification indicates that these facilities typically have a lower
[9:38] parking turnover and are not typically fully utilized with same-time business.
[9:44] Staff recommends approval of this request based on the findings found starting on page
[9:49] 7 of the staff report. The applicant provided schedules with a landscape plan, demonstrating
[9:56] that all landscaping is all landscaping as proposed shall be maintained in accordance
[10:05] with the landscape manual. Existing landscaping to be removed for this project will be
[10:11] replaced in kind. Next slide, please.
[10:17] The proposed building will be three stories following the design, roofline, and color scheme
[10:23] of the existing building, with only a change in materials from the existing concrete masonry
[10:30] on the existing section to metal panels and exterior insulated finishing systems,
[10:36] otherwise known as EPIS, for the parapet on the addition.
[10:40] The existing signage on the site will remain the same for the building and the pre-stand
[10:47] signs. The European design section recommends that the planning board adopt the findings of
[10:52] this report and approve detailed site plan DSP04013-01, TCP2-087-04-01,
[11:04] and DPLS-465 for a reduction of one parking space and two loading spaces from the 35 parking spaces
[11:14] and seven loading spaces required for easy storage capital heights subject to the conditions
[11:20] contained in the staff report dated March 10, 2020. This concludes staff's presentation. Thank you.
[11:28] Thank you. Let me see if there are any questions of Mr. Burke. Madam Vice Chair.
[11:35] I don't have a question regarding his report, but I do have a question in the
[11:41] backup. There was some information about a bike lane, and that I knew had to do with
[11:47] DPW. But when communities notify that there is a bike lane coming, and how does that all happen?
[11:57] Because it is in one of the older communities, and those of us in the older communities
[12:02] are not accustomed to bike lanes. So I'm wondering how do we notify the public that that's
[12:07] something that's going to happen? Mr. Burke? This is Tom Burke with the European Design
[12:15] Section. I'll refer to the transportation planning section to answer those questions.
[12:21] I can wait on it, of course, but I'm just curious about that.
[12:25] As someone from transportation, I know we have Crystal Hancock on the line for that. If
[12:30] she can address, or perhaps if Mr. Ferrar can address.
[12:35] Hi. Good afternoon. This is Brian Burnett with the Transportation Planning Section.
[12:41] So when bike lanes come in, traditionally what happens is the Department of Public Works and
[12:45] Transportation or the State Highway Administration in the event that the state wrote would end
[12:51] up doing either a repaving project or a capital improvement project, and then they would
[12:56] install the bike lane as part of that project. In many cases, if there are changes to the roadway
[13:03] as part of their process, they would do a notification outreach. For this site,
[13:10] there is a bike lane that is recommended along the road. However, because of the limited,
[13:16] I guess, width that the frontage has, a bike lane that only went for a few hundred feet
[13:23] wouldn't really have the value of a bicycle facility for people biking along the road.
[13:29] So at this time, we recommend that the applicant provide the bikeway signage fee that would say
[13:38] share the road for a bike, or share the roads with the bicyclists, and that could be put up.
[13:42] And they do that by providing the fee to the public parks that work in transportation
[13:47] who installs a sign on their own. And then at a later time, when this road is either
[13:51] repaved or there's a capital improvement project, they could strike that bike.
[13:59] We're basically talking about signage now. At the moment, yes. Okay, okay, that's good.
[14:06] Thank you. Commissioner Washington, any questions?
[14:11] None here, Madam Chair. Commissioner Gerardo?
[14:17] No questions, Madam Chair. Commissioner Dauner?
[14:20] No, no. Okay. So now we will turn to Council. Mr. Ferrar.
[14:31] Thank you, Madam Chair and other members of the Board. I want to begin by thanking you all for
[14:39] having this meeting virtually. And thank you for your innovation and flexibility in doing this
[14:47] in these times in which we live.
[14:51] And for the record, your name is?
[14:54] And I apologize. For the record, Your Honor, for the record, Madam Chair, my name is Brad
[14:59] Ferrar.
[15:00] I'm going to turn you with the law offices of Shipland Horn and Largo Mara. And with me
[15:06] virtually in today is representing Capitol Heights LLLP. We have Craig Fittinger, who's
[15:17] with E.D. Sorge, John Bondi, who is the engineer of the project, with Bica Engineering, and
[15:26] John Ferante, who is a land planner who's also with Shipland Horn. We worked with staff
[15:39] for the past several months to have a plan that we all thought would help to move this project
[15:48] forward and give us a project that we think that should help the county continues
[15:55] to grow and provide the type of amenity in terms of some storage that benefits the community.
[16:04] And so we've reviewed the plans that staff has put forward, their recommendations.
[16:10] We are in agreement with their recommendations and we would move, we would ask respectfully
[16:16] to ask the planning board to adopt their recommendations and approve the project.
[16:22] With that being said, I don't have any further questions or any further comments
[16:27] and I stand open to answering questions. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ferrar. Thank you,
[16:32] Mr. Ferrar. I'm going to turn to our board to see if they have any questions for you, okay?
[16:36] Madam Vice Chair? No questions. Commissioner Washington? No questions. Commissioner Dorner?
[16:45] No. Commissioner Gerardo?
[16:50] For questions. Okay. That completes the sign-up sheet. There's no one else signed up on this case.
[16:56] Is there a motion? Madam Chair, this is Commissioner Washington and I move that we
[17:02] adopt the binding to staff and approve DSP-04013-01 and TCP2-087-04-01, along with the associated
[17:19] conditions as outlined in staff's report in addition to approving DPLS-465.
[17:27] We have a motion and Vice Chair Bailey seconded. Okay, is Commissioner Washington?
[17:37] Yes. Vice Chair Bailey?
[17:42] Yes. Mr. Dorner? Yes. Mr. Gerardo? Yes. The ayes have it, 5-0. Thank you so very much.
[17:53] Okay, we're moving on to the next case. Coming down the home stretch.
[17:59] The next items are 5600 Agar Road. They are two separate cases that are combined
[18:06] in one staff report but will require two separate motions. Okay, this first is
[18:10] conceptual site plan CSP-19009 and the second is detailed site plan 19053 both for 5600 Agar
[18:20] Road. I'm going to do a roll call. Adam Bossi? Present. Ms. Kozak? Present. Okay, Chris Hatcher?
[18:31] Representing the applicant? Present. I have community planning staff, Karen Nero and David
[18:39] Green. Are you present? I had them listed here. I also have Kate Powers from Hydeville.
[18:57] Thank you. And Mr. Hatcher? There's feedback. There's an echo.
[19:06] So if you're not speaking, please turn your mic off. And then Mr. Hatcher, I have
[19:13] Ryan McCallister, Kevin Mack and Paul Nichols all from Dewberry Engineering. I presume they're here
[19:20] if there are any questions? If there are any. Yes, my manager. Okay, thank you. Mr. Bossi,
[19:26] it may proceed. And I should say we have our own counsel, Mr. David Warner,
[19:32] principal counsel on the phone and perhaps I think we have Deborah Board and our deputy
[19:37] general counsel on the phone as well. And we have our acting planning director here,
[19:43] Mr. Derek Berlage. Okay, thank you. Well, thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Good afternoon,
[19:50] members of the board. For the record, I am Adam Bossi with the Urban Design Section.
[19:55] As you previously mentioned, this presentation will simultaneously review two cases,
[20:01] which are item number seven, the conceptual site plan for CSP 1-9009 and item eight,
[20:08] the detailed site plan for DSP 1-9053. The request that's made in both applications
[20:15] is to change the list of allowed uses for the subject property. Next slide, please.
[20:22] So, this subject site is located in Planning Area 68, Council District 2,
[20:28] and is within the municipal limits of the City of Hyatt'sville. Next slide, please.
[20:37] Subject property outlined in red is in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of
[20:42] Ager Road and Jamestown Road, which is also the entrance to the metro station bus loop. The
[20:50] entrance to the metro station is about 900 feet southwest of this site. Next slide, please.
[20:59] As you're going on the zoning map, the subject site is Zoned Mixed Use Transportation,
[21:04] that is the MXT zone. Next slide. The site and surrounding area are within the
[21:13] West Hyatt'sville Transit District overlay zone. Within the zone, development is required to
[21:19] be supportive of transit-oriented uses and not focus on auto-centric uses. The Transit District
[21:26] Development Plan further defines the site is located within the Townhouse 2-4 story preferred
[21:32] land use category. The applicants filing of CSP and DSP at this time is required by the
[21:39] Administration and Applicability section of the Transit District Development Plan,
[21:44] as the uses being requested do not conform with the allowed uses of the Townhouse 2-4
[21:49] story land use category. Next slide, please.
[21:56] The area limit shows that the site is located adjacent to the bus drop-off loop for the metro
[22:01] station and is otherwise abundant by naked land that is proposed for future mixed use
[22:06] development in the development that's known as Riverfront at the West Hyatt'sville
[22:11] Metro Station. Next slide, please.
[22:17] Site map shows topography in the area and on the site is relatively flat. Next slide.
[22:27] Agar Road, which invites the property to the east, is classified as an arterial roadway.
[22:33] Next slide, please.
[22:34] As the bird's eye view shows, there is a single existing 1,134 square foot building on the site.
[22:45] Metro railcars that are shown in this image are actually no longer there.
[22:49] The remainder of the site outside of the building is paved. There are no trees,
[22:54] landscaping, or other major features present. The property was originally developed in the
[22:59] late 1950s at a gas station and repair shop and that use continued through 1998. Next slide, please.
[23:10] The CSP and the DSP are not proposing any physical development of the site at this time,
[23:17] so the site plan does show existing conditions. The building itself was converted to a grocery
[23:23] store in 2000, which operated into 2010. In 2006, the TDDP and TDOZ for West Hyatt'sville
[23:33] was approved and placed the property in its present land use category, which actually
[23:38] largely prohibits commercial uses. The grocery store used ceased in 2010 for a period of
[23:44] approximately 16 months and the commercial use of the site was then considered non-conforming.
[23:50] Several commercial operations attempted to operate at the site post-2010,
[23:54] but were denied permits as the site no longer supported the commercial uses.
[24:00] The current proposal is to provide for nine additional commercial uses on the site.
[24:05] Next slide, please.
[24:08] So as shown on the left, highlighted in blue, the only existing allowed commercial use is for
[24:15] seasonal decoration displays and the applicant has proposed a total of nine additional commercial
[24:23] uses as outlined on the slide here. So those consist of eating and drinking establishments,
[24:29] food of average store, hair salon, barbershop, hardware store, etc. Again, as written on the
[24:36] slide, any future, I'm sorry, staff supports these uses as they are not automobile dependent
[24:45] as required by the TDOZ and staff has recommended a series of conditions of approval to ensure
[24:50] future uses of the site follow this requirement. Any future physical development on the site
[24:56] may require a new detailed site plan to be reviewed. Staff is conferred with the applicant in
[25:02] City of Hyattville and all parties are in agreement with the findings and recommendations provided
[25:07] in the technical staff report. With that, staff recommends approval of both CSP 19009
[25:15] and DSP 19053 with conditions recommended in the technical staff report. As the chairman noted
[25:23] at the start of the meeting, please note that board you will need to make separate
[25:27] motions and votes on each application. That concludes staff's presentation.
[25:32] Thank you, Mr. Basi. Let me see if any of the board members have questions. Madam Vice Chair?
[25:40] I was just having Chair try to make sure that we have responded to all of the items
[25:47] in the letter from the mayor of Hyattville. Yeah, we're going to we have a representative
[25:55] from Hyattville who's going to speak shortly. Okay, thank you. Commissioner Washington?
[26:04] No questions, Madam Chair. Commissioner Garner? No, no questions. I think Commissioner Bailey
[26:11] that we actually we have there's just two things that they suggested that we're doing
[26:14] slightly different. Okay. Commissioner Gerardo? Madam Chair, I have no questions. Okay,
[26:22] thank you. So let's start off with a Council for the Applicants. Mr. Hatcher,
[26:27] please identify yourself first for the record. For the record, my name is Chris Hatcher with the
[26:34] Law Firm of Lurcher and Bird here on behalf of the applicant. I would first like to
[26:40] echo the sentiments of my colleagues in the Wendy's Bar. I think it's extremely impressive
[26:45] what the planning board and the staff have been able to do. I think you guys deserve a lot
[26:51] of appreciation and accolades for it. I'd also like to thank the City of Hyattville for working
[26:57] with the applicant on this particular site and sort of expanding the table of uses so that
[27:05] this site could be used at least in the short term as the area continues to redevelop with that.
[27:13] The applicant has reviewed the staff report and can end with respect for your requests
[27:19] at the planning board. I recommend the approval of the conclusions of law and the findings of fact
[27:27] associated with CSP19009 and ESP19053 and the applicant is prepared to respond to any questions
[27:36] that you may have. Thank you, Mr. Hatcher. Are there any questions for Mr. Hatcher at this
[27:41] time from the board? Madam Vice Chair? No. Okay, Commissioner Washington? No, Madam Chair.
[27:50] Commissioner Gerardo? I have one. Commissioner DeWarner? No. Okay, so let me now turn to
[27:59] the City of Hyattville. Kate Powers? Hi, yes. Good afternoon, Chairman and members of the
[28:08] Planning Board. Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Kate Powers. I am the City Planner for
[28:14] the City of Hyattville and today I'm representing the City regarding both the conceptual site plan
[28:21] as well as the detailed site plan for 5600 Ager Road. The City is in support of the findings
[28:30] and recommendations within the park and planning staff report. In addition, the City really appreciates
[28:40] the park and planning staff addition of specific limitations to the permitted uses,
[28:48] in particular the elimination of automobile-dependent uses, drive-through services,
[28:55] as well as cash-in businesses. So, on behalf of the City, I think the Planning Board in advance
[29:04] for your consideration of our comments. Thank you so much, Ms. Powers. I appreciate it.
[29:10] I don't know that there are any questions for you from our board members. If so,
[29:13] someone please indicate. If not, I'll proceed. Madam Chair, I'm sorry, it jilted back here.
[29:23] I'm sorry to interrupt for the record. I've just synchronized what I hear is maybe to be a
[29:29] mistake in the staff report. In the slides, it is listed as a hardware, dry goods, or
[29:38] clothing store. But in the staff report, both under the CSP recommendation and the CSP recommendation,
[29:45] it just listed as a hardware store. I just wanted to clarify with maybe Mr. Glossy and Mr. Hatcher
[29:53] that if that should be revised to say hardware, dry goods, or
[30:00] Retail. Door. Clothing, yeah. Clothing, yeah. Clothing, yeah, sorry. Clothing, yeah, sorry.
[30:10] Chris Hatcher for the applicant. It should be updated to reflect the uses that Jill referenced,
[30:20] Ms. Kosak referenced, which I believe is also listed on the table of use as well.
[30:26] Yes, and it's set forth on page 5 of the technical staff report and with explanation.
[30:34] Thank you. I'm sorry, Madam Chair. This is Commission of Washington. I'm getting play back.
[30:40] So I'm not clear about the corrections that are being stated.
[30:44] Can you turn to page 5 on your staff report? Yes, I'm there.
[30:50] Okay, so if you look at the bullets that are set forth in the middle of the page,
[30:54] which is made for the fifth bullet down, it should say part of where you're holding a five-glued drink in here.
[31:01] Yes. It's in the condition. Yes.
[31:04] Thank you.
[31:06] There's actually a bunch of it.
[31:09] The table at the bottom that are fine.
[31:11] Okay. All right. Can we hold on a second?
[31:16] Mr. Berlage has to add a comment. I'm sorry.
[31:18] So this is Derek Berlage acting deputy planning director.
[31:22] 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.
[31:33] There are actually a number of minor inconsistencies for many of them,
[31:39] but it is important that we be clear which is the list that staff is recommending.
[31:45] Clearly, the list of uses as it's stated currently in the recommendation section is what would control,
[31:53] but we should really clean that up if we can.
[31:57] Mr. Bossy, can you help us with that?
[32:01] Yes, sir. Thank you.
[32:04] You know, I believe you are correct.
[32:06] The staff report is written.
[32:08] The findings that are presented are frankly just more detailed than the uses that are outlined in the recommendation section.
[32:16] But I believe Ms. Kozak and yourself are correct that we should be looking to update those recommendations
[32:24] and revise those recommendations, excuse me, in both the CSP and DSP staff report to probably read verbatim as they are in the findings
[32:34] so that things are completely clear.
[32:37] So it's staff record?
[32:39] So again, this is Commissioner Washington.
[32:42] So the definitions as outlined on page 5 are what is controlling?
[32:48] Would that be accurate?
[32:50] It should control.
[32:52] Is that accurate, Mr. Bossy?
[32:56] Yes, ma'am.
[32:57] And I believe Mr. Hatcher and Ms. Kozak would also think of that.
[33:04] So I would make a suggestion then that essentially the motion should include a clear statement that the uses listed in condition 1D
[33:20] will be replaced with the specific exact language that's on page 5 of the staff report
[33:26] rather than the language that's currently in condition 1D because of those minor discrepancies.
[33:33] And everyone, it's the applicant and staff.
[33:35] That's why we're asking, right?
[33:37] Okay, perfect.
[33:38] I guess we're going to go with the use of controlling language.
[33:41] Okay, perfect.
[33:42] So, okay, so you heard him then, correct?
[33:45] That we'll go with what's on page 5.
[33:47] And then we'll take a closer look at the resolution to it, okay?
[33:52] Okay.
[33:55] Is there a motion?
[34:00] Madam Chair, this is Commissioner Washington.
[34:03] I move that we adopt the findings of staff and recommend to the district council approval of CSP-19009
[34:16] along with the conditions as outlined in staff's report
[34:20] and further augmenting the conditional 1D
[34:25] to ensure that the permitted uses are detailed to be consistent
[34:32] with the finding on page 5 of the staff technical report.
[34:37] Commissioner Gerardo first, second.
[34:39] Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Washington, seconded by Commissioner Gerardo
[34:44] for approval of the conceptual site plan 19009.
[34:48] Is there any discussion?
[34:52] I'll do a roll call.
[34:54] Madam Vice Chair?
[34:57] I'll roll a call.
[34:59] Okay.
[35:00] Yeah.
[35:01] Okay.
[35:02] Commissioner Washington?
[35:04] Yes.
[35:05] Commissioner Gerardo?
[35:07] Yes, Madam Chair.
[35:09] Commissioner Doherner?
[35:11] Yes.
[35:12] Okay, the ayes have it, 5-0, and then we need a similar motion for detail site plan 19053.
[35:20] Madam Chair, this is Commissioner Washington
[35:23] and I move that we adopt the findings of staff's report
[35:27] and recommend approval to the district council or DSP-19053
[35:34] along with the associated conditions as outlined in staff's report.
[35:40] Further to reflect condition 1D, D is endowment,
[35:46] D consistent with the finding as outlined on page 5 of the staff technical report.
[35:53] Commissioner Gerardo?
[35:55] Okay, so we had two seconds.
[35:58] Good one.
[35:59] I think Commissioner Gerardo seconded first.
[36:02] Okay, I will do the vote.
[36:04] Madam Vice Chair?
[36:07] I vote aye.
[36:08] Commissioner Washington?
[36:10] Aye.
[36:11] Commissioner Doherner?
[36:13] Aye.
[36:14] Commissioner Gerardo?
[36:16] Aye.
[36:17] The ayes have it.
[36:18] Okay, so let me just say this.
[36:20] This brings us to the end of our plan and board session for today
[36:26] and for last week as well, which was added today.
[36:30] I need to take a moment to commend everyone for your patience,
[36:34] for your resilience, for your flexibility in working with us
[36:37] as we try to propel Prince George's County forward
[36:40] to not try to stop business yet while keeping everyone safe,
[36:44] practicing safe distancing and letting our public,
[36:48] our attorneys, our parking planning team,
[36:51] and everyone know that we care and we are concerned about their safety.
[36:55] This was a good way to do this while balancing the above.
[37:00] So I just want to take a moment to say a huge thank you to everyone,
[37:03] to our planning staff in particular,
[37:05] to our IT folks who work with us, challenged people here.
[37:08] So thank you so very, very much.
[37:10] And then my final question of the day,
[37:12] I don't know if Mr. Hunt is on or not,
[37:14] but if Mr. Hunt is not, is Mr. Hunt on?
[37:18] Yes, ma'am, I'm here.
[37:19] Okay, Mr. Hunt, I'm here with the gavel.
[37:21] Is there any additional business to come before planning board two-day?
[37:25] We're live from Acton-Keith, Maryland.
[37:28] We've done the pilot before, the planning board is two-day.
[37:32] Then thank you so much, everyone.
[37:34] Stay safe, we care, be healthy.
[37:37] Planning board is adjourned.
[37:40] Who needs this?
[37:42] The phrase is, okay, we're signing off,
[37:44] and we're signing off in here, and...
[37:48] From you?