College Park council presses developer over 30% affordability pledge for 589‑unit student redevelopment

The College Park City Council spent more than two hours probing the affordability commitments for a proposed redevelopment of College Park Towers at 4330 Hartwick Road and 4313 Knox Road, a two‑building student housing project totaling about 589 dwelling units.

Miriam Bader, the city’s director of planning and community development, told council the developer previously proposed two affordability scenarios and that the council’s April 15 recommendation included a condition that the lesser of 200 beds or 10% of beds be offered as “moderately priced” and that eligible beds be offered at a 30% reduction from comparable market beds. Bader said staff had transmitted the council’s conditions in a letter supporting the applicant’s rezoning, and that the zoning map amendment was approved with conditions at the county level.

But council members said a draft “declaration of covenants” provided recently to staff and the council appeared to substitute a different affordability approach — effectively a 10% discount spread across many unit types — and they pressed the applicant to explain the change. Chris Hatcher, attorney for the applicant, and Hamilton Reynolds of Lamark Properties said they had proffered two options to the city in April (one that used a 30% discount on certain unit types and an AMI‑based alternative). Hatcher said subsequent drafting work with staff and county reviewers produced language that differed from the April proffer; he described remaining points of negotiation including which unit types would receive discounts, how eligibility would be determined (for example, PELL, veteran status or economic need), and how fees would be treated.

Council members repeatedly stressed the need for clarity on three dimensions: depth (how large the discount is, e.g., 30% versus 10%), breadth (which units the discount applies to — four‑bedroom, two‑bath units, two‑bed units, studios, etc.), and duration or control period (how long the discounted rate would be guaranteed). Council Member Ranker and others warned that a 30% reduction based on one unit type but applied to another could sharply change the actual dollar benefit for students. Several members asked staff and the developer to confirm that discounts would not be undermined by higher recurring fees.

The applicant said the 30% figure had been part of the April package and that negotiating the precise unit mapping and eligibility rules had proven complex. City staff confirmed they had attempted to reach a consensus draft covenant acceptable to both parties and that the covenant remains a draft subject to council direction. Planning dates were noted: the preliminary plan of subdivision was scheduled for Planning Board review on May 28 and the detailed site plan on June 11; the zoning hearing examiner and district council records were also referenced as part of the project’s administrative history.

Council directed staff and the applicant to continue negotiations and prepare clarified covenant language and supporting materials for the council to consider at a follow‑up meeting before the planning board hearings. No final commitment or formal vote on the covenant was taken at the May 12 meeting.

What’s next: Staff and the applicant will work to reconcile the April 15 proffer language and the current draft covenant, produce specific dollar examples for the proposed discounts by unit type, and circulate revised draft language for council review before the planning board hearings.