patching...
Breaking: Longshot Oxbow Wins Preakness Stakes »
Welcome back, Patch Blogger!

Board Votes to Support Book Exchange Design

Patch is here with real-time updates from Upper Marlboro.

 

The Prince George's County Planning Board voted Thursday to support the revised design for a student-housing complex to replace the Maryland Book Exchange, a plan that the City of College Park Council unanimously voted to oppose a week and a half ago.

The board listened to testimony from the developers, College Park residents and staff for more than four hours in Upper Marlboro, before reaching a 4-1 decision to approve the design with conditions. This was the suggestion of the county planning staff, although the planning board didn’t adopt all the same conditions the staff outlined.

Below you'll find a blog with real-time updates from the hearing, including the debate over whether or not the design complies with the U.S. 1 Corridor Sector Plan, and its ability to fit in with the surrounding historic district.

The Prince George’s District Council will decide whether or not to hear the case next.

2:40 p.m.

Board voted 4-1 to support the Book Exchange project with conditions. John P. Shoaff had the dissenting vote.

2:27 p.m.

Planning Board member A. Shuanise Washington motions to adopt the findings of the county's planning staff, but only with some of the conditions proposed. Vice President Chair Dorothy F. Bailey seconds.

Washington said she finds the four-story stepback is adequate.

1:56 p.m.

Curry suggested that the city's main concern with the property has to do with the use of student housing, despite arguments by city representatives that their concern is drawn from the size of the building and its ability to blend with the historic district.

He points to comments in a Dec. 27, 2011 Gazette article:

College Park Mayor Andrew Fellows said the initial plan was rejected because the city prefers that student housing be built on the west side of U.S. 1. The proposed development calls for construction on the road’s east side, which is near residential neighborhoods.

“The idea of putting undergraduate housing at this location takes opportunities away from us,” Fellows said, noting that keeping the current Maryland Book Exchange building allows for mixed-use development.

Read more from that Gazette article here.

1:53 p.m.

City Attorney Ferguson argued the drop off of a six-story building to four stories is not gradual, and not a "stepback." The city does not support the county staff's second revised condition, which would require the developers to reduce the northern and southern corners of the east side of the building only to three stories, and to reduce the roof height.

1:36 p.m.

La Rocca just went through the county staff conditions, explaining which ones they'd like eliminated and which they'd agree to.

The county staff conditions accompany this post as a PDF. (Please note that staff presented a few additional conditions today that are not included on this list.)

1:21 p.m.

Newly elected City Councilman Robert Day (Dist. 3) criticized the size of the building, and that it extends throughout the entire block. “It doesn’t have to be that way," he said.

Kathleen Bryant, president of the Old Town Civic Association, criticized the density of the project.

"The bottom line is we love College Park, and we want to live with something that is compatible with our way of life," she said.

Jane Briggs, of the University of Maryland Administrative Affairs, said the university would like to see more development of the north side of the building, which faces the Pocomoke Building.

“We believe this elevation is the backdrop to our campus," Briggs said, and added that there is concern that the development will share the university's stormwater vault.

Bob Catlin of Dist. 2 said that throughout his 14 years as a city councilman, he has never seen the kind of controversy and concern over a development project as he has seen for this one, and it "alarms" him.

12:59 p.m.

Elisa Vitale, senior planner for College Park, listed all the reasons why the city opposes the design plan. Among them:

  • While county staff suggested that the developers request an amendment to the Sector Plan regarding the stepback, so that the design would more completely comply with the Sector Plan, Vitale warned against this move. As the Maryland Book Exchange project is the first development that falls under the Sector Plan, approved in 2009, such a change would substantially impair it, Vitale said.
  • City planning staff is not satisfied with the transition from the U.S. Route 1 side to the Yale Avenue side. In addition, the roof on the eastern side is too big, she said. "We really still have a four-story building with a two-story roof," Vitale said.
  • She said the changes to the east side of the building do not jive with the rest of the building. She describes the side facing U.S. Route 1 as "contemporary," and the side facing Yale Avenue as "classical." It looks like mismatched bookends on one building, she said.

The city's opposition has nothing to do with the use of the building for student housing, Vitali added, but rather the size of the complex and whether or not it is compatible with the surrounding historic district.

12:46 p.m.

College Park Attorney Suellen Ferguson argued that this area for proposed development has always been intended to be a part of downtown College Park and not a part of the University of Maryland community.

“This is not some effort to put some additional burden on this developer," Ferguson said.

But the stepback along Yale Avenue is required, regardless of which community it is included within, anyway, Fersguson said.

12:35 p.m.

Former County Executive Wayne Curry, who is a consultant for the developers, has taken the floor to address a change in the original Sector Plan.

He is arguing that the developers were not aware of the changes to the Sector Plan until last night. He argues that the changes now place the property in a different neighborhood, and designate a different use for the property.

Because the developers planned their project on the original plan, that's how the plans should be analyzed, he said.

The property is a part of the University of Maryland community, "and as such it doesn’t require a stepback but we offered one anyway," Curry argued.

11:58 a.m.

The board has been recessing so that staff can make copies of a portion of the Sector Plan.

11:14 a.m.

Board member John Shoaff asked if the university and community members seemed pleased with the adjustments the developers have made.

“We think that we’ve addressed the concerns of the neighborhood in terms of a more classical design," said Josef Mittleman, managing member R & J Company, the applicant for the plan. “We aren’t going to be able to please every single person, but we do feel we’ve been successfully able to achieve that.”

11:08 a.m.

Architect Brian Ward has taken the microphone to describe some of the architectural features that were integrated on the eastern side of the building, including expression lines (horizontal lines of stone that break up the visad) and arched windows topped by stone.

For your reference, find a page from the Sector Plan regarding the stepback requirements here.

10:59 a.m.

La Rocca said that the developers believe the Corridor Sector Plan, which guides design along U.S. Route 1 in the area that includes the Maryland Book Exchange, requires a stepdown only when there's existing residential development across the street, and that how the area across the street is zoned is irrelevant. (The area is zoned for residential use, but includes a church and small student-housing building operated by the church.)

10:49 a.m.

The developers' attorney, Michele La Rocca continues to argue that the area across from the property along Yale Avenue is not residential, and so the stepdown is not required.

Adams had said before leaving the stand that planning staff now contends that the area across the street is "quasi-residential," as it's the location for a church and a police substation, as well as housing for a handful of students.

10:34 a.m.

Adams is suggesting methods for refining the aesthetics of the building, regarding the roof, brick use and color, etc.

10:19 a.m.

Representative from the planning staff, Steve Adams, is presenting the revised county staff report and the design changes made by the developers, which include the four-story stepdown on the east side.

Adams is sitting in for the county's planning staff's Jill Kosack this morning.

He said even though the building includes four stories instead of two or three, staff feels the developers have made a good faith effort to step it down. He also said that the changes to the exterior architecture on the east side of the building is not the most successful effort to integrate a historic look with the modern design of the rest of the buiding.

But, there is "quite a bit to like" about the building, he said.

10:08 a.m.

The hearing has yet to begin.

Representatives for the developers and the City of College Park, members of the Prince George's County Planning Board and planning department employees are milling about the room.

Board Chairwoman Elizabeth Hewlett has taken her seat, and it looks like we will begin momentarily.

Original Post

Developers who want to build a student-housing complex where the Maryland Book Exchange currently sits will return to the Prince George's County Planning Board hearing room Thursday morning.

The county planning staff is recommending that the board approve the design with conditions. This is a change since December, when the developers first went before the board, and the staff suggested disapproval.

At the initial planning board hearing, Chair Elizabeth Hewlett suggested a continuance, so that developers could incorporate the changes suggested by the planning staff, including a step back on the east side of the building, making the side facing Yale Avenue scale down to a lower level. The full building is six stories high.

Since then, the development team decreased the east side to four stories, but the College Park Council recently voted to disapprove the plan because it doesn't step down to two or three stories.

Check back throughout the day for real-time updates from the planning board. The hearing is scheduled for 10 a.m. Thursday in Upper Marlboro. Watch the session here.

Related Topics: Maryland Book Exchange, Route 1 Development, Town/Gown Issues, and student housing

Linda Lachman

10:57 am on Thursday, January 19, 2012

There was organized, persuasive and overwhelming sentiment expressed in College Park AGAINST this proposed design. To say the building has "quite a bit to like" flies in the face of the city residents and a unanimous vote against the project by our elected City Council members.

Reply
Patch_comments_icon

Jenni Pompi

2:02 pm on Thursday, January 19, 2012

This sounds like quite an interesting hearing, Shannon.

Reply

James McFadden

2:40 pm on Thursday, January 19, 2012

I guess second class development is always good enough for this Planning Board and every County Executive in recent history.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Danny

2:55 pm on Thursday, January 19, 2012

what, in your view, would constitute first-class development?

Pamela Torro

3:30 pm on Thursday, January 19, 2012

To me it looks like they adopted most if not all of the conditions the City presented. Am I missing something? Seems like some thought the current stepback at 4 stories was enough where as reading the pdf it seems as if they accepted the condition that the stepback on Yale ave be 3 stories and that the brick facade was to be continuous around the whole building. Was the attached pdf amended and do we know the conditions they cut out yet?

Reply
Comment_arrow

Shannon Hoffman

1:09 am on Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Hey Pamela,
Just wanted to follow up on this with you. The county planning staff is working on drafting a "resolution" that will include the conditions, agreements, etc., according to the city's planning director. Once that resolution is available, we'll have a concrete format of all those details. The county planning board will also vote to adopt (or not adopt) the resolution.

Shannon Hoffman

3:41 pm on Thursday, January 19, 2012

Hi Pamela,
The list of conditions in the PDF are those suggested by the county planning staff, and the planning board did not accept all of them. There is no written record provided yet for the ones that were eliminated and thus not approved, and I am not confident that I got all of them, thus why I did not include in the blog. Here are the ones that I am certain Ms. Washington said in her motion should be eliminated from the conditions: 1K, 1M, 1O, 1P, 1Q; 2a1, 2a2 and 2a3 (which all address the stepback) 2E; all the ones regarding the University of Maryland. I might be missing some in here. Also, remember that this PDF does not include the additional conditions that staff suggested today, some of which the board approved. When I have more definitive info, I'll pass it along.
Thanks!
Shannon

Reply

N. Key

5:39 pm on Thursday, January 19, 2012

I think its outrageous that the Planning board blatantly disregards the local community and its representatives. Instead it gives in to greedy developers and paid lobbyists like Wayne Curry - likely in exchange for future paybacks, gifts, jobs, or favors. Just disgusting. How do we get these corrupt officials off the planning board?

Reply
Comment_arrow

Danny

5:47 pm on Thursday, January 19, 2012

maybe if the local community didn't staunchly and inflexibly oppose any and all change to its apparently perfect-as-is community, it wouldn't find itself so out of step with the professionals who are tasked with judiciously balancing the rights of developers and landowners against the provincial desires of local residents.

U.C.

9:07 pm on Thursday, January 19, 2012

Danny I don't think you live in College Park otherwise you might have noticed several brand new large apartment building constructed in the last couple years and supported by the College Park city council and many residents. This proposed bookstore building is qualitatively different - it abuts a residential neighborhood and a historic district. I don't see and "balance" in the panel's ruling - just greed and influence peddling..

Reply
Comment_arrow

Danny

7:50 am on Friday, January 20, 2012

i actually live in hyattsville (about 1 mile from downtown CP), after having lived in CP for 3 years. i spend a lot of my free time in downtown CP. but your suggestion that those (such as the county planning board) who don't live in the immediate neighborhood shouldn't be able to determine what can or cannot be built -- or put another way, that only those who live in old town CP can have a say in what gets built on the book exchange property -- is simply not an appropriate way of building a community. and why is it, exactly, that an attractive, well-scaled new building cannot be built in a historical district? the current book exchange, which would be torn down, is not a historic building. and, as the landowner realizes, the current building represents a waste of prime, UMD-adjacent and route 1-adjacent property, given that the majority of the site is a surface parking lot.

i do assume you were aware that UMD was located in CP when you were making your decision of whether or not to live in old town CP. please stop resenting the needs of the university. without UMD, CP would be worse, not better.

and do you have any evidence of greed on the part of the planning board with respect to this project? do you have any evidence of influence-peddling?

just because the board didn't rule the way you wish they had doesn't make them corrupt.

and how generous of you to support UMD-oriented development as long as it's not in your backyard. this is the definition of NIMBYism.

Pamela Torro

9:29 am on Friday, January 20, 2012

@ Danny - "or put another way, that only those who live in old town CP can have a say in what gets built on the book exchange property -- is simply not an appropriate way of building a community."

I am going to disagree. I think people living in the area should at least have the largest say of what is put in that area - if the current make up of the community is in majority agreement then that is exactly what builds a community.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Danny

9:41 am on Friday, January 20, 2012

well, of course, the local community should get some say. and the landowner should get some say as well. that's why there are plenty of opportunities for both parties to iterate on the proposals before the planning board makes its ultimate decision.

but what seems to be happening in this case is that the local community wants the right to say "no way" to anything that doesn't meet each and every one of its demands, and then when the planning board accepts the compromise proposal with the developer, the community says the planning board is corrupt.

without compromise, we'd get no development, which is unacceptable as UMD grows in size and national stature.

Comment_arrow

Danny

9:45 am on Friday, January 20, 2012

also, keep in mind that the "local community" of downtown CP is much more than just the old town residents. it's also business owners along route 1, UMD employees and officials, and to some extent even the students who live in UMD-affiliated properties in the area. retail interests may believe that the health of downtown college park would be enhanced by additional students living downtown.

Comment_arrow

Pamela Torro

9:49 am on Friday, January 20, 2012

I think one of the major problems CP residents see with this proposal is that they believe it does not adhere to the Sector Plan. I also believe a lot more CP residents, not just old town residents, opposed the current plan.

Comment_arrow

Danny

10:00 am on Friday, January 20, 2012

i don't understand when people say that a lot of residents oppose this or that. of course a lot oppose it. and, on the other hand, a lot support it, too. there are always contrasting opinions, and that is why there exists a planning board.

Comment_arrow

Pamela Torro

10:20 am on Friday, January 20, 2012

It was simply to point out that you kept honing in on Old Town CP rather than CP as a whole. Also, it seems like opposition is heard louder than support for a lot projects, this included.

Comment_arrow

Danny

10:28 am on Friday, January 20, 2012

"Also, it seems like opposition is heard louder than support for a lot projects, this included."

absolutely -- the opponents and the complainers always seem to be the most vocal and relentless. and we have a lot of those in our little corner of PG county.

Comment_arrow

Pamela Torro

10:56 am on Friday, January 20, 2012

So if all opponents are complainers and you seem to support everything, please tell me what you are thinking about the University Town Center? Did you support that? How about now that it's facing foreclosure?

And perhaps having opponents and 'complainers' is what makes our little section of PG a step above some of the other parts of the county.

Comment_arrow

Danny

11:07 am on Friday, January 20, 2012

hostile much? i actually didn't know that i "support everything."

UTC isn't "facing foreclosure," BTW. most of it was already foreclosed on, and now most of it is owned by a bank rather than by the blumberg family. what does this have to do with the price of tea in china? is the book exchange facing foreclosure? is the varsity? is south campus commons? is your house?

having UMD in CP is what makes CP and UP nicer than, say, seat pleasant. NIMBYists with strong opinions and internet access can be found pretty much anywhere.

Comment_arrow

Pamela Torro

11:15 am on Friday, January 20, 2012

In no way was my comment hostile (if you think it was hostile you are very naive). You saying people with opposition are complainers was what made me think you support everything b/c if you opposed something then you too would be a complainer. Your words not mine.

BTW, there are still pieces of PG Metro Center and UTC being foreclosed upon. And I brought up the foreclosure issue as we need to make sure we have demand before we supply. It's pretty simple. No, none of the new buildings (nor my home - hostile yourself much) are facing foreclosure. But are they at capacity?

And please note that supposed NON-NIMBYists with strong opinions and internet access can be found pretty much anywhere as well. Now go ahead and try to have the last word, but I am done arguing with you since you are trying to make this personal and not about the facts (just like I would expect from someone who cannot reveal their full name).

Comment_arrow

Danny

11:29 am on Friday, January 20, 2012

thanks! i do fully intend to get the last word! i didn't say, "people with opposition are complainers"; i said, "the opponents and the complainers always seem to be the most vocal and relentless."

what specifically at UTC is still being foreclosed upon? i'd love to learn additional facts. i'm open-minded that way.

regardless, i don't believe UTC is having severe financial trouble as a result of its student building. that building is likely the most financially successful part of UTC, especially compared to its condos, retail space, office space, and empty lots.

clearly the developer that wants to build student housing at the book exchange believes there's a market for more student housing in CP. i would imagine the developer did a lot more market research than you have. but actually, not enough demand, if indeed that were the case, would be a good reason to oppose a project; not wanting one's view diminished or not wanting the "historic" character of a tired old retail stretch of route 1 to be modified are not good reasons.

so in summary -- you're hostile, and i'm naive.

Comment_arrow

Adelphi Sky

1:31 pm on Friday, January 20, 2012

There is a market for UTC as there is a market for Cafritz, the Book Exchange, etc. Developers don't normally put up millions of dollars on a hunch. Rental numbers are going through the roof in the D.C. area. The problem with UTC was bad management and a Safeway deal that didn't materialize. Therefore UTC has no anchor unlike Whole Foods or Harris Teeter which all successful mixed-use projects have. We'll never know why Safeway backed out. But as far as I know, Whole Foods seems to be all in at this point. Could they back out? Of course. That's just the risk of doing business.

Shannon Hoffman

9:50 am on Friday, January 20, 2012

The Maryland Book Exchange project, as well as other area developments (or lack there of) have certainly aroused a lot of strong, well-grounded opinions. I'd encourage anyone that has an interest in development in College Park, or any other aspect of our city (education, environment, family, student/town relations, etc.) to consider becoming a blogger for College Park Patch. Your pieces would appear under "Local Voices," and you could write as frequently as you'd like. Learn more here: http://patch.com/A-qhS3

Reply

Adelphi Sky

11:34 am on Friday, January 20, 2012

I agree with Danny. There seems to be a systemic lack of compromise in College Park when it comes to developments. Understand that developers have rights. And it is the planning boards responsibility to strike a reasonable balance between the developer's right to make money on its property and the wishes of local residents as to not impact their quality of life in a major way. There can be arguments as to how much impact that may be. In addition, the developer has to make a profit on its venture. Demanding that they cut 30 - 40 apartments for aesthetic reasons reduces their profit motive and makes the project financially unsustainable. Reducing size reduces revenue.

Reply

Linda Lachman

6:50 pm on Friday, January 20, 2012

Having done a little "homework" for my blog, I will now borrow from Danny's intention to get the last word. "...ACTUALLY, NOT ENOUGH DEMAND, IF INDEED THAT WERE THE CASE, WOULD BE A GOOD REASON TO OPPOSE A PROJECT." Do we need more than "not enough demand," eyesore, parking uncertainties, lack of compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, and discounting the thoughtful consideration of our locally represented officials? I'm not certain what else would give county officials pause.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Danny

8:44 am on Saturday, January 21, 2012

several large new buildings (commons 7, oakland hall, varsity, mazza grandmarc, and view II) came online all within approximately a 1.5-year timespan (and they're for both college student and graduate students). it takes some time to absorb such a large supply. the book exchange developers evidently believe that, by the time the book exchange property comes online, the vacancy rate for student housing will be lower. if they didn't believe this to be so, they wouldn't have proposed student housing.

"eyesore" and "lack of compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood" are opinions, ones that, after several compromises between the developer and local demands, the planning board apparently did not share.

Shannon Hoffman

6:58 pm on Friday, January 20, 2012

Here's Linda's blog post: http://patch.com/B-5zV. She brings up an interesting point.

Reply

Leave a comment