TO: City Council
FROM: David J. Deutsch, City Manager
SUBJECT: Special Exception (SE)
# 4426 DATE: 7/25/02
BP Amoco
US 301 median
______________________________________________________________________________
I. General Information
Applicant: BP Amoco Corporation
Status of Applicant: Contract Purchaser
Location: Median of US 301, south of Mt. Oak Road (see Attachment 1).
Proposal: Gas Station, Food and Beverage Store and Car Wash
Existing Land Use/Zoning: North
- C-M/ Select Auto
South - C-M/ Bowie Auto Mall
East - R-A/Patuxent Nursery (Special Exception)
West - C-M/Walker Pontiac, Bowie Honda, Enterprise Car Rental
Conformance with Master Plan: The 1991 Bowie-Collington -Mitchellville and Vicinity Sectional Map Amendment retained the property in the C-M zone. The site is located in Community I.
Biennial Growth Policy Plan: Developing Tier
Police: District II, Collington Center
Fire: Station #43 Pointer Ridge
II. Proposal
BP Amoco Corp. is requesting approval of a special exception application to construct a 4,224 sq. ft. food and beverage store/fast food restaurant in conjunction with a gas station and car wash, which are permitted uses in the C-M zone (see Attachment 2). The store/restaurant will offer a variety of merchandise similar to the WaWa, located further south in the US 301 median. In addition, it will have tables and seating for 15. The applicant has submitted a Statement of Justification in support of the request (see Attachment 3). The site is 1.54 acres and is currently improved with an auto upholstery shop, a barber shop, and auto repair uses.
A stakeholders meeting was held on November 29, 2001. A status report was included in the November 30th Council package. Approximately 25 residents attended the meeting. Concerns raised by the residents included traffic, the displacement of the existing businesses, aesthetics, and alternative site locations. None of the residents, including some of the existing business owners on the site, supported the proposal.
III. Analysis
A. Required Findings for Special Exceptions
Section 27-317 requires the following provisions be met for Special Exception approval:
(1) The proposed land use and site plan are in harmony with the purpose of this Subtitle;
(2) The proposed use is in conformance with all applicable requirements and regulations of this Subtitle;
Staff Comment: Special Exceptions are presumed to be compatible in the C-M zone based on conformance with the appropriate requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The site plan is generally in harmony with the purposes of the Subtitle (see Attachment 4) with the notable exception of traffic congestion. The applicant is in compliance with all setback and other zoning regulations. No variances or departures from the Zoning Ordinance are necessitated by this application. The applicant applied and received approval for Alternative Compliance from Landscape Manual requirements. Because the special exception site is part of a larger (2.2 acre) parcel, a subdivision plat will be required.
(3) The proposed use will not substantially impair the integrity of any validly approved Master Plan or Functional Master Plan, or, in the absence of a Master Plan or Functional Master Plan, the General Plan;
Staff Comment: The 1991 Bowie-Collington-Mitchellville and Vicinity Master Plan recommends that US 301 be upgraded to a freeway (F-10), with the southbound lanes becoming an arterial service road (A-61). The Master Plan indicates the central median area across from Walker Pontiac will be included as part of the improvements to US 301 and the Master Plan Map shows the future rights-of-way will include the subject property. The Plan text states that the median area comprising the subject property will "be virtually eliminated from development potential." The applicant, in the Statement of Justification, suggests that the Master Plan alignment will not significantly impact the proposal. However, the Master Plan Map shows the subject site completely within the proposed F-10 right-of-way. In addition, the proposed F-10 ultimate right-of-way shown on the applicant's site plan indicates the site plan would have to be significantly revised to retain even a portion of the proposed use.
The proposed use is considered a service-commercial use, which would be designated in red on the Master Plan Map were it identified as a recommended land use, which it has not. The Master Plan also does not recognize the potential for special exception uses within the US 301 median except for residentially zoned properties in the Central Avenue (north) median area. Moreover, because of traffic concerns, the Master Plan discourages the intensification of commercial median properties. The Master Plan further recognizes traffic concerns that will be addressed in the following section. The application is not in compliance with the Master Plan. This criterion has not been met.
(4) The proposed use will not adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of residents or workers in the area;
Staff Comment: The primary safety
concern is the provision of safe access to and from the site.
The subject property is located within the median of US 301 which is a high
volume, high speed roadway. Primary access (two-way) is proposed from the
median crossover directly north of the site. No access is proposed from the
southbound lanes of US 301 (SB 301). One way ingress is proposed from northbound
US 301 (NB 301) via a 600 ft. deceleration lane. Existing access from SB 301
will be eliminated.
Using ITE Trip Generation Manual rates, M-NCPPC Technical staff estimates the current uses on the subject property, which include a barber shop, auto repair use, and an auto upholstery use generate an average of 26 AM and 30 PM peak hour trips. The proposed use is estimated (by both the applicant and M-NCPPC) to generate 66 AM and 93 PM new trips, for a total of 170 AM and 212 peak hour trips.
The applicant submitted a traffic
study that concluded that the proposal would not have an adverse effect on
traffic conditions. The data provided in the traffic study, however, shows
otherwise.
The applicant's traffic study, dated 10/29/01, shows that, currently, 31 vehicles
make a left turn into the site from NB 301 in the PM peak hour. With the proposal,
80 vehicles are anticipated to turn left into the proposed driveway, with
an additional 32 vehicles turning left at the median crossover. All those
vehicles must then make a left turn back onto NB 301 from the median, into
the "fast" lane with a limited (approx. 300 ft.) acceleration lane.
During the same PM peak hour, an additional 113 vehicles are anticipated to
make a left turn back onto SB 301 from the site. Because delays are estimated
to exceed 60 seconds, the median will be unable to accommodate all that backed-up
traffic. Both NB and SB 301 median crossover intersections are expected to
fail (see Attachment 5). The applicant's traffic study concluded that:
…[W]hen delays exceed 45 seconds
it is M-NCPPC Policy to require
the developer to conduct a Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis to determine
if signalization is warranted. A preliminary peak hour signal warrant study
was conducted, and it shows that the signal warrants are met at both ends
of
the median crossover for US 301. The State Highway Administration will
ultimately make the final decision on the need for signalization. (emphasis
added, p. 2)
MNCPPC Transportation staff adopted the SHA conclusion that the proposal would not have any adverse effect, despite the findings in the traffic study. In a memo dated 12/17/01, Transportation staff stated that, "[t]ypically, when an unsignalized intersection operates with delays in excess of 50 seconds/car, staff would normally require the need for a traffic signal warrant study. However,…SHA has determined that signalization at the intersection of the Median crossover…was not necessary."
SHA, in a memo dated 11/21/01 stated that despite the excessive side street
delays, "SHA has determined that traffic signalization will not be necessary
at either location with the proposed development. Therefore,…SHA has
determined that the surrounding roadway network can support the
proposed development with only improvements to the proposed site access along northbound U.S. Route 301 as mentioned above."
The only "improvement" to the site's access is the proposed driveway into the site directly off of NB 301. It is unclear how an additional opportunity to make a left turn movement from US 301 can be construed as an "improvement." Despite the preliminary signal warrant study findings, SHA has concluded that signalization of the median crossover is not necessary. Thus, the only potential solution to the failing intersections (signalization) has been eliminated from consideration by SHA. This will likely have an adverse effect on the health, safety and welfare of residents and workers in the area. Unless another solution is found to mitigate the deficiency, the proposal cannot be supported.
The Master Plan, in the Crain Highway Corridor section, also recognizes the traffic conflicts exacerbated by development of the median areas and offers one potential solution:
Properties in the median and along
the highway frontage are difficult to safely
service from a transportation perspective because they pose multiple lane
access conflicts between through and local traffic. As properties within the
develop incrementally, they will require additional access cuts which will
impede
the carrying capacity of Crain Highway until such time as it is ultimately
improved to
controlled access standards. Also, further intensification of corridor land
is likely to
increase the number of vehicular accidents as experienced in neighboring jurisdictions.
There are presently no signalized intersections of developed median crossovers
along
Crain Highway to help control traffic conflicts. Therefore, intensification
of uses near
median crossovers and along the highway frontages will generate additional
traffic and
thus cause conflicts at uncontrolled median intersections…only through
public
acquisition would it be possible to eliminate negative development impacts.
(p.100)
Because no solution has yet been proposed that would alleviate the transportation deficiencies identified in the traffic study, this criterion has not been met.
(5) The proposed use will not be detrimental to the use or development of adjacent properties or the general public; and
Staff Comment: Special exception
uses are presumed compatible within a given zone unless there is evidence
to the contrary. Special exceptions, however, are held to a higher standard
of compatibility than uses permitted by right. In cases where a use is permitted
by right, that use may be approved despite evidence that it has an adverse
effect on traffic. Conversely, a special exception use that produces the same
adverse effect at the same location must be denied:
"…[T]hese cases establish that the appropriate standard to be used
in determining whether a requested special exception use would have
an adverse effect and therefore, should be denied is whether there are
facts…that show that the particular proposed use proposed at the particular
location proposed would have any adverse effects above and beyond those
inherently associated with such
a special exception use irrespective of its
location within the zone.
"… These standards dictate that if a requested special exception
use is
properly determined to have an adverse effect upon neighboring properties
in the general area, it must be denied." Schultz v. Pritts
On the one hand, the applicant's proposal would arguably improve the visual
quality of the subject property. On the other hand, the proposed use will
clearly have a greater adverse impact at this location than it would at another
location, due to its impact on the median crossover intersection. Unless a
solution is found to address the deficiency at the median crossover, staff
finds the proposed use will be detrimental to the use or development of adjacent
properties and the general public.
(6) The proposed site plan is in conformance with an approved Tree Conservation
Plan.
Staff Comment: The applicant is
exempt from the Woodland Conservation Ordinance as there is less than 10,000
sq. ft. of existing woodland on the site, and there are no previously approved
Tree Conservation Plans for the subject property.
B. Specific Requirements for a food and beverage store
Sec. 27-355 of the Zoning Ordinance permits a Food or Beverage Store provided the following provisions (provided in part) are met:
(1) The applicant shall show a
reasonable need for the use in the neighborhood;
(2) The size and location of, and access to, the establishment shall be oriented
toward
meeting the needs of the neighborhood.
Staff Comment: The applicant submitted a market study to M-NCPPC that concluded
there is sufficient need for the proposed use in the market area. M-NCPPC
Technical staff reviewed the report, but disagreed with the applicant's conclusion,
based on flaws in the methodology. Although it may be likely that this use
could be reasonably supported, without an accurate market study, staff cannot
find that this criterion has been met.
C. Specific Requirements for a drive-in or fast-food restaurant
Sec. 27-350 provides specific criteria for a drive-in or fast food restaurant
(see Attachment 6). The criteria generally apply to the design of the site
with regard to setbacks, the provision of bike racks, and outdoor advertising.
The applicant is in compliance with these criteria.
D. Requirements for a Gas Station
A gas station is a permitted use
in the C-M zone. Section 27-358 provides the criteria for Gas Stations (see
Attachment 7). The applicant is in compliance with these requirements.
E. Landscape Manual Requirements
The application is subject to Landscape
Manual Sections 4.2 (Commercial /Industrial Landscaped Strip) and 4.3c Interior
Plantings for Parking Lots. The applicant is in compliance with Landscape
Manual requirements (see Attachment 8).
F. Parking and Loading
Section 27-568 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a total of 39 parking spaces to serve the gas station, store, fast food restaurant and car wash. The applicant is providing 42 spaces, including two handicap spaces. One loading space is required; one loading space is provided.
IV. Recommendation
Based on the above analysis, staff finds that the proposal does not meet all the required findings for special exception approval. Although a preliminary signal warrant study indicated signalization of the median crossover is warranted, SHA has indicated they are not recommending signalization. Until a definitive solution to address the intersection deficiency is identified, the special exception must be denied. Staff therefore recommends DENIAL of SE #4426.
JMC:CF
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Rev. John Cooper, Sr., Chairman
Bowie Advisory Planning Board
SUBJECT: Special Exception #4426
DATE: 7/24/02
BP Amoco
The Bowie Advisory Planning Board (BAPB) met on Tuesday, July 23, 2002 to
review Special Exception #4426. The applicant, BPAmoco, is proposing a 4,226
sq. ft. food and beverage store/fast food restaurant in conjunction with a
gas station and car wash in the US 301 median south of Mt. Oak Road. The 1.54
acre site is zoned C-M and permits the gas station and car wash by right.
Presentation
Ms. Cynthia Fenton presented a brief overview of the proposal and the staff analysis for the Special Exception. Ms. Fenton indicated that the applicant has not met the all the required findings for Special Exception approval and Specific Requirements for the food and beverage store. Ms. Fenton indicated that the proposal conflicts with Master Plan guidelines and recommendations, including the proposed F-10 upgrade to US 301and service commercial designations on the Master Plan Map. Ms. Fenton also cited the Master Plan's lack of potential for special exceptions in this particular median area and that the Master Plan discourages the intensification of commercial median properties. Ms. Fenton further elaborated on the other criteria that were not met, including the requirement for "reasonable need" in the neighborhood for the use. Ms. Fenton particularly emphasized how the traffic generated by the proposed uses will be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of residents and workers in the area and to the general public. Ms. Fenton indicated that the applicant's traffic study concluded that a signal warrant could be met at the median crossover, but that SHA had determined that signalization would not be necessary. Ms. Fenton stated that until another solution is found to address the deficiency, the proposal could not be supported. Ms. Fenton concluded by summarizing the deficiencies in the required findings and presenting the staff recommendation of denial.
Attorney Mike Nagy, representing the applicant, responded point by point to the concerns raised in the staff report. Mr. Nagy indicated that the proposal would not increase traffic congestion as the special exception for the convenience store would generate only 51 total new trips, as the gas station is permitted by right. Mr. Nagy stated that the ultimate right-of-way for F-10 will allow the majority of the site to remain intact, and that the Master Plan exempts developed commercial properties to allow further intensification. Mr. Nagy explained that traffic safety will be improved by this plan, notably by condensing access along southbound US 301 and by the provision of curb and gutter. He further indicated that both SHA and M-NCPPC determined that the proposal will not result in any adverse impacts, and that this use would not create a greater adverse impact at this location that it would at another location in the same zone. He stated that the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding auto-related uses in the neighborhood. Mr. Nagy then referred to the applicant's market study which concluded that there was "reasonable need" in the neighborhood for the food and beverage store.
Questions by BAPB Members
Questions by BAPB members primarily concerned comments on traffic and safety. Mr. Nagy indicated that the subject area is less congested than the area around WaWa and that traffic circulation will be more safe at the subject site than at WaWa Questions also included: if there are guidelines for acceleration lane length (Mr. Nagy said, yes, and described what is being proposed); the hours of operation (24 hours a day); the methodology for determining reasonable need (Mr. Nagy indicated that BP Amoco has their own criteria and the analysis would be for the food and beverage store only. The criteria is not absolute, 80 percent of the trips are already on the road.); and, whether other sites were looked at (Mr. Nagy indicated, yes, but they did not meet the needs of the applicant).
Citizen Participation
There was one resident signed up to speak.
Rosario Ideo, 16403 Pointer Ridge Drive. Mr. Ideo identified himself as President of the Citizens Association of South Bowie, speaking in opposition to the proposal. He stated there are four existing, well-established businesses on the site that will be dislocated. He might feel differently if the site was vacant and subject to vandalism. He stated the applicant understated the number of gas stations and fast food restaurants in the market area. The existing establishments are sufficient to supply the citizens. Mr. Ideo indicated the US 301 corridor is already overburdened and heavily congested at all hours of the day, not just at peak hours. This development will add additional vehicles to the already overtaxed highway and will potentially add many more accidents to those already occurring. The residents do not need additional traffic headaches.
BAPB Discussion
Board members noted their concern
about traffic and pedestrian safety. The traffic study was noted as outdated
and inaccurate. Members were opposed to allowing more commercial activity
at that site. There is already a severe problem and there is no need to approve
a special exception that would make it worse. In addition, members noted the
needs analysis does not demonstrate an overriding need for the use in that
area. The proposal doesn't meet the criteria.
BAPB Motion
Mr. Stith made a motion to accept the staff recommendation of DENIAL. Mr. Rogers seconded the motion which passed unanimously, 8-0 (Tanoe absent).
LAND USE PETITION IN THE BOWIE PLANNING AREA
Md.-National Capital Park and Planning
Commission ID: Special Exception (SE) #4426
BP Amoco
Bowie Advisory Planning Board # 02-06 Date: July 25, 2002
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTRODUCTORY NOTE: The proposed application is a request for approval:
_ __ (a) of a zoning type case involving
the specific use of land;
__ (b) of a conceptual site plan;
_X _ (c) to subdivide property into building lots and obtain adequate public
facilities approval;
_ (d) of a site plan for building and parking design, landscaping, architecture,
etc.
under the development regulations of Prince George's County. The application has been referred to the City for our review and recommendation. The position of the Bowie Advisory Planning Board in this matter is advisory to the City Council. The City Council will also conduct a public hearing on this application and their vote will become the final City recommendation. Persons wishing to participate in these hearings must submit written testimony or sign up to speak at each public hearing. Each person wishing to speak at the City's hearings will be given up to three (3) minutes. To participate in the County's hearings, you must make a separate, written request to become a person of record.
GENERAL DATA:
1. Nature of Petition: Special Exception
2. Petitioner:
3. Represented by:
4. Location of Petitioned Property: Median of US 301 south of Mt. Oak Road
5. Proposed use of Petitioned Property: 4,226 sq. ft. food and beverage store
and
fast food restaurant in conjunction with a
gas station and car wash (permitted by right)
6. Size/Zone of Petitioned Property: 1.54 acres/zoned C-M (Commercial-Miscellaneous)
7. Date of hearing before BAPB: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 at 7:00 p.m.
8. Date of hearing before City Council: Thursday, August 1, 2002
9. Date of hearing before Prince George's County Planning Board:
10. Date of hearing before Hearing Examiner:
11. Date of hearing before District Council:
NOTICES/LEGALS DATE Number of Mailing/Signs
Notice sent to Adj. Properties: 7/09/02 707
Notice sent to Parties of Record: 7/09/02 3
Date Signs Posted: 7/09/02 3
Date Legal Sent: 7/09/02
Date Legal Appeared: 7/11/02
RECOMMENDATIONS:
12. Department of Planning & Economic Development Recommendation:
The Department of Planning & Economic Development staff recommends DENIAL
of Special Exception #4426.
13. Bowie Advisory Planning Board
Recommendation:
The Bowie Advisory Planning Board accepted the staff recommendation of DENIAL
of Special
Exception #4426.