During Monday’s County Council PHED Committee, staff and PHED Committee members discussed and decided the following:
Council staff recommended keeping the Planning Board’s zoning for the land behind Cherrington townhomes, stating that townhomes would be an appropriate use of that land. After some discussion, including comments by the Planning Board Chair and Planning Department Director, it was decided to include language that ensured that any residential development is compatible with existing development. Also, the committee agreed with staff’s suggestion to include this language: “During the development review process, explore options for preserving all or a portion of the wooded area along Montrose Parkway for passive use and for including open space/green space in the Wilgus property.
After a long discussion about light industrial space, the Twinbrook overlay zone (and how that might be modified), the Pickford Property, and the Randolph Hills Shopping Center, it was agreed to bring this topic back to the PHED committee on Monday, November 6 for additional discussion. There was broad agreement that the shopping center portion of Randolph Hills should be zoned CRT. Gwen Wright thought the Pickford property should also be given a CRT zone. Casey Anderson made a plea for a usable overlay zone. Council staff suggested a 60/40 overlay zone to preserve light industrial space.
There was a spirited debate about whether the western and northern portions of White Flint 2 should be part of the White Flint 1 taxing district, how big the MSPA should be, what NADMS goals should be, etc. There wasn’t, however, much agreement, so this issue was tabled until Monday, November 6. That said, I think it’s fair to say that council staff believes WF2 should not be an MSPA (except perhaps the Guardian and Wilco properties) and the Planning Board believes they should so that walkability and bikeability becomes the priority for traffic mitigation measures. Many expressed the desire for simplicity.
Friends of White Flint believes this part of White Flint 2 should be an MSPA, should have the same NADMS goals as White Flint 1, and should be part of the White Flint 1 taxing district. White Flint 2 should also have the same staging requirements as White Flint 1 so that mobility and transit projects will be built regardless of NADMS goals.
This was also discussed and tabled until the next PHED Committee worksession.
The next PHED Committee Worksession on White Flint 2 is Monday, November 6.