Hearing opened on Market College Park rezoning to allow two student-oriented multifamily buildings

Prince George's County Zoning Hearing Examiner Maureen McNeil on Aug. 6, 2025 heard testimony on a plan development zoning map amendment (PDZMA, ZMA 2024-002) submitted by Market College Park LLC to rezone property at 4313 Knox Road and 4330 Hartwick Road in the City of College Park from RTOLE (regional transit‑oriented low‑intensity, edge) to RTO PD (regional transit‑oriented planned development). The applicant seeks to replace the existing two‑building College Park Towers site with two purpose‑driven high‑density multifamily buildings on roughly 4.53 acres.

The applicant's attorney, Jonathan Martin of C.L. Hatcher, opened testimony saying the record will show the application "complies with the necessary regulations and standards for approval of PDZMA applications." Martin told the hearing the proposal was originally mixed residential and nonresidential but was later revised, after staff discussions, to be entirely multifamily residential and that the applicant had submitted a revised statement of justification (Exhibit 32) on July 30, 2025.

Hamilton Reynolds, development manager with Landmark Properties and the applicant's representative, testified that Landmark is the contract purchaser and that the project team intends the development to be "purpose driven" and marketed primarily to students. "Purpose driven multifamily dwellings is just referring to the fact that we're marketing primarily to students for our multifamily property," Reynolds said.

Witnesses for the applicant described the proposal, requested modifications to several zoning standards, and detailed the public benefits the applicant proposes. Joe DeMarco, a professional engineer with Boller Engineering (testifying about the PD basic plan), said the application proposes targeted modifications, including adjustments to vehicle stacking space standards and loading requirements. DeMarco described a proposed modification to stacking that would allow a minimum stacking distance "no greater than 50 feet for parking structures containing 50 or more parking spaces." He testified that he prepared and signed the statement of justification in the record (Exhibit 32).

Robert (Bob) C. Kane, managing principal at WDG Architecture, testified as an expert in urban planning and architecture and described site design and public‑benefit features the applicant is offering. Kane said the design creates a central park‑like pedestrian greenway between Hartwick and Knox roads, with accessible ramps, plazas, seating, artwork and landscape improvements intended to provide a "park like community gathering space" and a pedestrian route to the University of Maryland campus. Kane listed proposed public benefits and attributes the applicant is offering as part of the PDZMA, including a minimum 25% ground‑floor fenestration for street‑facing facades, at least 8 green building points, approximately 12.5% of the site devoted to open space (the applicant contrasted that with a 7.5% base‑zone minimum), and provision of about 204 bicycle parking spaces. Kane characterized those commitments as "tangible and quantifiable" public benefits that exceed base‑zone requirements.

Traffic expert Michael Lenhart of Lenhart Traffic Consulting said a formal traffic impact study is not required for a zoning map amendment; adequacy of transportation facilities is evaluated later at preliminary plan when a certificate of adequacy is issued. "Traffic impact study is not required for a ZMA application," Lenhart said, adding that the project site is well‑served by nearby transit and campus shuttle service and that a future certificate of adequacy would be scoped to the actual project program (he said the certificate could reflect student‑housing trip generation if the project remains marketed by the bed).

Mark Ferguson, senior land planner with RDA Site Design, testified the property is about 4.5301 acres on the south side of Knox Road and the north side of Hartwick Road and that the PDZMA conforms with the county general plan, the Central US 1 sector plan (the area master plan for this corridor) and the Innovation Corridor strategy. Ferguson noted a drafting inconsistency in earlier materials that referenced the property as inside a "regional transit district," which he said was incorrect for this parcel; instead the property sits within the Innovation Corridor portion of College Park that the RTO PD zone may be applied to. He told the examiner he found the proposed modifications and public benefits consistent with the sector plan and the county's stated objectives for transit‑oriented redevelopment.

Anthony J. Clark, partner at Katz, Day (testifying on Maryland condominium law and ethics filings), explained that the existing property is governed by a condominium regime and that condominium associations in Maryland do not file separate articles of incorporation with the State Department of Assessments and Taxation (SDAT). Clark said that, under the Maryland Condominium Act and the association's governing documents, the condominium association and its president have authority to act on behalf of unit owners, including filing the county's required ethics/business entity affidavit for a covered application. Clark confirmed the record includes an affidavit signed by the condominium association president (Exhibit 19) and said the applicant would supplement the record with a business‑entity affidavit and related documents.

At the close of testimony the examiner, Maureen McNeil, left the administrative record open for a set of defined supplements the applicant must provide. The hearing record will be supplemented with an amended and updated PD basic plan suitable for recording, a clear list of the specific accessory and temporary uses the applicant wants to permit in the PD, the applicant's proposed alternative development standards to appear in the basic plan, updated ethics affidavits consistent with the condominium status of the owner, and written clarifications about whether the project will be held to student‑housing trip‑generation assumptions or evaluated as general multifamily at later stages. No final decision was reached during the hearing.

Why this matters: The proposal would add substantial new student‑oriented housing adjacent to the University of Maryland and requests site‑specific modifications to parking, loading, facade and roofline standards in the proposed RTO PD zone. The commitments to open space, bicycle parking, green building points and an internal greenway are central to the applicant's argument that the rezoning advances the county and sector plan goals for transit‑oriented redevelopment while providing public benefits that exceed base‑zone development.

Next steps: The record remains open for the supplemental exhibits the examiner specified. After the applicant files the supplemental basic plan, exhibits, and ethics affidavits, the examiner will close the record and prepare a report and recommendation for the District Council. No council action or vote occurred at the Aug. 6 hearing.