MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: David J. Deutsch, City Manager
SUBJECT: Fairwood DATE: 9/12/02
Detailed Site Plan (DSP) #02036
Supplemental Information
In anticipation of Council's review of the Fairwood DSP and given the Advisory Planning Board's recommendation for disapproval based on adequate public facilities concerns, please see Attachment 1. Earlier this year, the City position letter for Preliminary Plan #4-02023 included a summary of the cumulative impacts on public facilities based on the three Fairwood subdivision plans that were approved and pending approval (#4-02023). This information as to the cumulative impacts should be useful to Council on Tuesday night as you formulate a collective decision on the DSP.
Although the DSP phase of review does not include consideration of adequate public facilities (APF), the Advisory Planning Board's recommendation has a message of consistency in relation to City positions for development plans for the Fairwood site. Therefore, the Council's decision for DSP #02036 will be a recommendation within the parameters of detailed site plan reviews. In addition, a subsequent letter of concern from the City to the County Planning Board is appropriate about the City's ongoing concerns for the impacts that the Fairwood site will have on the County's ability to provide public services to future residents of the site.
Attachment
DJD:LJS
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: David J. Deutsch, City Manager
SUBJECT: Fairwood DATE: 9/12/02
Detailed Site Plan (DSP) #02036
Phase I - Part One
________________________________________________________________________
I. General Information
Applicant: Rouse Fairwood Development Limited Partnership and Goodier Builders
Status of Applicant: owner/developer
Project Name: Fairwood
Location: south side of Maryland Route 450 and east of proposed Fairwood Parkway (see Attachment 1)
Acreage: 9.4 acres (entire site is 1,050 acres)
Existing zoning: Mixed-Use-Community (M-X-C)
Existing Land Use: scattered large lot, single-family residential and agriculture (turf farm)
Proposed Land Use: 1,799 dwelling units; 100,000 square feet retail commercial; 250,000 square feet office/quasi-public space
Adjacent Land Uses/Zoning: North: Oden Bowie property/historic site and cemetery, R-E (Residential-Estate), and Fairwood Phase I, Part Two, M-X-C; East: Church Road and Fairwood Phase II, M-X-C; South: Nancy Walker property, large lot, single-family residential/agricultural uses, R-A (Residential-Agriculture); West: Marleigh, single-family 46 attached/175 detached units (R-L); Christian Hope Ministries property, large lot single-family residential (R-E).
Master Plan Living Area: Community VI (see Attachment 2)
Sectional Map Amendment: Rezoned from R-A to R-E in 1991
Water and Sewer Category: S-3 and W-3
II. Background/Proposal
The Rouse Company, the developer of the Fairwood Turf Farm site has submitted
a detailed site plan (DSP) in Phase I - Part One. The scope of this plan is
for an area totaling 9.4 acres, comprised of Parcels D, E and O (see Attachment
3). The subject proposal is for 75 townhouses to be sited in a neighborhood
within the 1,050-acre site that is referred to as "The Choice at Fairwood"
(see Attachment 4). The builder is Goodier Builders, Inc., of Columbia, Maryland.
Overall, the Fairwood site contains 1,050 acres. The portion of the Fairwood
site in this review is located north and east of the proposed Fairwood Parkway
(the main entrance at MD Rte. 450 across from Bell Station Road) and on both
the north and south side of (future extended) Hillmeade Road. This future segment
of Hillmeade Road will be constructed in the adjacent Woodmore North property
(formerly Westwood) and then extend into the Fairwood site. The new segment
of Hillmeade Road in Fairwood will terminate in a "T" intersection
at Fairwood Parkway.
The three parcels in DSP #02036 were created in a Preliminary Plan of subdivision
(#497024) that was reviewed in 1997. Subsequently, the developer submitted a
Detailed Site Plan (#99052) for 241 acres in the northeast portion of the Fairwood
site. The scope of DSP #99052 was for the review of planned grading, road construction
and infrastructure improvements.
Each neighborhood in Fairwood will have a streetscape associated with it. The
details of these aspects were reviewed in a DSP for streetscape features. Several
streetscape features proposed in residential neighborhoods throughout the development
for the continuation of a common theme. For example, ornamental picket fences
with brick piers will define the edges and corners at intersections along the
public right-of-way (see Attachment 5). Main entrance intersections into a neighborhood
will have `main entrance brick piers' as shown on Attachment 5. Brick piers
will have pre-cast sign panels with the name of the neighborhood. Some fence
corner posts will be iron-constructed bollards (see Attachment 5). The location
of this latter type of corner post is dependent on the visibility of the corner
in the neighborhood. A series of connected pocket parks are planned for the
development. One such pocket park will be located in the subject neighborhood.
A park bench will be provided as shown on Attachment 5. Centralized mailboxes
will be located in the neighborhood in a metal box mounted on a metal pedestal
as shown in Attachment 5. Ornamental street light fixtures are planned for the
community as shown on Attachment 5.
The builder is proposing three townhouse models (see Attachments 6-8). Each
model has varying front elevations. The models vary in widths of 20, 26 and
28 feet. All of the models are three stories in height and range from 42 feet,
41.3 feet and 42.9 feet, respectively.
The 20-foot wide model has nine elevations. Three of the nine elevations have optional bay windows with slightly different architectural details to distinguish them from each other. The second set of 20foot wide elevations has an optional boxed bay window. The third set of elevations does not have either the bay or boxed window options. The 26- and 28-foot wide models have two front elevations. The 20-foot wide models have a one-car garage. Both the 26-and 28-foot wide units have two-car garages. The 28-foot wide model has wrap around brick on the side elevation (see Attachment 9). All three models will have decks constructed by the builder as a standard feature. The decks range in dimensions of 18' x 12', 24' x 12' and 26' x 12', with the smallest dimensions being for the smallest unit, respectively. The depth of the three models ranges from 39 feet, 36.3 feet and 37.9 feet, respectively. Twelve-foot high privacy fence panels will extend from the back walls of the units. The livable space for each model is 740.0, 919.5, and 989.6 square feet, respectively.
A partial list of building materials for the units is shown on Attachment 10. General notes in the DSP indicate the builder has selected exterior colors and building material schemes. The units will have vinyl siding with brick and cultured stone, the latter two as options. All foundations will have a brick pattern finish and these will be painted to match the color of the vinyl on a unit. All units will have fiberglass shingles, and, in some units (dependent on the options), metal roofs can be selected. There are four colors of metal roof materials to choose from: forest green, medium bronze, Colonial red and slate gray. The units will have shutters and gutters/downspout systems. The choice of colors to select from for the shutters include: old Colonial red, Georgetown green, black, deep forest brown, old carriage brown and Carolina slate. Garage door styles will vary depending on buyer preference (some are paneled with glass inserts). All fireplaces are optional. No two units located next to or across the street from each other will have the same elevation.
III. Stakeholders Meeting
On Wednesday, 7/17/02, staff conducted a Stakeholders meeting for Detailed Site
Plan #02036. One stakeholder (Mr. Art Eisenstein of the Greater Bowie Chamber
of Commerce) was in attendance along with a representative for the applicant
and Planning staff. Ms. Peggy White, a professional engineer with the RBA Group
presented the plan. She said the builder (Goodier Builders, Inc.) has had a
presence in the Rouse Company's Columbia development. She explained how these
parcels, identified as being planned for Other Residential (O-R) uses are being
developed for single-family attached units as a transition from single-family
detached to the east and retail commercial to the west. She said in the Rouse
Company's development scheme for the overall site, O-R uses are considered to
be transitional areas in relation to adjacent land uses within the community.
She identified the three parcels that comprise the area within "The Choice
at Fairwood." She said most street names within the subject area would
have the word "choice" in it for a historic connection to the property.
She said other streets in this neighborhood have the name "row" in
them, in relation to their geographic location to the adjacent retail commercial
uses. She discussed the floodplain areas in Parcel B and said this also serves
as a buffer between the single-family detached to the east and the subject attached
units.
Next, Ms. White discussed the proposed architecture. All of the units have garages as a standard feature. She said the smallest model has a one-car garage and the two larger models have two-car garages. The two larger models have more architectural details including reverse gables in the rooflines, porches (for the 28-foot wide model) and balconies for the two larger units. She said the corner units would not have side entries by design. The builder is trying to create a `Charleston, South Carolina-look' in this section with these architectural features. She said the Charleston-look would be carried over in the development with picket fences throughout this section (see Attachment 5). She also noted there are decorative posts with panels planned for this section for purposes of easily identifying and defining the neighborhood within the overall development. The posts will be strategically located at street corners and highly visible intersections for neighborhood identification. She said all end units would be exclusively the 28foot wide unit. She said the intention is to create the appearance that attached units in a given "stick" or building of townhouses is large from a visual perspective. She said all of the units would be built on slabs. She explained the architectural controls required by the developer, similar to those that have been established in the Rouse-built Columbia development. She said for example, residents would select a pre-determined color scheme for a unit. Residents will not have the flexibility to independently deviate from their color scheme and change the color of their front door, after the unit has been constructed, without authorization from the Fairwood Management Association (similar to the Columbia Association). She also said the developer is preparing a tracking system for the residential building permits that will ensure that at a minimum 60% of each townhouse "stick" or group of attached units will have brick fronts (versus 60% of each individual townhouse unit front facade). She said this is a requirement of the developer. All end units are required to have brick front facades wrap around onto the end walls. She said this is also a requirement from the developer.
Next, Ms. White discussed the urban streetscape.
She said the County's Department of Public Works and Transportation (DPW&T)
encouraged the parking design to include 90 degree angled on-street parking
(on Trade Row and Commerce Row). She said there would be a community mailbox
system in this section, partly for ease of mail delivery and also to create
central gathering places for the residents of this section. She said there would
be a series of interconnected trails throughout the development including to
the adjacent community use area. She said there also are "pocket parks"
in the overall design to create open spaces with park benches and sitting areas.
The pocket parks are part of the connected "green swath/open space"
system planned for the development. She said as part of the open space system
in this section, the builder situated several groups of units so as to create
common space for units that back up to each other (as in Parcel B between Epponia's
Choice Drive and Prince's Choice Drive).
At this point in the meeting, she said the builder had not yet decided a key
aspect about this neighborhood and whether the townhouses would be under fee-simple
or condominium ownership. She said this aspect makes a difference as to rear
building restrictions and the determination of property lines. She said this
aspect had to be resolved (in consideration of the rear building restriction
line) before the applicant could proceed through the development review process.
STAFF NOTE: Since the Stakeholders meeting, the builder has decided the townhouses
will be under condominium ownership. Based on this decision, identification
of rear building restriction lines is no longer an issue.
IV. Analysis
The Rouse Company has submitted a Detailed Site Plan (DSP) on behalf of the
builder. A Landscape Plan is part of the DSP review requirement.
Detailed Site Plan
The Detailed Site Plan includes numerous features that will be provided by the
developer in the streetscape and by the builder in relation to the proposed
townhouse units. The DSP submittal includes architectural elevations for the
townhouses. The architecture has been reviewed in relation to the City's Development
Review Guidelines. The finding has been made that the elevations are consistent
with the spirit and intent of the Guidelines, including the provision for no
blank end walls. In most end wall elevations, the minimum two end wall features
have been provided or exceeded by several features. General notes in the Plan
also stipulate "No two units located next to or across the street from
each other will have the same elevation." This latter general note is also
consistent with the Guidelines.
Landscape Plan
The Landscape Plan shows several detailed areas within the neighborhood as to
the provision of groundcover, perennials and annuals, shrubs, ornamental, evergreen
and shade trees. The Plan also goes to the level of detail to distinguish sun
tolerant plant materials. An example of how Commerce Row Drive will be landscaped
in the planned streetscape is shown in Attachment 11.
A variety of landscape materials are proposed for aesthetic/ornamental and shade
purposes. The plant materials are identified by both common and botanical names.
The plant lists have been reviewed in relation to a list of recommended native
plants from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Chesapeake Bay Field Office)
BayScapes Program information. Two plants and one tree species in particular
are non-native species. Planning staff consulted with the City Arborist about
these three non-native species. He suggested the Norway Spruce be substituted
with either American Holly or Pitch Pine. Norway Spruce is prone to spider mite
infestation and may not be the best choice in the landscape. Heavenly Bamboo
(Nandina domestica) is a non-native, invasive plant species. Although the intention
is to plant it in a maintained landscaped area, it should be substituted with
native shrubs. The concern is bird droppings easily transport its seeds to adjacent
locations where the bamboo would be undesirable and not maintained. In these
instances, this species of bamboo is invasive. English Ivy is also a non-native
invasive groundcover. In the Landscape Plan, English Ivy will be planted within
maintained flower beds (contained areas) and is therefore appropriate as a groundcover.
Due to the existing steep topography in some areas along the edges of the three
parcels, retaining walls will be installed. The location and details of these
are included in the Landscape Plan.
Other Considerations
DSP #02036 is exempt from the City's Wildlife Habitat Management Guidelines
for two reasons. First, the Fairwood site is outside of the City limits. Secondly,
the scope of this application contains an area less than 10-acres. The Guidelines
apply to sites 10 acres and greater. Also, this portion of the Fairwood development
is being graded for installation of the public infrastructure (utilities and
streets). In 1999, this portion of the Fairwood site Was the subject of SP #99052
for the grading, road construction and infrastructure improvements planned as
part of the development as stated in the Background/Proposal section of this
report.
V. Recommendation
DSP #02036 "The Choice at Fairwood" meets the spirit and intent of
design guidelines used in the review of such plans. There is a concern however,
for the proposed use of some nonnative, invasive plant species in the Landscape
Plan. The developer is encouraged to use native plant species from the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service's BayScapes Program. Two plant species on the list
should be substituted for native, non-invasive plant materials. Therefore, it
is recommended that DSP #02036 for "The Choice at Fairwood" be APPROVED
subject to the following condition:
1. The Landscape Plan should be modified to substitute the use of Norway Spruce
with either American Holly or Pitch Pine. The Heavenly Bamboo plants should
be substituted with native shrubs from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
list of recommended native plants found in BayScapes Program information.
Attachments
JMM:LJS
P/Lori/Turf Farm/turfdspo2o36memo
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Reverend John C. Cooper, Sr., Chairman
Bowie Advisory Planning Board
RE: Fairwood DATE: 9/12/02
Detailed Site Plan (DSP) #02036
The Bowie Advisory Planning Board (BAPB) met on Tuesday, September 10, 2002
to review a Detailed Site Plan known as "The Choice at Fairwood" located
in Phase I - Part One. This is a proposal for 75 townhouse units on three parcels
that comprise 9.4 acres of the 1,050- acre Fairwood site. The property is zoned
Mixed-Use-Community (M-X-C). The site is located on the south side of Maryland
Route 450 and on the north and south sides of future Hillmeade Road (extended).
Presentations
Mrs. Lori Shirley of the Planning Department presented
the staff report and recommendation. First, she oriented the Board to the location
of the site as being within the northeast portion of the development. She identified
the three parcels (D, E and O) that make up the 9.4 acres in this proposal.
She explained how the parcels were situated in relation to future Hillmeade
Road extended. She said this road will eventually be constructed in the adjacent
Woodmore North site (formerly Westwood), and continue south into Fairwood and
end in a "T" intersection at Fairwood Parkway. She said these parcels
were created in an earlier subdivision in 1997. She said subsequent to that
subdivision plan, the developer obtained approval of a DSP in 1999 for approximately
240 acres in the northeast portion of the site for planned grading, road construction
and infrastructure improvements.
Next, Mrs. Shirley discussed how the developer planned each neighborhood in
the development to have a streetscape associated with it. She said details of
streetscape features were reviewed and approved in a separate DSP. She described
some of these features, and that in this neighborhood, the builder was trying
to create a 'Charleston, South Carolina' look with the use of ornamental picket
fencing at highly visible intersections. She said these same intersections would
have brick piers at the corners of the fencing. She said in the brick piers
would be pre-cast panels with the name of the neighborhood for purposes of identification
and continuation of the overall planned streetscape theme. She said at less
visible intersections there will be corner posts to the fences that are iron-constructed
bollards, again to continue with the Charleston theme. She discussed the three-townhouse
models proposed by the builder. She said Goodier Builders has had a presence
in the Rouse-built Columbia site. She said the three models vary in width from
20 feet at the smallest to 26 and 28 feet at the largest. She said the builder
intends to construct each unit with a deck as a standard feature. She said the
dimensions of each deck are based on the width of each model. She said in the
staff report there are a variety of options and architectural features listed
that the builder will offer. She said that, similar to the Columbia site, there
are architectural controls that will be enforced by an Association. She said,
for example, once a buyer selects a unit and a color scheme, the buyer would
not have the flexibility to later change the color for even something like a
front door.
Next, Mrs. Shirley said a Stakeholders meeting was held in July of this year. She said one stakeholder was present. She said a representative from the RBA Group, Ms. Peggy White, explained specifics of the DSP. One aspect of the development, at that time, was the builder had not determined whether the units would be under fee-simple or condominium ownership. She said the difference in the ownership was a factor for a fee simple scenario, in that the establishment of individual property lines and lots for the units would have be created so that setbacks would have resulted. She said the builder has since determined the units would be under a condominium ownership, so the property lines and setbacks were no longer an issue.
Mrs. Shirley continued by describing the review of the DSP in relation to the City's Development Review Guidelines. She said the DSP meets the spirit and intent of the Guidelines in providing for, at a minimum, two architectural end wall features, and that no two same unit facades would be located side by side or across the street from each other. She said side elevations in this application exceeded the number of two end wall features. She also said the builder intends to allow only the largest of the three models (28-foot wide) on all end units within a "stick" or group of units in a building. She said typically builders do this and provide for the smaller units internal to a "stick" or group of units.
Mrs. Shirley discussed the Landscape Plan. She
said the Plan includes details as to the provision of groundcover, perennials
and annuals, shrubs, ornamental, evergreen and shade trees. She said the City's
Arborist provided input in relation to three non-native plant species shown
on the plan. She said the concern was that two of the three non-native plants
can spread outside of the garden beds and contained areas where they are proposed.
She said staff wanted to make especially this developer, along with the development
community in the Bowie area, aware of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's BayScapes
Program and the variety of native plant species from their information that
are good substitutes to invasive non-natives. She concluded her comments by
saying staff recommends APPROVAL of DSP #02036 for The Choice at Fairwood subject
to one condition relating to the substitution of two of the non-native plant
species with native plants, as found on page 6 of the staff report.
Ms. Kathryn May, an attorney with Gibbs and Haller, was present to represent
both the developer (The Rouse Company) and the builder (Goodier Builders, Inc.).
She said this portion of the site represents what the developer considers to
be a transitional area of the site. She said she read the staff report and recommendation
for approval and was in agreement with the recommendation.
Citizen Participation
There were no citizens present for this agenda item.
BAPB Discussion
Questions and comments by BAPB members centered on the following:
· Vice Chairman Nuriddin asked staff what
construction materials would be used for the decks and the privacy fences to
be built by the builder? [Mrs. Shirley said she thought the DSP showed pre-treated
lumber, but she said she would have to recheck.] Ms. Nuriddin said if it was
pre-treated lumber she had information that the EPA has a new law to enforce
that prohibits the use of pre-treated lumber by 2004. [Ms. May said she would
take this concern to the builder.]
· Vice Chairman Nuriddin said, while she realized this proposal is for
a DSP, she still has concerns for the overall impacts this development will
have on the area regarding adequate public facilities. She said she could not
support this plan based on her concerns with the impact this site will have
on the County's ability to provide for public services to the future residents.
She said she was especially concerned about the County's response times for
the development in the area of ambulance and fire/rescue. She asked staff how
many mailboxes would be located in the community mailboxes? [Mrs. Shirley said
she was not sure how many each community mailbox would contain, and she would
have to go back and look closer at the DSP. She said, in response to Ms. Nuriddin's
comments about public facilities, several preliminary plans of subdivision for
the site have gone through the APF tests. She reminded the Board that this phase
of plan review (DSP) does not include APF considerations.]
· Mr. Skotz asked staff if one or more "Associations" would
manage the Fairwood site? [Mrs. Shirley said she understood that one "Association"
would manage the Fairwood site, similar to the one (Columbia Association) that
manages this Rouse Company-built community.]
· Mr. Skotz asked staff whether Fairwood is planned as one or more "villages"
similar to their Columbia site? [Mrs. Shirley said the Fairwood site is the
equivalent of one of the nine villages that comprise Columbia being carved out
and landing at Fairwood.]
· Mr. Stith made the comment that he, too, had concerns with the infrastructure
and the County's ability to provide adequate public services to the future residents
of Fairwood. He said his concerns were more in the area of public schools and
overcrowding. He said, in his opinion, the infrastructure for this development
would not be adequate.
· Mr. Stith asked staff about the site's density? He said, for example,
the subject parcels equal just less than 10-acres and 75 townhouse units are
proposed. He noted that the density in this portion is almost 7.5 units per
acre. [Mrs. Shirley said, at the time the site was rezoned to M-X-C, it was
approved for 1,799 dwelling units. She said by spreading these units across
the 1,050-acre site, the density is calculated to be approximately 1.7 units
per acre. She said there are also neighborhoods of single-family detached units
on larger lots, for example, adjacent to the Woodmore North site, for purposes
of compatibility. She said there are also planned 'development pods' or areas
for higher density single-family attached units (townhouses) and multi-family
attached units (condominiums). She said there are areas of open space and two
park site symbols from the 1991 Area Master Plan that will be implemented as
a result of this development. She said, historically, the City did not support
the proposed density at 1.7 because it was considered to be too dense for this
site. She said in response to comments about the public infrastructure, the
developer had a DSP approved in 1999 in this portion of the site for planned
grading, road construction and public infrastructure improvements. She said
she believed this portion within the larger DSP area had already been graded.]
Mr. Skotz said he knew that grading work has already been done in this area
and that the streets were being built.
· Chairman Cooper asked staff to explain
the plans for Hillmeade Road (extended) into Fairwood ? [Mrs. Shirley described
how the road would be extended from Md. Rte. 450 and into the Woodmore North
site (formerly Westwood). She said the adjacent site is under development now
for single-family detached units on a minimum of 30,000 square foot lots. She
said Hillmeade Road would continue south into the Fairwood site and end in a
"T" intersection at Fairwood Parkway. She said the latter is the main
entrance into the site.]
· Mr. Stith asked staff to explain why, in this case, the site was reviewed
in relation to the City's Development Review Guidelines and yet it was exempt
from the City's Wildlife Guidelines? [Mrs. Shirley said the Development Review
Guidelines are customarily used by City staff for sites both in and outside
of the City. She said, in the case of the Wildlife Guidelines, this portion
of the Fairwood site has already been graded over the past two years. She said
the likelihood that there is much in the way of valuable habitat left in these
parcels is not very great.]
· Vice Chairman Nuriddin asked staff for clarification about the exemption
of the Wildlife Guidelines? She asked when were the Wildlife Guidelines adopted
by the City Council? [Mrs. Shirley said staff determined the site is exempt
from the City's Wildlife Guidelines because it did not meet the two criteria
for sites to be reviewed in relation to the Guidelines. First, she said, the
site is outside the City limits, and second, the site is just under 10 acres
in size. She said the City Council adopted the Wildlife Guidelines in January
of this year. She said the City couldn't use the Guidelines in relation to sites
outside the City since we do not have zoning authority. She said when the Wildlife
Guidelines were being written, it was the intention of the EWHAG to have an
exemption for smaller sites, less than 10-acres. She said this was based on
the belief that smaller sites would probably have less valuable habitat areas
compared to larger sites. She said it was also the belief of the EWHAG that
applying the Guidelines to smaller sites could be too cumbersome.]
· Vice Chairman Nuriddin asked if the two criteria used from the Wildlife
Guidelines, determining whether a site is exempt or not, are equal in weight
or is one more important then the other? [Mrs. Shirley said City staff looks
at these two criteria as having equal weight in determining exemptions.]
· Mr. Skotz asked staff what is the likelihood that Fairwood will undergo
annexation into the City? [Mrs. Shirley said Fairwood would not be annexed into
the City. She said it is not contiguous to the City limits.]
· Mr. Rogers asked whether the site would be served by public transportation?
[Mrs. Shirley said Metro bus stops would be located throughout the development.
She said, however, in this case, the developer is not required to establish
a private bus system that complements the Metro bus system. She said another
large planned community in the Planning Area, Oak Creek Club in the Church Road
South vicinity, has conditions placed on the Basic Plan approval that requires
the developer to provide a private bus system to complement the public bus system.]
· Chairman Cooper asked, based on the on-street public parking staff
explained, would this impede the Metro Bus system's ability to make bus stop
connections? [Mrs. Shirley said no. She explained the difference between primary
residential streets where Metro Bus stops are located and secondary residential
streets where the on-street parking areas will be located at the recommendation
of the County's Department of Public Works and Transportation.]
· Chairman Cooper asked Ms. May: when will the townhouses be built? He
said he had concerns for new traffic from the development being put on streets
when not all of the required roads in the development may be completed. He said,
we know the Md. Rte. 450 widening project isn't finished yet. He asked what
is the timing of the completion of the two? [Ms. May said she was not certain
as to the timing of the completion of townhouse units and the road improvements.
Mrs. Shirley said, in the latest Preliminary Plan of subdivision that was reviewed
and approved earlier this year, there was a condition placed on the approval
that is a timing mechanism in relation to the completion of units and required
internal road construction. She said that was a condition that came from M-NCPPC
Transportation Planning staff. She said the condition was partly intended to
address the access of emergency response vehicles so that the roads being constructed
within the development would keep pace with the completion of units in a given
neighborhood. She said the Advisory Planning Board did not have knowledge of
this condition, because it came after the Board's review. She said it was discussed
at the County Planning Board's public hearing.]
· Mr. Tanoe asked Ms. May to explain how this portion of the site is
considered to be a transitional area? [Ms. May said, in relation to the adjacent
single-family detached portion of the site to the northeast and to the commercial
parcels to the southwest, this portion of the site is in between those two development
pods. She said the single-family attached units were a good 'transition' between
the two adjacent land uses.]
· Mr. Stith asked would there be other 9.4-acre parcels to come in for
development review in relation to the Wildlife Guidelines? [Mrs. Shirley replied
that it is possible within the Fairwood site. She said, at best, we could recommend
in the next DSP for grading that the work should be done at times other than
the nesting bird breeding season identified in the Guidelines.]
· Vice Chairman Nuriddin asked staff to clarify that, in this instance,
this part of the site was graded before the Wildlife Guidelines were even written?
[Mrs. Shirley said that was correct.]
· Mr. Loftin said he has heard a lot of discussion this evening about
roads. He asked Ms. May about the developer's responsibility to have the roads
interface with U.S. Route 50? [Ms. May said she had no knowledge of any required
road improvements by the developer to the freeway.]
· Mr. Stith asked Ms. May to describe how vehicles from the site would
get to U.S. Route 50? He asked: do they have to get there from either Md. Rte.
193 or to Rte. 197? [Ms. May said yes.]
· Mr. Stith asked Ms. May whether there was any ongoing discussion about
a new interchange to U.S. Rte. 50 at Church Road or at Md. Rte. 193? [Ms. May
said no.] Chairman Cooper said the Church Road improvements required by this
developer are limited. He said he has not heard of any interchange in the works
at this location. Mr. Skotz said the only site available at Md. Rte. 193 (the
former Albert Turner property) is now owned by a church. Chairman Cooper said
this Board has looked at this issue in previous reviews of Fairwood plans. [Ms.
May said we have been through all the required APF transportation reviews.]
Chairman Cooper compared the Fairwood site to the Columbia site. He said in
Columbia all of the roads are constructed. He said at the Fairwood site, not
all of the roads are yet constructed, and we have a lot more traffic in this
area.
BAPB Motion
Mr. Skotz made a motion to accept the staff recommendation for APPROVAL of Detailed Site Plan #02036. Mr. Rogers seconded the motion. The motion passed by a 5 to 2 vote. Voting against the motion were Ms. Nuriddin and Mr. Stith. Mr. Troyer said he wanted to change his vote to one for disapproval.
Mr. Stith said he could not in good conscience support this plan based on his concerns for public facilities. Ms. Nuriddin said she, too, could not support this due to the concerns she already mentioned about the pre-treated lumber for the decks and the need for a disclosure statement for potential purchasers. She said she was concerned that she did not want to be a part of a bad decision at this time, just because worse decisions were made about this development 10 to 15 years ago. She said she refused to put a "rubber stamp" approval on this plan. Mr. Loftin said he agreed with Ms. Nuriddin. To clarify matters, Chairman Cooper recalled the original vote on the motion. The motion failed by a 3-4 vote. Voting against the motion were Vice Chairman Nuriddin, Mr. Stith, Mr. Troyer and Mr. Loftin.
Chairman Cooper said a new motion is needed since Board members seem to have more concerns about the Fairwood development that are more far reaching than within the scope of this DSP. Mr. Stith made a motion to DISAPPROVE Detailed Site Plan #02036 based on the earlier comments from his colleagues. He said he believed bad decisions at this time only compound worse decisions that have been made in the past. He said he could not count on a developer who didn't live in the community where the many impacts would result for those of us who live here. Ms. Nuriddin seconded the motion. The motion passed by a unanimous vote of 7-0.
LJS
P:Lori/Turf Farm/turfdsp02036BAPBmemo
LAND USE PETITION IN THE BOWIE PLANNING AREA
Md.-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
ID: Detailed Site Plan #02036
Fairwood Phase I, Part One
Bowie Advisory Planning Board # 02-?? Date: July 17, 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;
____ (c) to subdivide property into building lots and obtain adequate public
facilities approval;
X (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: Detailed Site Plan
2. Petitioner: Rouse-Fairwood Development Limited Partnership
3. Represented by: Mr. Ed Gibbs, Gibbs and Haller
4. Location of Petitioned Property: South side of MD Rte. 450, west of Fairwood
Parkway and the north and south sides of (future extended) Hillmeade Road.
5. Proposed use of Petitioned Property: 75 single-family attached townhouse
units.
6. Size/Zone of Petitioned Property: 9.4 acres/zoned M-X-C (Mixed-Use-Community)
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 at 8:00 p.m.
9. Date of hearing before Prince George's County Planning Board: Thursday, September
5, 2002
at 8:30 a.m.
10. Date of hearing before Hearing Examiner: N/A
11. Date of hearing before District Council:
NOTICES/LEGALS DATE Number of Mailing/Signs
Notice sent to Adj. Properties: 4/22/02
Notice sent to Parties of Record 4/22/02
Date Signs Posted: 7/9/02
Date Legal Sent: 4/22/02
Date Legal Appeared: 4/25/02
RECOMMENDATIONS:
12. Department of Planning & Economic Development Recommendation:
The Department of Planning & Economic Development staff recommends
13. Bowie Advisory Planning Board Recommendation: