Tonight’s City Council Meeting

Again, we have a full agenda for the Council meeting tonight.  There are a number of issues coming up that raise a lot of discussion and some controversy, so please let me know if you have any questions or comments on these.  Thanks!

First, we have a couple of public hearings scheduled:

1. HEARING ON A CHARTER RESOLUTION AMENDING ARTICLE VII, “POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL,” SECTION C7-6, “CONDEMNATION,” TO ELIMINATE A REFERENCE TO A STATE CODE PROVISION THAT NO LONGER APPLIES.  This is a proposed technical amendment to the City Charter provisions  regarding condemnation of property.  The Charter currently refers to Article 21 of the State Code to indicate the applicable State laws, but the State law has been amended and the laws regarding condemnation are in Title 12 of the Real Property Article of the Code.  Because the Charter does not need to reference the state law for it to apply, this proposed amendment would simply eliminate this reference. (PUBLIC HEARING STARTS AT 7:15)

2. HEARING ON A PETITION REQUEST TO WITHDRAW PERMIT PARKING IN THE 8100 BLOCK OF 54TH AVENUE.  The Washington Brazilian Seventh Day Adventist Church, located at 8108 54th Ave. has requested to remove permit parking from this block.  The church has a large parking lot and initially thought the permit parking, when it was instituted in September 2007, would be okay.  The church now has some special events, and has a larger turnout at its Saturday services than it had originally predicted.  The congregation has found that the permit parking prevents the overflow parking that congregation members occasionally need.  The church wrote in their petition that there are no households in the permit parking area.  I sympathize with the church, but I want to get a better sense of how this would impact the residents who live around the church, so I hope we hear from the residents at the public hearing. (PUBLIC HEARING STARTS AT 7:30)

AGENDA ITEMS:

1. PROCLAMATION IN SUPPORT OF THE 2010 CENSUS.  It is important for the City and for each of our neighborhoods that everyone is counted in the upcoming census.  You all will be hearing much more about this, including ways to get involved in making sure that College Park, and north College Park in particular, get an accurate count.

2. REQUEST FOR A DRIVEWAY APRON VARIANCE AT 5200 PADUCAH ROAD.  This came before the Council last month.  If approved, the City would allow the applicant to expand her driveway apron to allow for enough room for two cars to come in and out.  The Council had placed it on the consent agenda until a neighbor came to the meeting to discuss some concerns she had about the proposed variance.  Because the applicant was not at the meeting where the neighbor expressed her concern, we asked to postpone consideration of the variance to the first meeting in February, to allow the applicant to come to the next meeting and address the concerns. That meeting was changed due to the snow, so now this is up before us again.

3. AWARD OF CONTRACT TO AVRIO GROUP SURVEILLANCE SOLUTIONS, LLC, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $500,000 FOR THE CLOSED CIRCUIT TV SYSTEM AND LICENSE PLATE READERS.  As I noted last week, the City applied for a $2 million grant to fund a city-wide network of closed-circuit security cameras in high-crime areas and license-plate reader cameras to detect stolen vehicles and possible criminals who drive through before or after a crime takes place.  Unfortunately, we received only $500,000 from that grant application, so we have to start much smaller than we had hoped.  Last week, we reviewed a proposal from Avrio, who currently provides security cameras in Hyattsville, DC, and a number of other places in the area and around the country.  Hyattsville had conducted a full search process for a contractor and determined that Avrio was the best.  Avrio has an impressive record.  I had some concerns last week about whether starting in a concentrated area in downtown College Park would set us up to move up to north College Park in the future, and our discussion last week helped resolve those concerns.  Avrio has been talking with the University of Maryland police to find the best locations downtown for these cameras, and we would be able to expand the network northward if we get more funding for additional cameras up north.  It may take a number of years and more grants to get us there.  Unfortunately, there is no way, with the funding that we have, that we could get a network up to north College Park.  I still have some concerns about how much this will cost the City of College Park above and beyond the grant, which is only paying to purchase the cameras and set up the network, and for maintenance for the first year.  After the first year, it will cost the City about $25,000 per year to maintain the cameras.  I also want to make sure that the contractor incorporates input not just from the U-MD police, but also from the Prince George’s County police, so that it is useful to them when we start installing cameras outside of the area where the U-MD police have jurisdiction.

That said, the grant has provided us a great opportunity, and if we don’t move forward on this, we’ll forfeit the money.  So I feel it’s best to move ahead with this now.  I will continue to encourage the City staff to work on this in the future to make sure that we get the closed-circuit cameras and license-plate readers up in north College Park, and so that they can be used to fight crime around the whole city, and not just in downtown.

4. CHARTER RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CHARTER PROVISION ON “CONDEMNATION” TO ELIMINATE A REFERENCE TO A STATE CODE PROVISION THAT NO LONGER APPLIES – see above for a description of this item.

5. AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR DESIGN/BUILD SERVICES FOR A SKATEBOARD PARK IN SUNNYSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK TO GRINDLINE SKATEPARKS, INC., IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $250,000.  The city has received a grant from Prince George’s County to construct a skateboard park in Sunnyside Neighborhood Park.  The City appointed a design committee to do an RFP to find a contractor to design and build a park.  Out of the six contractors, the committee selected Grindline Skateparks.  After reading Grindline’s proposal, it’s easy to see why – Grindline has significant experience building skateparks around the country, has a record of being able to work around challenging situations, and has an experienced team of designers and project managers.  Grindline has had specific experience constructing above-ground skateparks, and due to the number of trees in Sunnyside Park, that is the best option for building a skatepark there.  The skatepark will be completed in October, and the local design committee will continue to be involved in throughout the design and construction.

6. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CITY MANAGER TO PURSUE THE INSTALLATION OF SPEED CAMERAS IN COLLEGE PARK.  As I mentioned last week, the City staff has been meeting with Optotraffic, a contractor specializing in installation of speed cameras, to find out whether we can install speed cameras in the City, and where would be best to install them.  Optotraffic has selected a number of areas with serious speeding problems – including Rhode Island Ave in north College Park, Greenbelt Road near Rhode Island Avenue, and Paint Branch Parkway near the trolley trail – where it would be willing to install speed cameras.  The city would not have to pay anything for these cameras – Optotraffic would receive money only from the revenue obtained through tickets.  This resolution would authorize the City Manager to pursue this further.  I know that speed cameras can be controversial, and I am interested in hearing what residents have to say about them, but I believe this could be a useful way to help resolve the ongoing speeding problems on Rhode Island Avenue, and improve safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and other drivers.  The problem became clear again this summer when, unfortunately, a speeder drove into oncoming traffic to pass another car, swerved to avoid an oncoming car, flipped his car over and died.  Although nothing can prevent these incidents altogether, many studies have shown that, at least in some areas, speed cameras are effective in reducing traffic.

7. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE 10-O-01, AMENDING CHAPTER 184, “VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC,” BY ADDING ARTICLE VIII, “SPEED MONITORING SYSTEMS,” SECTION 184-45, “SPEED MONITORING SYSTEM IN SCHOOL ZONES.”  In order to use speed cameras in College Park, we would first have to pass an ordinance regulating their use.  This ordinance is just up for introduction at this point, and will be set for a public hearing.  The proposed ordinance follows the restrictions of state law – the cameras can only be set up within a quarter-mile of a school, and the City must provide notice and have a public hearing before setting up the speed cameras.  The revenues from the speed cameras can only be used for the speed camera program itself and for traffic and pedestrian safety projects, and the City can only keep an amount up to 10% of our total budget.  Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns about the speed camera proposal – I will let you know when this ordinance is before the City Council for a public hearing.

8. APPROVAL OF REQUEST BY COLLEGE PARK WOODS SWIMMING CLUB TO WAIVE THE BALANCE OF THE 30-DAY NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT PRIOR TO ASSUMING AN OBLIGATION PER THE AGREEMENT AND CONDITIONAL GRANT DATED 11/28/05.  As I noted in my e-mail last week, the College Park Woods Swimming Club (CPWSC) is is looking to enter into an agreement with Lighthouse Pool Management, in which Lighthouse would manage the swimming pool in an effort to increase the number of members.  The City gave a grant in 2005 to the pool to keep it in operation, and as part of the terms of that grant, the pool has to notify the City and give us 30 days to object before CPWSC enters into any loan agreement that would put the pool as collateral.  They have to do this, because if they sell the property, the City has a right to get the grant money back.  Unfortunately, no representative of CPWSC was present last week to answer the many questions that the Council had.  Today, we received a copy of the draft agreement between Lighthouse and CPWSC, which states that CPWSC will pay Lighthouse an annual fee of $72,000 per year.  In exchange, Lighthouse will manage and staff the pool, including checking memberships and acting as a lifeguard.  If CPWSC does not get enough revenue to pay the $72,000, the outstanding balance will count as a loan, that the CPWSC will have to pay back over time at a 4% interest rate.  The City will have to make sure that its rights to the property are protected – that we have first dibs if the property is sold over any other debtor.  If that can be assured, I see no problem with agreeing to this.

9. APPROVAL OF A LETTER IN SUPPORT OF SB 598, PUBLIC UTILITY COMPANIES – UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, COLLEGE PARK BUS SERVICE – MOTOR CARRIER PERMIT EXEMPTION – REMOVAL OF SUNSET.  For the past two years, College Park residents have been able to get a pass to use the University of Maryland shuttle for free.  We are able to do this, because the state legislature passed a bill a couple of years ago that removed the requirement that the Shuttle have a motor carrier permit, which limited the use of the shuttle to students.  The bill that was passed had a sunset clause, which meant that the ability of residents to ride the shuttle would end in 2011.  Our state legislative delegation introduced a bill this year to remove that sunset clause.  The city is considering a letter in support of this bill.

10. APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.

Please let me know if you have any questions!

Patrick

Tonight’s City Council Meeting

Tonight should be a fairly quick meeting – there are many issues on the agenda, but I don’t think any of them will be controversial. The meeting will be held in City Hall starting at 8:00 p.m. See the City calendar for the weekly meeting schedule.

We will be discussing the following items:

1. CONSIDERATION OF DRIVEWAY APRON VARIANCE AT 5200 PADUCAH. A resident at 5200 Paducah is applying for a variance to widen her driveway apron. Typically, every resident is allowed to have a driveway apron wide enough for one car, and has to request a widened apron to allow for two cars. The purpose is to limit the amount of concrete in front of each person’s house. The Council will make exceptions, though, in certain circumstances, as long as the resident pays to expand the apron to the double -width. At the worksession last week, the Council seemed to support this application – the resident lives right at an intersection, and as a result cannot park in front of her house in the street. The driveway was a double-wide driveway when she moved in, and she wanted to widen the apron to allow her to move more easily into the other side of the driveway. Although this is placed on the consent agenda for tomorrow night, a neighbor has raised concerns about the issue and we will likely discuss it and ask more questions based on the neighbor’s concerns.

2. GRANTS. The City will be considering allocation of our three grant programs tomorrow night. I listed the grants in my e-mail last week, but here’s the information again:

a. Fire Department Capital Equipment Grants – the City allocates $10,000 grants for the three fire departments providing first response to portions of College Park, which are the College Park VFD, Branchville VFD, and Berwyn Heights VFD. Each of these departments has submitted grant proposals to fund capital equipment, including new pumpers, ambulances, and ladder trucks.

b. Community Services Grants. The City has $17,500 to award to various community service organizations. I serve on the committee to allocate these grants, and we met last week to allocate the money between 12 different organizations, with a maximum of $2,500 to each organization. Based on the determination of the sub-committee, we have proposed to allocate the grants as follows:

*Hollywood Elementary School, for family instructional nights – $2,100 (of $2,100 requested)
*Paint Branch Elementary School, for the Nankai University Elementary School educational summit in Tianjin, China – $2,500 (of $2,500 requested)
*Meals on Wheels of College Park, to subsidize meal cost for program recipients – $2,500 (of $2,500 requested)
*The National Museum of Language, Inc. (for exhibit improvement and development) – $2,500 (of $2,500 requested)
*Lakeland Community Heritage Project, for the annual Heritage Day honoring “Twelve Decades of Lakeland” – $2,500 (of $2,500 requested)
*American Legion Auxiliary, College Park Unit 217, for scholarships for Miss College Park pageant participants – $1,000 (of $2,500 requested)
*Pregnancy Aid Centers, for food pantry program – $2,500 (of $2,500 requested)
*Strides Operations, Inc., for job readiness and placement – $1,000 (of $1,200 requested)
*Al-Huda School, for civic education for teachers and youth leaders – 0 (of $2,500 requested)
*Matthew Byrd, for Bat habitat/insect management project – 0 (of $2,500 requested)
*University of Maryland Center on Civil Literacy, for Osher Lifelong Learning Institute – $600 (of $2,500 requested)
*Berwyn District Civic Association, for BDCA neighborhood directory – $300 (of $550 requested)

Please let me know if you have questions about any of these.

c. Public School Grants – the city annually allocates up to $15,000 for grants to the city’s schools. Two grants of $5,000 each are reserved for the two public schools located in the city – Hollywood ES and Paint Branch ES. The remaining $5,000 may be allocated between any school educating at least 14 College Park students. This year, the city’s Education Advisory Committee has recommended allocating the following grants:

*Hollywood Elementary School – $5,000 (of $5,000 requested) for Collaborative Planning for Teachers
*Paint Branch Elementary School – $5,000 (of $5,000 requested) for Project-Based Learning
*Martin Luther King Jr. Middle School – 0 (of $2,000 requested) for Positive Behaviors Interventions & Support
*Martin Luther King Jr. Middle School – $1,700 (of $1,700 requested) for Advancement via Individual Determination
*Hyattsville Middle School – $2,000 (of $2,000 requested) for Students Needing a Push and a Pat, Year 2 (SNAPP)
*Cherokee Lane Elementary School – $1,000 (of $1,000 requested) for Interactive Website

3. APPROVAL OF A LETTER TO M-NCPPC PROVIDING COMMENTS ON THE PRELIMINARY HISTORIC SITES AND DISTRICT PLANS

The City has a couple of historic sites in it, and the County is currently revising its historic sites plan. The proposed new plan adds a couple of additional historic sites around the City, including the Buck-Singleton House on Hollywood Road, Lakeland Community High School, and a couple of historic buildings on the University of Maryland campus. The proposed new plan also updates a number of the provisions in the historic sites regulations to reflect best practices, by preventing demolition-by-neglect, revising Historic Area Work Permit criteria, and clarifying procedures for establishing environmental setting. The City has proposed to send a letter supporting the new regulations and the new historic sites, and also asking to work with the County in implementing the plan.

4. APPROVAL OF REVISED RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

At last week’s worksession, we reviewed the Council rules and procedures. Various Councilmembers have proposed the following amendments for consideration tomorrow night:

1. Clarifying the rules to state that the Mayor shall vote “yes,” “no” or “abstain” only when the Mayor is authorized to vote by the Charter (when there is a tie vote of the Councilmembers, except on the budget).

2. Limiting presentations by developers with proposals before the Council to forty minutes, instead of one hour.

3. Clarifying the end time for worksessions – midnight, unless a majority of the Council votes to extend the meeting.

5. PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT TO ELIMINATE REFERENCE TO A NON-EXISTING STATE CODE PROVISION RELATING TO CONDEMNATION. This is a charter amendment I mentioned last week that will have no practical change, but will eliminate a reference to a non-existing state code provision. Since we don’t need to refer to the state code for it to apply to the City, this has no practical effect.

6. CONSIDERATION OF SUPPORT FOR A BILL IN THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO CREATE A TASK FORCE TO STUDY THE M-NCPPC. The Prince George’s County Municipal Association asked the City to support this bill, which would create a task force to review the structure and authority of the M-NCPPC, and recommend possible changes.

7. BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. The Council will consider one appointment to the Education Advisory Committee from Councilmember Stullich.

Following the regular Council meeting, there will be a special session on the City’s draft strategic plan. The planning consultants have drafted a proposed plan based on the Council’s comments during our past worksessions and the residents who participated in the town halls and online survey last fall. The results of these surveys and town halls, as well as the draft strategic plan, will be online soon. When they’re online, I’ll send a message around so you can all take a look.

Please let me know if you have any questions!

Patrick

Tonight’s Council Worksession

Folks,
Tonight is our first Council meeting of the year! We have a couple of big things things on the agenda tonight.
http://www.collegeparkmd.gov/calendar.htm

PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SHOPPING CART ORDINANCE. First, we have a public hearing on the proposed ordinance regarding shopping carts. The ordinance would require that all shopping carts in the city of College Park clearly identify the shop that owns them and also require that all shopping carts use anti-theft technology. Any cart found outside the lot of the shop it belongs to would result in a $100 fine for the store.

This ordinance was requested by former Councilmember Mary Cook when she was still on the Council to address the problem of shopping carts from Shopper’s Food Warehouse being stolen and deposited on the streets and in the residential neighborhoods. This poses a safety concern and creates additional trash in our neighborhoods. To a large extent, this problem has been resolved, because Shopper’s Food Warehouse has installed anti-theft technology. MOM’s, which I believe is the only other store in the city that uses grocery carts, has never had a problem with this, because they carry out people’s groceries for them. The ordinance, however, is meant to deal with possible future problems, and imposes a fine on store owners for any grocery cart found off the property. It also requires that each store label the store name on the cart. I have spoken with the general manager of College Park MOM’s, who thinks it’s a good way to prevent stores from letting carts off their property, and is okay with the ordinance as long as it doesn’t actually require the use of anti-theft technology. Although the ordinance may not be necessary at this point, I don’t see any problem with having it in place to prevent future problems. I’m eager to hear if any other concerns are raised during the public hearing.

The public hearing starts at 7:45 at City Hall.

CONSENT ITEMS:

–a resolution in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. As I mentioned last week, this Saturday, January 16, at 2 pm at the Clarice Smith Center is the city’s annual tribute to Martin Luther King, Jr. I encourage you to come if you can make it – I’ve been the past few years, and it’s always inspirational, with a number of great choirs and speakers.

–approval of spring field use requests for the College Park Boys & Girls Club. The Boys and Girls Club typically uses our fields at both the old Friends school and at Duvall Field during the spring and summer to conduct their sports, and the city typically gives them priority use over other clubs.

–approval of two variances, one for a fence in the Berwyn neighborhood, and the other for a side yard setback for a carport in Lakeland.

ACTION ITEMS:
The following action items are up for discussion, in addition to the shopping cart ordinance discussed above:

COMMENTS ON THE AMENDED US 1 SECTIONAL MAP AMENDMENT AND SECTOR PLAN. I discussed this quite a bit in last week’s e-mail. From the worksession, the staff put together a letter with comments to the County Council, focusing on nine specific issues:

1. The US 1 street section. As I mentioned last week, the Plan currently proposes a recommendation for the street section (basically, the layout of the street, including lane width, sidewalks, bike lanes, etc). that runs contrary to the requirements of the State Highway Administration. SHA submitted comments to the Planning Board on this issue one day late, and the planning board refused to take them as a result. These issues need to be worked out, and the letter that staff has drafted asks that the County Council delay approval of the plan to work out these issues.

2. Undergrounding utilities. This is an expensive project that the city has been working with developers on for quite a while, to make power outages less likely and increase the amount of space available on US 1. The sector plan, as currently drafted, does not include a plan to accomplish this.

3. Parking standards. The draft letter requests further analysis on the issue of how much parking to require for new developments. I have concerns about this, because I’m afraid that a decrease in parking will lead more people to park in the residential neighborhood. The sector plan is inconsistent in different sections as to what it recommends as to the minimum parking requirement.

4. Walkable Nodes and Future Walkable Nodes. The draft letter suggests removing any consideration at the time being of possible future walkable nodes, because the sector plan does not state how these “new” nodes would be established.

5. Land use and zoning. The draft letter requests clarity on the use of MUI in the DDOZ as the proposed zoning for much of the corridor immediately along Route 1. The current draft of the sector plan is inconsistent in this regard – while the proposed land use maps and urban design strategy suggest a lower-density zone for the areas between walkable nodes, the zoning map suggests keeping the zone at M-U-I (which it is currently at). It may make more sense to focus the M-U-I zone in higher density areas and a lower-density zone for other areas.

6. Transportation Demand Management. The sector plan does not include necessary strategies for reducing traffic in the area, despite a College Park report that lays out transportation demand management techniques for the area.

7. Public infrastructure strategies – the draft letter states that the plan fails to identify strategies for coordinating new development with meeting infrastructure needs.

8. Development phasing and incentives – the draft sector plan doesn’t include real incentives for new development or strategies for phasing in new development, and the proposed letter would request this.

9. The Hollywood Commercial District. The city, in the past, requested that the sector plan rezone the Hollywood Commercial District as a Mixed Use-Town Center zone. This tool has been used in Mt. Rainier and Riverdale to spur investment in the area and redevelopment. It would allow the local community to work together develop a design plan for the area, so that we could take a look at what we want in the Hollywood Commercial District. It would then create a streamlined approval process for any developments that meet the requirements of that design plan. It would also include a local design committee that would have the ability to veto any project that doesn’t meet the requirements of the design plan. I support this, because I think it would balance a need for redevelopment in the area, with a lot of local control, which could prevent the redevelopment from having a detrimental impact on our neighborhoods. I understand that some residents, including my colleague, Councilmember Nagle, have serious concerns about rezoning the Hollywood Commercial District in any way that would allow more density in the area. I have proposed a compromise to limit any increase in density in the commercial district to 20% over what currently exists, but I also believe that we could use local input in the plan to prevent any increase in density that would add to traffic or have a negative impact on the surrounding residential areas.

Park and Planning rejected our initial proposal to rezone to M-U-TC, in part because they feel it would be difficult to implement an M-U-TC zone in the current sectional map amendment, and in part, because of public opposition to any possible increased density that might come with the M-U-TC zone.

The letter, as currently drafted, supports the plan’s current recommendation to keep the same zoning in Hollywood, which is commercial shopping center (C-S-C), with support for well-thought out economic development strategies for the area. Because I remain concerned that the C-S-C zone will not spur redevelopment in the area, I have proposed an amendment that we request Park and Planning to develop a study group to look into the M-U-TC zone as a possible option for the next sectional map amendment. That will also allow residents more time to consider the option and decide whether it is an appropriate option for Hollywood.

I know this is a lot to digest – please let me know if you have any questions or would like me to explain any of the comments we’ve drafted.

LIQUOR LICENSE FOR AZTECA RESTAURANT, 9505 BALTIMORE AVE. The city is considering recommendations on a liquor license application for Azteca restaurant, a new, sit-down Mexican restaurant proposed for 9505 Baltimore Ave., near the intersection of Indian Road and Route One. Although the city did not have any serious concerns about granting the license at our worksession last week, we will probably postpone consideration of the license in order to give the NCPCA an opportunity to discuss it at it’s meeting on Thursday. We will then consider the item at a special session next week, in order to get our comments to the licensing board in time for its hearing on January 26.

COMMENTS ON PROPOSED FORM-BASED CODE ORDINANCE (Title 27A). Based on our discussion last week, the city has drafted a letter to submit comments regarding the proposed form-based code ordinance, title 27A. Unfortunately, a hearing on this before the County Planning, Zoning and Economic Development committee is happening this afternoon, so, without objection from the Councilmembers, the staff will be discussing these recommendations this afternoon before they are approved by the full Council.

The ordinance is much better than it was when originally drafted, in part because of the comments that the city already submitted. Just as a matter of overview – the ordinance basically creates a different way for redevelopment in an urban corridor. It allows either Park and Planning or a developer, in consultation with local residents and Park & Planning, to develop a regulatory plan for an area, and then allows streamlined approval for developments that meet such a plan.

The current comments focus on having a more formal role for cities in the development review process by including city staff person on the committee that review development proposals. While the city supports streamlined review for developments that meet a development plan to the letter, the city objects to the fact that the current draft of the ordinance proposes use of the Zoning Hearing Examiner to review major departures from a development plan. The city also requests additional public involvement when a developer proposes a regulatory plan. The comments also suggest that the ordinance may be appropriate to help redevelop the Route One sector

APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMITTEES. Thanks to Joe Smith for agreeing to continue his work on the City Tree and Landscape Board. I have nominated Joe for a reappointment to be approved tonight.

Please let me know if you have any questions!

Patrick

January 5 Worksession

Dear neighbors,

Happy New Year everyone! First, apologies for the long message. We started off the new year and the new Council session with a full agenda, and we discussed a couple of heavy topics that we’ve been working on for quite a while. The following items were on the agenda:

PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:

1. A resolution paying tribute to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in honor of the upcoming celebration of Dr. King’s life and legacy. The City will be holding its annual celebration for Dr. King on Saturday, January 16, at 2 pm at the Clarice Smith Center. It’s a free event, and always includes a wide range of choirs and musical entertainment. I encourage you to go if you can!

2. Approval of Field Use requests by the College Park Boys & Girls Club. The city gives priority use of its fields to the Boys & Girls Club, which typically uses both Duvall Field and the Calvert School field between March and July on weekday evenings and on Saturdays during the day.

3. Approval of a recommendation of the Advisory Planning Commission to approve a front yard fence abutting Ruatan Street in the Berwyn neighborhood. Many houses between Berwyn Road and Ruatan Street in Berwyn front both streets, and even though the applicant’s fence is behind her house, it is considered a front yard fence because it abuts Ruatan Street. The APC voted to recommend allowing her to keep her fence, and no Council member challenged this, so it’s going on the consent agenda.

4. Approval of a recommendation of the APC to approve a variance allowing a carport in the Lakeland neighborhood that encroaches on the side-yard setback for corner properties, because the property is irregular in shape.

NON-CONSENT AGENDA:

1. REVIEW OF THE CITY’S COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR FY 2009. The auditors will present the financial report to the Council and the result of their audit. We received the reports last Thursday, and I’m happy to report that the auditors found that the financial statements present fairly, in all material aspects, the financial position of the governmental activities of the City and all fund information. The unreserved, undesginated fund balance in the City’s General Fund represents 29.43% of FY 10′s adopted expenditure budget, putting us in excess of the 25% requirement for reserves. We are also well within our limit for the amount of debt we may incur under the City Charter, despite the fact that we issued over $8 million in bonds to fund the construction of the downtown parking garage Overall, the City is in good financial health, although we will face some tough times ahead (more on that later). The report includes a lot of interesting statistics about the demographics of the City, which I won’t go into here, but if you would like to look at the full report, it will be available online after the meeting tomorrow on the city’s website at http://www.collegeparkmd.gov/special_reports.htm. You can now go to the website and see the financial reports from past years.

2. COMMENTS ON THE AMENDED US 1 PRELIMINARY SECTOR PLAN AND SECTIONAL MAP AMENDMENT. At this point, the US 1 Preliminary Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment has been reviewed by the Planning Board, and is awaiting review by the District Council. The planning board staff responded point-by-point to all of the written and oral comments provided by residents, developers, and the City, and I forwarded that response last month (let me know if you want another copy). The Planning Board did make some positive changes in response to resident testimony – for example, the staff changed the plan for Rhode Island Avenue to keep it as a two-lane connector road and NOT open it up south of Greenbelt Road. Also, the Planning Board took on-street parking off of Route 1, and hopes to use the space it was going to use for on-street parking to put in separated “cycle tracks,” which are basically bike paths that are elevated off the street for safety. Stronger language has been added to a number of sections relating to environmental protection – for example, the plan states that developers shall use LEED-based building standards and stormwater management practices instead of saying that these things are “encouraged.” Also, the Plan recommends conducting a feasibility study to determine if the Youth and Family Services building may be expanded to accommodate a larger meeting space or other services – short of a community center residents had requested, but something more than what we had before.

On the other hand, the Plan still leaves many gaps and could create problems if it is not amended further. First and foremost, the Plan puts off addressing traffic management strategies in further detail until after further studies are done. Currently, two transportation implementation studies are scheduled to be done by the end of 2010. The Planning staff told the City in a letter, however, that the City’s input would be incorporated, and neither the planning staff nor any traffic planning consultants have contacted the City. I am concerned that public input will also not be taken into consideration, and that these transportation management strategies may be inadequate and may not incorporate public comment. Furthermore, the Planning Board never consulted with the Maryland Department of Transportation. Although MDOT submitted comments, they were late (one day, from what I’ve heard), and the Planning Board refused to accept them. MDOT objects to many provisions in the Sector Plan – including, for example, reducing the width of the street lanes on Route One to ten feet, and leaving transportation demand management strategies until after the plan is completed. These comments could force the District Council to make many additional changes to the Sector Plan.

There are a number of other ongoing problems with the Plan – for example:

1) There are still a number of inconsistencies between the maps in different sections of the Plan and the maps and various narrative portions of the Plan. The Planning staff often responded that these maps are “illustrative,” but I think it would be difficult to effectively use maps that are inaccurate in material ways.

2) Although the Plan suggests downzoning (from M-U-I) significant portions of Route One (outside of the “walkable nodes”), it doesn’t follow through in the recommended zoning changes. Also, the Plan refuses to accept some proposed zoning changes from the City – for example, the Plan suggests upzoning the property at the northeast corner of Route One and Edgewood Road to a mixed-use zone (it currently is commercial office). Although the owner of that property has stated that his current plans could be accommodated under the current commercial office zone, and residents have consistently said that they don’t want a lot of density on that property, the Planning Board refused to listen.

3) The Planning Board refused to agree to the City’s suggested zoning for the Hollywood Commercial District, which, in my opinion, would have given developers an incentive to redevelop there while ensuring resident input in the development plan.

4) The Planning Board refused to add specific implementation steps for redevelopment of the Hollywood Commercial District or strategies to make Hollywood a walkable area, and did not make any recommendations for reconfiguration of the streets in Hollywood to make the businesses more accessible or more pedestrian-friendly. I believe that significant infrastructure improvements will be needed to revitalize the Hollywood Commercial District, and it would have been helpful for the sector plan to make recommendations in terms of how those improvements could be made.

5) The Planning Board failed to include specific strategies for protection of the Paint Branch in the Development Standards.

6) The Planning Board refused to add promotion of the use of Metro and satellite parking, or consideration of Metro connections, to the Plan.

7) The Planning Board refused to make recommendations as to how a comprehensive design scheme for parts of the City (for example, as might be necessary to establish shared parking or a uniform street frontage between developments).

8) The Sector Plan refuses to consider a trolley line or additional shuttle routes in the area, based on concern about current ridership. The problem with this approach is that the current transit options in the area are often inconvenient and do not have the same amenities that could be provided with a shuttle or a trolley line. Public transit often follows the “if you build it, they will come” rule – and if public transportation is convenient, accessible and easy to use, people will be more likely to use it.

9) Although my concerns focus on District 1, some of the other Districts have concerns about the plan – especially Autoville, where the Plan still makes a number of recommendations for connectivity and for higher zoning that residents have expressed opposition to in the past.

At this point, with all of these problems, the City needs to decide how to approach this. The staff suggests in its memo to the Council this week that it may be appropriate to ask that it be postponed to allow time to deal with these issues and allow Park and Planning to incorporate comments from MDOT, and to incorporate the results of the transportation implementation studies due later this year. This may not be a bad idea, given the importance of resolving traffic issues in a comprehensive manner and ensuring public input in this process. I look forward to discussing this with my colleagues tonight.

Go to http://www.pgplanning.org/Projects/Ongoing_Plans_and_Projects/Community_Plans/Central_US_1.htm if you want to see the draft of the sector plan and the Planning Board’s resolution with all of its amendments.

3. FURTHER REVIEW OF THE COUNTY FORM-BASED CODE LEGISLATION, PROPOSED ARTICLE 27A. To recap – this is a bill that would change the zoning procedure for large portions of the County, including, possibly in the future, downtown College Park and the area around the College Park metro. This came up last year, and it appeared as if Park and Planning wanted to rush this through the County – as a result, the City (together with a number of other cities, including Greenbelt) asked to postpone consideration of the bill to try to work out some of the problems. The ordinance has now been reintroduced as the first bill for consideration by the County Council in the new year. I sent an e-mail around in October of last year with a list of my concerns about the proposed ordinance.

The amendments help address some of these problems. Specifically:

1) All major zoning decisions (including approval of a regulatory plan and any amendments to the plan) may be called up by the District Council – which allows for some public accountability for all of the decisions relating to the form-based code.

2) The new bill also eliminates a provision that allowed developers to get in just about any possible use on a property as an “accessory use,” even if the use was substantial and had little to do with the “main” use on the property.

3) The bill now seems to require developers to put in more bike parking (previously, it only required 4-10 spaces for a development).

I still have some concerns about the bill, though. Specifically:

1) The bill still does not allow for public appeal to the District Council of the Permit Site Plan or variations from that plan.

2) It is unclear to me how adequate public facilities requirements fit into the proposed bill – this is important because it typically requires consideration of the impact of a new development on traffic congestion, public safety, school capacity, etc.

3) It is unclear to me how requirements for preservation of natural resources fit into the form-based code.

4) It seems that developers can propose changes to a regulatory plan that do not qualify as “amendments,” and therefore do not require review by the District Council.

5) Some of the requirements for public input into the permit process are still vague – specifically, how people can submit input into the development of a regulatory plan if they cannot participate in the “charrette,” when a public hearing must be held on amendments to the plan.

6) The “neighborhood manners” section, which addresses when commercial properties lie next to residential properties, addresses setbacks, but doesn’t address noise, smells, etc.

The City staff supports this legislation, because a form-based code process would help streamline the development process and encourage revitalization of some neglected areas. Although I agree that the form-based code may be appropriate to help encourage revitalization, I want to ensure that the ordinance allows for public input. I will not be able to support it unless some of these issues are resolved.

If you would like to review the bill (it’s long, and can cure a bad case of insomnia), you can go to http://egov.co.pg.md.us/lis/ and do a search for bills CB-001-2010, CB-002-2010, and CB-003-2010.

4. REVIEW OF AN APPLICATION FOR A CLASS B, BLX (RESTAURANT) BEER, WINE AND LIQUOR LICENSE FOR AZTECA BAR & GRILL, 9505 BALTIMORE AVE., AND A PROPERTY USE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY. This is a new Tex-Mex/Salvadoran restaurant coming in next to the Duron Paint just north of Indian Ln., on the east side of Baltimore Ave. This seems like it has the potential to be a quality restaurant, although I want to ensure that the restaurant will be a restaurant, and not just a bar. The city’s draft Property Use Agreement includes a number of provisions regarding the sale of alcohol, including requirements that the sale of alcohol be no more than 30% of gross receipts for the business, and that all advertisements include food and not just alcohol. I also have some concerns about the parking situation at the property, because the restaurant has only five parking spots in front with back out onto Route One and about 20 spaces behind the restaurant, and I’m not sure it has the capacity to handle the 175 people that the applicant says it will have the capacity for – it appears that the restaurant is entering into a parking agreement with Duron paints, though, and this may resolve the issue. I hope to work with the applicant, because I always appreciate new, quality restaurants coming to North College Park!

5. FY ’11 BUDGET GUIDANCE. This is the start of our long City budget process. It looks like the budget process could be interesting this year – the staff predicts, at this point, that City revenue may decline over $1.8 million, depending on how much we get from new partial-year tax assessments for the University Overlook II and Mazza developments. As a result, department budgets will be limited from any increase, and the City may not grant COLA’s to City staff. As always, the Mayor & Council may submit wish lists about items we wish to see in the budget, but given our budget constraints, I do not believe I will be requesting much, if anything, this year. The NCPCA will also be taking up this issue at the February meeting, to decide what its desired budget priorities this year will be. The City’s budget worksessions are set (tentatively) for Saturday, April 10 and Saturday, April 17, and the public hearing on the budget set for May 11.

6. COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE FOR FY ’10 COMMUNITY SERVICES GRANTS. The Council will tonight decide who will sit on the subcommittee to consider allocation of the community services grants, which go to non-profit organizations serving our community. Non-profits may receive up to $2,500 from the City. In the past, these awards have gone to groups as diverse as the Boy Scouts, Meals on Wheels, and the American Legion Auxiliary (for scholarship awards for the Miss College Park program), among others. I sat on the allocation subcommittee for this grant last year, and may do so again this year. Applications for grants are due January 7 – if you know an organization that still might be interested in applying, contact the Planning Department at 240-487-3520.

7. REVIEW OF COUNCIL RULES AND PROCEDURES. The Council is required, by our charter, to review Council rules and procedures every two years. These are the rules that set forth the conduct of our meetings

8. 2010 COG APPOINTMENTS. The City belongs to the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, and as a result, is allowed to sit on some of the COG boards, which make critical decisions impacting our community relating to transportation, air quality, and coordination across the region on public services, public safety, etc. I currently sit on the Transportation Planning Board, and used my appointment to ensure inclusion of College Park in the TIGER grant proposal for express bus routes and the region-wide bike-sharing program. I also sit on the Human Services and Public Safety Policy Committee, which considers a range of issues relating to services for homeless people, police protection, obesity. Other COG committees including the Metropolitan Washington Air Quality Committee, which has the authority to approve the air quality plans for the region and insure compliance with the Clean Air Act, the COG Board of Directors, the Climate, Energy and Environment Policy Committee, which is developing a regional work plan to address climate change, and the Chesapeake Bay and Water Resources Policy Committee, which acts as a regional voice and coordinating committee on issues impacting the Chesapeake Bay. I hope to continue sitting on the Boards I currently sit on – I feel that these committees benefit our City and that our continued involvement is critical.

9. BOARDS AND COMMITTEES. As always, if you’re interested in sitting on a City Board (and if you’ve made it this far in my e-mail, you must be interested in this stuff!) please let me know. There’s a full list of the Boards and Committees at http://www.collegeparkmd.gov/boards_and_com.htm

Please let me know if you have any questions!!

To sign up for email updates on Council Worksessions, please visit the North College Park, Maryland Community Discussion Group at http://groups.google.com/group/north-college-park/.

Patrick

Narragansett Run Clean-up Rescheduled for January 31

Folks,
As some of you may remember, due to the bad weather in December, we had tentatively rescheduled the neighborhood clean-up at Narragansett Run for this upcoming Saturday, January 9. Unfortunately, it appears that it’s going to be really cold this weekend – highs in the mid-20′s on Saturday – so we’ve decided to reschedule once again. We are (again, depending on the weather) setting the clean-up for Sunday, January 31 at 2 pm.

Hope you can come! The melting after the recent snowstorm washed a lot of debris into the Narragansett Run, so there’s a lot to clean up!

Patrick

Update on the University Board of Regents and the Admissions and Amusement Tax

I have an update on the Admissions and Amusement tax issue. It seems that the Board of Regents is not actually likely to be voting on the issue, but will be hearing recommendations from staff. The city has been discussing the issue with the Board of Regents staff, and we’re hoping to work something out. I still encouraged people to come Tuesday who are interested in helping ensure that we maintain our revenue from the university, but it seems that the situation isn’t as dire as we originally may have thought. I will definitely keep everyone posted.

Patrick

University Board of Regents Meeting on Tuesday morning re: A&A tax for the City of College Park

Dear neighbors,

I want to draw your attention to an issue that could have a real impact on city revenues this year. Unfortunately, if this comes out the wrong way, we could face a real hit in our budget, that could lead to a tax increase for residents, just to keep the current level of City services in place.

Currently, the City of College Park receives about $600,000 every year in revenues through the Admissions and Amusement (A&A) tax from the University of Maryland. This is a tax that cities across the state are allowed to place on ticket prices from entertainment events, including sporting events, movies, concerts, etc. Most of the money that College Park gets through this tax is through sporting events, including football and basketball games.

This revenue is especially important for the City, because it is the largest part of the small amount of revenue we get from the University. Because the University is state property, we don’t receive any property tax from this property – which means that about 30% of the City’s land is completely off the tax roles. Despite this, we need to spend City revenues on many things associated with the university – maintaining public safety, picking up litter downtown that is related to the university and students, handling code enforcement issues related to the university and students in our community, etc.

A recent court decision in the Maryland state Court of Appeals might allow the university to request an exemption from paying these taxes to the city. This Tuesday morning, the University of Maryland Board of Regents will be deciding not only whether to request an exemption from the A&A tax for all of its events going forward, but also whether to request a refund of A&A taxes from the past 4 years! If the comptroller were to grant such a request, College Park taxpayers would be stuck with a bill of around $2.4 million!

We need to show that College Park residents do not want the university to get a free ride, while residents have to pay taxes.

The meeting took place Tuesday morning, December 22, at 8 am in the main University Services Building at 3300 Metzerott Road.

Please let me know if you have any questions!

Patrick

Neighborhood Clean-up: Rescheduled for Jan 9

Alas, due to the weather, only a few hearty folks came out for yesterday’s neighborhood clean-up. As a result, we only spent about a half hour before we get cold and wet and decided to call it a day. Thanks tons to Stacey King, our City’s recycling coordinator, who braved the cold and rain and drove all the way from Edgewater to help out!

We’re rescheduling for Saturday, January 9, at 10 am. Saturday is a better day for Public Works staff, and hopefully the weather will be better!

If you need reasons to come out and help, I’ve enclosed a few pictures – these should help show the amount of trash we have in the Narragansett Run behind MOM’s. We need people to help clean this stuff up!

Patrick

Tonight’s Worksession – City Hall at 6:30 p.m.

Tonight’s worksession is a special worksession dedicated to the City’s strategic planning process. We will be setting forth an overall goal and three priority objectives for each of six topic areas:

1. Neighborhoods
2. Transportation
3. Economic Development
4. Environment and Sustainability
5. Community Services
6. University-CP Relations

In doing this, we’re attempting to synthesize the ideas that the Council set forth in an earlier worksession as priorities for the next five years with the priorities set forth by the community in the community forums held a couple months ago, and the community survey we did in October. I’m enclosing a number of documents* that summarize the information we’ve gathered so far in each of these topic areas, as well as an agenda and a couple documents discussing specifically what we’ll be doing tonight.

It’s a lot of information – please let me know if you have any questions!

NEXT WEEK will be the induction ceremony for the next Council. Please feel free to come out as we welcome Councilmembers-elect Christine Nagle, Denise Mitchell and Marcus Afzali to the Council and wish Councilmembers Molinatto, Hampton and Mary Cook the best as they go on to their next endeavors! The ceremony will be at 8 pm in City Council chambers.

Patrick

*Please log in to Google Groups to download the documents.

http://groups.google.com/group/north-college-park/browse_thread/thread/015258ee750f73ec#

Veteran’s Day at the College Park Veteran Memorial

Dear neighbors,
There’s one more important event I have to announce this week. I apologize for the short notice, but today the annual Veterans Day Memorial at the College Park Veterans Memorial, at the intersection of Greenbelt Road and Route One. I encourage you all to take some time out of your busy schedules tomorrow to remember and appreciate those who have sacrificed for our country, including those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice.

This event is always sobering, especially considering the ongoing loss of life of American soldiers in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the terrible events of the past few days at Fort Hood. It’s very easy in the hustle and bustle of daily life to forget that many of our children, neighbors, friends, and family members are currently overseas risking their lives for our freedom and safety, and to forget the sacrifices of those who have served before.

The event will feature a performance by the University of Maryland Air Force ROTC Choir, and a brief keynote speech by LTC Ranelle A. Manaois of the University of Maryland Army ROTC.

The event will be followed by a lunch at the American Legion.

Patrick