Mayor & City Council

MINUTES Regular Meeting of the College Park City Council Tuesday, November 28, 2017 Council Chambers 7:30 p.m. – 10:37 p.m. (Worksession following the Regular Meeting 10:47 p.m. – 12:00 midnight) PRESENT: Mayor Wojahn; Councilmembers Kabir, Nagle, Brennan, Dennis, Stullich (arrived at 7:39 p.m.), Day, Kujawa and Cook. ABSENT: None. ALSO PRESENT: Scott Somers, City Manager; Bill Gardiner, Assistant City Manager; Janeen Miller, City Clerk; Suellen Ferguson, City Attorney; Terry Schum, Director of Planning; Bob Ryan, Director of Public Services; Miriam Bader, Senior Planner; Chris Keosian, Student Liaison; Julianne Heberlein, Deputy Student Liaison. Councilmembers-elect John Rigg and Kate Kennedy. Mayor Wojahn opened the Regular Meeting at 7:30 p.m. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Councilmember Nagle discussed “Giving Tuesday;” consider giving to someone less fortunate. Councilmember Dennis announced the police Coffee Club tomorrow morning at Jason’s Deli. Mayor Wojahn announced the 5th annual College Park Community Foundation Gala on Saturday. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT: Mr. Somers said the “One Warm Coat” drive continues through December 11; Breakfast with Santa is on December 16; you may notice surveyors on Rhode Island Avenue in connection with the feasibility study for protected bike lanes. AMENDMENTS TO AND APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was approved without amendment (Dennis/Day) 7-0-0. PUBLIC COMMENT ON CONSENT AND NON-AGENDA ITEMS: Dave Dorsch, 4607 Calvert Road: We should provide free parking for senior citizens; we should extend the guardrail up Route 1 to Hartwick Road and get the UMD to pay for it. John Krouse, 9709 53rd Avenue, President, NCPCA: He appreciated the zoning rewrite discussion last week; we should make a strong case for the preservation of residential, park space and open space. College Park City Council Meeting Minutes November 28, 2017 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 17-O-01: An Ordinance Of The Mayor And Council Of The City Of College Park Amending Chapter 87 “Building Construction”, By Repealing And Reenacting §87-23 “Fences”, To Authorize Front Yard And Garden Fences, Change The Variance Criteria For Fences, Conform To County Code Requirements, And Definitions, Clarify That A Variance Is Not Required To Replace An Existing Fence With Similar Materials, Or Materials Such As Wrought Iron, Split Rail, Or Picket, And Clarify Existing Requirements; And §87-19, “Appeals”, To Enact Conforming Changes. Mayor Wojahn opened the public hearing on the fence ordinance and invited public comment: Donna Weene, 9512 49th Place on behalf of the Committee for a Better Environment: The CBE is pleased that front yard garden fences are permitted, but Council should not restrict the front yard gardens to 25% of the front yard nor restrict the fence to open mesh. We benefit when yards are utilized as gardens instead of as lawns. Change this section of the Ordinance to allow the entire front yard to have a garden fence and to allow an array of fencing materials. Ms. Ferguson responded that there has been a misunderstanding of the section; the section applies to when a permit is required, not to what is allowed. It exempts the homeowner from having to get a permit at all if it is within those parameters. Maria Mackie, 9242 St. Andrews Place: She has a front yard garden and wants a fence for 100% of her garden. She understands now that would be allowed – thank you. Suchitra Balachandran, 9320 St. Andrews Place, also on CBE: There is still some confusion. Do you need a permit to enclose more than 25% of your garden? Code comes around and tells people to remove their front yard garden fence at the end of the summer. Gardens should be encouraged and lawns should be discouraged; refer to the CBE 2015 letter. She urges that no permit be required. Ms. Ferguson said that the APC did consider the CBE’s letter when they made their recommendations to Council. This ordinance generally allows front yard fences up to four feet. A garden in the front yard can be as large as you want; you would need a permit only if the fence covers over 25%. Some front yard garden fences are allowed without a permit. “Permanent” or “not permanent” is not considered as to whether a permit is required. Mayor Wojahn further clarified: currently, no new front yard fences are allowed without a grandfather or a variance. Under the proposed ordinance, front yard garden fences under four feet of a certain material are allowed without a permit. Others may require a permit, but will not need a variance. Andrew Schenning, 4801 Lackawanna Street: He has a corner lot and wanted more alignment with the County on defining corner lots and side lots. College Park City Council Meeting Minutes November 28, 2017 Page 3 Ms. Ferguson said the County changed their law so that any portion of a yard that faces the street is considered to be the front and so cannot be more than four feet. We cannot be less restrictive than that. The proposed ordinance removes the 25-foot set back. Ms. Schum said this is a source of confusion because the County definition that ‘any yard that faces the street is considered a front yard’ is only in regard to fences, so you are not going to find that in the county zoning ordinance. Under subdivision regulations there is a front, a rear, and a side yard, and usually the short side of the lot is the front. It is two issues - legal subdivision definition vs. when a fence permit is being applied for. Rick Hudson, 4904 Muskogee Street: You might want to table this because it is confusing and doesn’t ring true. He doesn’t understand the need for a permit if he is putting up a temporary fence without digging post holes. It doesn’t sound like anyone really understands it. There being no further public comment, Mayor Wojahn declared this public hearing closed at 8:01 p.m. B. 17-O-09: An Ordinance of the Mayor and Council of the City of College Park Authorizing the Acquisition by Negotiation or Condemnation of Certain Properties Located at 7409 and 7411 Baltimore Avenue, College Park, Maryland, for a Public Purpose. Mayor Wojahn opened the public hearing on this ordinance and invited public comment: Rick Hudson, 4904 Muskogee Street: This is the government taking property by force and he is opposed. Ed Maginnis, Assistant Vice President for Real Estate, University of Maryland: The University supports this proposal; it has the potential to change the dynamic of downtown College Park. Maria Mackie, 9242 St. Andrews Place: Put this on hold; we need more information. Things have evolved; take time to engage the community. Suchitra Balachandran, 9320 St. Andrews Place: Puzzling why they only get information in a public hearing setting. Table the motion and have a town hall in each district so we can have our questions answered. Suzie Bellamy, 3529 Marlbrough Way: Opposed to eminent domain; the City should not be seizing property for the University. Jordan Schakner, 5206 Mineola Road: This is a vanity project and a Christmas present to the UMD. College Park does not need a new City Hall; spend the money on a police force, don’t displace local businesses. Joe Armstrong, 3527 Marlbrough Way: He is opposed; slow down and look at this. People who live here should have more say. College Park City Council Meeting Minutes November 28, 2017 Page 4 Lisa Ealley, 9526 Rhode Island Avenue: She is opposed; put this on hold. This will increase taxes and kick out small businesses. Rachel Gregory, 6909 Rhode Island Avenue: Eminent domain is not supposed to be used for something like this – it is not a large scale mass transit project - and may not be a valid use of eminent domain. City Hall can go somewhere else. John Rigg, 6809 Dartmouth Avenue: He is in favor of this and has been frustrated by the repeated delays over the last decade. He is not a fan of eminent domain but this situation qualifies. Cameron Easter, 4700 Drexel Road: He understands that the language “eminent domain” concerns people but he supports building City Hall here and favors the ordinance. Jim McFadden, 4800 Calvert Road: He has been watching this issue for more than a decade and supports this ordinance. Developing City Hall at this location is the right choice and although he is not a fan of eminent domain, it is needed to move this forward. Alan Hew, 9118 Autoville Drive: He didn’t support this vote when he was on Council. He is not a fan of eminent domain but understands this could be a tool in the negotiation, but you should go to every district and explain it first. Dan Blasberg, 8800 Rhode Island Avenue: Those 5 businesses have generated almost $600,000 of personal property tax over the last five years. What are the legal costs of doing this? Who will own the property? Why does UMD need offices off-campus? What is the public benefit? Table or oppose this measure. Bob Catlin, 8604 49th Avenue: City used similar legislation in the past for the parking garage. This helped the property owners because they received a lot of money for their properties and avoided huge capital gains. It was a win-win. Adele Ellis, 4608 Beechwood Road: She hopes we don’t have to use eminent domain, but this is a good location for City Hall and it would be a shame not to move this forward. We have been talking about it for a long time. John Payne, 4802 Guilford: Supports this ordinance and having City Hall at this location. He knows first-hand that there is a crying need for a new City Hall and is surprised by the claims of insufficient discussion. Stephen Thomas, 7309 Radcliffe Drive: He is spending more money in College Park because of the recent development. He is familiar with many college towns; the partnership with UMD brings an opportunity to build a 21st century City Hall. We should give this tool to the Council. Kristy Maddux, 7011 Wake Forest Drive: She trusts the Council and the process and thinks this project fits the downtown vision. She understands there are a lot of moving pieces and that this is a necessary piece. College Park City Council Meeting Minutes November 28, 2017 Page 5 Kate Kennedy, 9730 51st Avenue: She first read an email from a neighbor, Christina Toy, in support of the ordinance. She is also in support of this because it is a good tool for negotiation. Several good points were raised tonight that should be addressed. Andrew Fellows, 5807 Bryn Mawr Road: He and other residents have been engaged in this discussion since the early 1990s. City Hall should front US 1; this project will increase the tax base. Eminent domain gives the City a tool to be involved in the US 1 redevelopment. We should use the capital bond before it expires. Oscar Gregory, 9253 Limestone Place: He is opposed to this. A new City Hall won’t increase service to residents. Consider all reasonable alternatives such as telework. Leo Shapiro, 6907 Rhode Island Avenue: Many people have a reflexive reaction to the term ‘eminent domain’ but it is not always bad. The people who are urging delay are really opposed. He supports this and believes it is irresponsible to delay. Thomas Hughes, 7403 Baltimore Avenue: Owns the Smoothie King and is hurt that the City would put them out of business. He pays $33,000 in sales tax, $11,000 in property tax, and employs 12 full-time employees. Kathy Bryant, 7406 Columbia Avenue: She supports this and the vision of a new City Hall as a town center. College Park is spread out and she empathizes with the other neighborhoods and their needs Martin Klapac, 4005 Harvard Road: He never saw this on the ballot. You shouldn’t take businesses out of the City. The University are carpetbaggers. This should go to referendum. Bob Schnabel, 7400 Dartmouth: He agrees with Leo Shapiro. It is unfortunate to see the regional differences on important issues. We should take advantage of the new cooperative partnership with the UMD. There being no further public comment, Mayor Wojahn closed the public hearing at 9:07 p.m. CONSENT AGENDA: A motion was made by Councilmember Dennis and seconded by Councilmember Stullich to adopt the Consent Agenda, which consisted of the following: 17-R-25 Resolution Of The Mayor And Council Of The City Of College Park Adopting The Recommendation Of The Advisory Planning Commission Regarding Variance Application Number CPV-2017-07, 8722 36th Avenue, College Park, Maryland, Recommending Approval Of Variances From Section 27-120.01(C) And 27-442(C) Table II Of The Prince George’s County Zoning Ordinance, To Repair And Resurface Two Driveways From Asphalt To Concrete. College Park City Council Meeting Minutes November 28, 2017 Page 6 17-R-26 Resolution Of The Mayor And Council Of The City Of College Park Adopting The Recommendation Of The Advisory Planning Commission Regarding Variance Application Number CPV-2017-08, 5019 Nantucket Road, College Park, Maryland, Recommending Approval Of A Variance From The Prince George’s County Zoning Ordinance Sec. 27-442(C) Table II, Which Prescribes A Maximum Lot Coverage Of 30 Percent In The R-55 Zone. 17-R-27 Resolution Of The Mayor And Council Of The City Of College Park Adopting The Recommendation Of The Advisory Planning Commission Regarding Variance Application Number CPV-2017-11, 5011 Odessa Road, College Park, Maryland, Recommending Approval Of Setback And Yard Location Variances From The Prince George’s County Zoning Ordinance Sec. 27-442(I) Table VIII And Sec. 27-442(I) Table VIII Footnote 10 To Erect A Detached, Open-Walled, Carport Over The Existing Driveway. 17-R-28 Resolution Of The Mayor And Council Of The City Of College Park Adopting The Recommendations Of The Advisory Planning Commission Regarding Appeal Number CEO-2017-07, Located At 4809 Lackawanna Street, College Park, Maryland, Recommending Approval Of A Variance From City Code §87-23 C To Permit A Fence Setback Of 24 Feet. 17-G-137 Approval of fee increases for the rental of City facilities 17-R-29 Approval of A Resolution of the Mayor and Council of the City of College Park increasing the number of members on the College Park Seniors Committee 17-G-139 Approval of Minutes from the October 10, 2017 Regular Meeting; and the Transcript in lieu of minutes of the October 24, 2017 Oral Argument in Case CPD-2017-01, Holiday Inn Express. The motion passed 8 – 0 – 0. ACTION ITEMS: 17-R-22 Adoption of a Resolution Of The Mayor And Council Of The City Of College Park To Reverse The Recommendation Of The Advisory Planning Commission Regarding Variance Application CPV-2017-06, For The Property Located At 6905 Baltimore Avenue, College Park, Maryland, And To Approve A Variance From The Prince George’s County Zoning Ordinance Sec. 27-442 (C) Table II, Which Prescribes A Maximum Lot Coverage Of 30 Percent In The R-55 Zone. A motion was made by Councilmember Day and seconded by Councilmember Stullich to adopt Resolution 17-R-22. College Park City Council Meeting Minutes November 28, 2017 Page 7 Because of the previous Oral Argument, there is no public comment tonight. There were no comments from the Council. The motion passed 7 – 1 – 0 (Councilmember Cook opposed). 17-O-09 Adoption of Ordinance 17-O-09, an Ordinance of the Mayor and Council of the City of College Park Authorizing the Acquisition by Negotiation or Condemnation of Certain Properties Located at 7409 and 7411 Baltimore Avenue, College Park, Maryland, for a Public Purpose. A motion was made by Councilmember Cook and seconded by Councilmember Kabir to table this until next September in order to give the Mayor and Council the time to visit all the civic associations and to answer all the questions of the taxpayers. Based on tonight’s comments, Councilmember Cook wants to give taxpayers the opportunity to be a part of the discussion. A lot of the discussion has been in closed session. Councilmember Brennan said tonight is about an acquisition strategy, not about the site selection. The only thing discussed in closed session was the acquisition strategy. If residents feel they are in the dark, the Councilmembers should reach out and answer their questions. Councilmember Stullich said no one takes eminent domain lightly. We hope to reach a negotiated solution based on the appraisals. We have been talking about this for a very long time and need to move forward. Councilmember Nagle said she is ready to take a vote on this tonight, but it is clear that people in Old Town and Calvert Hills feel they have been included in the process and are comfortable with moving this forward, while her constituents are not. She would be willing to table this tonight. Councilmember Day is opposed to tabling this. The decision to build City Hall on this site was made in 2014 after a very lengthy discussion. It will cost more to delay. Councilmember Kabir said the Council never took a vote on whether to develop in conjunction with the University of Maryland. This is related to the cost of the project. It will bring the community together if we allow them to speak more; he supports the motion. Councilmember Cook said the motion isn’t about moving City Hall or not constructing it; it is about condemnation of property that will close businesses. Many people are concerned that next we will be taking their homes. Councilmember Stullich said there are still many decisions to be made in the future that will have public input – we are still trying to assemble the land. There have been a lot of public discussions but when you are trying to acquire property you have to negotiate in private. Cost estimates are still very general until we have a real plan. It is unfair to say that we are going to use eminent domain to take people’s homes. College Park City Council Meeting Minutes November 28, 2017 Page 8 Councilmember Brennan said every City will have disagreements and the best thing is to follow the democratic process. Suggesting we are not transparent and telling people their homes are going to be taken is fear mongering. Councilmember Kujawa doesn’t think it would hurt to delay a couple of months to visit the civic associations, but not until September. Vote on the motion to delay this matter until a later date: Aye: Cook, Kujawa, Nagle, Kabir Nay: Day, Stullich, Dennis, Brennan 4-4-0 Tie Mayor Wojahn said there is disagreement on the issue and he doesn’t believe minds will be changed with a delay. He has always made himself available to answer questions from residents. It is time to move forward. He votes no on the delay. The motion to delay fails 4-5-0 (Day, Stullich, Dennis, Brennan, Wojahn opposed). A motion was made by Councilmember Day and seconded by Councilmember Dennis to adopt Ordinance 17-O-09, an Ordinance of the Mayor and Council of the City of College Park Authorizing the Acquisition by Negotiation or Condemnation of Certain Properties Located at 7409 and 7411 Baltimore Avenue, College Park, Maryland, for a Public Purpose. Councilmember Day said it is time to move forward and stop pushing this down the road. Councilmember Brennan said we have made several offers to the property owner but he is not motivated to work with us and so he feels this is a tool to help us move forward. We will honor the current leases of the two existing tenants and will try to relocate the businesses in downtown. Residents will have input in the design of the new City Hall. It will spur economic development to have year-round customers for our downtown businesses. Councilmember Dennis read his comments from the minutes of the 2014 meeting where the City Hall location decision was made. Some of the unanswered questions will be addressed as we move forward. He is not a fan of eminent domain but thinks we are at a point now where we need to do it. Councilmember Nagle supports moving forward with a new City Hall to fill the needs of City workers, but can’t support the use of eminent domain. We can rebuild City Hall on this site without using the US 1 properties. Councilmember Stullich reviewed what was involved in the 2014 decision to build City Hall at the current site. Now we need to move forward with the decision that was made at the time. We are not cow-towing to the University; we are recognizing that the University is a partner with more money and political clout. College Park City Council Meeting Minutes November 28, 2017 Page 9 Councilmember Kabir is disappointed his motion to further engage with our residents failed. If this passes we are putting the cart before the horse and the residents never had the chance to decide how the new City Hall would look. Councilmember Brennan said a new City Hall and a police force are not mutually exclusive and we are looking at ways to mitigate the tax burden on seniors. He asked about telework. Mr. Somers said we do utilize telework where possible for certain positions. Councilmember Stullich said residents will have input into the design of the new building. Growing the tax base through revitalization will keep taxes down. You can’t have a police force without having space for them. Vote on motion to adopt 17-O-09: Aye: Brennan, Dennis, Stullich, Day Nay: Kabir, Nagle, Kujawa, Cook 4-4-0 Tie Mayor Wojahn said it is up to us to implement the vision that the residents create. If we look at the results of our resident survey, the majority of residents want better amenities and feel good about the direction the City is going. This project is the next step in creating that vision. We will have control over this block and it is our opportunity to create a high quality project in our downtown area, to create public space and a vibrant atmosphere where residents will want to come. Mayor Wojahn voted yes. The motion to adopt 17-O-09 passed 5-4-0 (Councilmembers Kabir, Nagle, Kujawa and Cook opposed). 17-O-01 Ordinance Of The Mayor And Council Of The City Of College Park Amending Chapter 87 “Building Construction”, By Repealing And Reenacting §87-23 “Fences”, To Authorize Front Yard And Garden Fences, Change The Variance Criteria For Fences, Conform To County Code Requirements, And Definitions, Clarify That A Variance Is Not Required To Replace An Existing Fence With Similar Materials, Or Materials Such As Wrought Iron, Split Rail, Or Picket, And Clarify Existing Requirements; And §87-19, “Appeals”, To Enact Conforming Changes. A motion was made by Councilmember Nagle and seconded by Councilmember Kabir to adopt Ordinance 17-O-01, an Ordinance Of The Mayor And Council Of The City Of College Park Amending Chapter 87 “Building Construction”, By Repealing And Reenacting §87-23 “Fences”, To Authorize Front Yard And Garden Fences, Change The Variance Criteria For Fences, Conform To County Code Requirements, And Definitions, Clarify That A Variance Is Not Required To Replace An Existing Fence With Similar Materials, Or Materials Such As Wrought Iron, Split Rail, Or Picket, And Clarify Existing Requirements; And §87-19, “Appeals”, To Enact Conforming Changes. College Park City Council Meeting Minutes November 28, 2017 Page 10 Councilmember Nagle said in 2015 the APC held a listening session on the fence ordinance, and since then it has been discussed several times, and the Council also held a listening session. This ordinance is a compromise and is easier for the residents to understand Councilmember Cook said the CBE didn’t want this to be so restrictive, because some garden fences will still require a permit. Councilmember Brennan said we might need to revisit this in the future, but with this ordinance fewer variances would be required and instead would involve a simple permit process. Councilmember Kujawa asked if we can not require a permit. Ms. Ferguson said coming in for a City permit means the resident will receive the proper information about our code and will put in a fence that is lawful. The law to require a fence permit is self-imposed. Mayor Wojahn added this is also an opportunity to advise the resident of the City’s incentive program to eliminate chain link. The motion passed 8 – 0 – 0. 17-G-140 Motion to support the transfer of a Class B, Beer, Wine, and Liquor License for the use of VME, Inc., t/a The Rail, 7313 A Baltimore Avenue, College Park, subject to the applicant entering into a Property Use Agreement (PUA) between the City and Michael Etienne, Vanessa Etienne, and George Auguste in substantially the form attached; authorize the City Manager to sign the PUA; and authorize City staff to testify to the Council’s position to the BOLC. A motion was made by Councilmember Day and seconded by Councilmember Stullich to support the transfer of a Class B, Beer, Wine, and Liquor License for the use of VME, Inc., t/a The Rail, 7313 A Baltimore Avenue, College Park, subject to the applicant entering into a Property Use Agreement (PUA) between the City and Michael Etienne, Vanessa Etienne, and George Auguste in substantially the form attached; authorize the City Manager to sign the PUA; and authorize City staff to testify to the Council’s position to the BOLC. Attorney Linda Carter provided additional menus and proposed an amendment to the PUA to reflect a 50:50 alcohol to food ratio, instead of 60:40 alcohol to food ratio. A motion was made by Councilmember Nagle and seconded by Councilmember Stullich to support that amendment to the PUA. The amendment passed 8 – 0 – 0. The main motion with the PUA as amended passed 8 – 0 – 0. College Park City Council Meeting Minutes November 28, 2017 Page 11 17-G-141 Approval of a letter to Prince George’s County Council regarding WSSC’s proposed rate structure. A motion was made by Councilmember Kabir and seconded by Councilmember Nagle to approve the attached letter to members of the Prince George’s County Council with comments on the proposed WSSC rate structure. Councilmember Kabir said the new rates favor those who use higher quantities and we should do more to support the smaller households. Councilmember-elect Rigg supports the letter and said all of the proposed rate structures provide a reverse incentive for water conservation. Mayor Wojahn said that was unavoidable because of the decision of the Public Service Commission. The motion passed 8 – 0 – 0. 17-G-142 Appointments to Boards and Committees. A motion was made by Councilmember Dennis and seconded by Councilmember Day to reappoint Normand Bernache and Jane Hopkins to the Cable Television Commission. The motion passed 8 – 0 – 0. COUNCIL COMMENTS: Councilmember Nagle said residents appreciated the yard clean-up done by the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity. ADJOURN: A motion was made by Councilmember Dennis and seconded by Councilmember Day to adjourn the Regular Meeting and reconvene in a Worksession to discuss the Preliminary Plan of Subdivision and Detailed Site Plan for redevelopment of the Quality Inn site (Bozzuto). The motion passed 8 – 0 – 0 and Mayor Wojahn adjourned the regular meeting at 10:37 p.m. (See Worksession minutes dated November 28, 2017.) ____________________________________________ Janeen S. Miller, CMC Date City Clerk Approved Pursuant to §C6-3 of the College Park City Charter, at 10:45 p.m. on Tuesday, November 21, 2017, a motion was made by Councilmember Kujawa and seconded by Councilmember Stullich to enter into a Closed Session to consult with Counsel on a legal matter and to discuss a personnel matter. The motion passed 7 – 0 – 0. College Park City Council Meeting Minutes November 28, 2017 Page 12 Present: Mayor Wojahn; Councilmembers Kabir, Nagle, Dennis, Stullich, Day, Kujawa and Cook. Absent: Councilmember Brennan. Also Present: Scott Somers, City Manager. Also Present for Topic #1: Bill Gardiner, Assistant City Manager; Suellen Ferguson, City Attorney; Janeen Miller, City Clerk; Chris Keosian, Student Liaison; Councilmember-elect Kennedy. Topic Discussed: Topic #1: The City Council reviewed proposed charter language and discussed revisions and clarifications. Next steps were discussed. Topic #2: The City Manager’s evaluation was completed. Action Taken: None. Adjourn: A motion was made by Councilmember Day and seconded by Councilmember Kujawa to adjourn the closed session, and with a vote of 7 – 0 – 0, Mayor Wojahn adjourned the closed session at 11:45 p.m.