MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: David J. Deutsch, City Manager
SUBJECT: Preliminary Plan #4-02023
and Final Development Plan #0201
Fairwood DATE: 5/2/02
_______________________________________________________________________
I. General Information
Applicant: Rouse Fairwood Development Limited Partnership
Status of Applicant: owner/developer
Project Name: Fairwood
Location: north of U.S Route 50 and west of the PEPCO power lines (see Attachment 1)
Acreage: 266.33 acres
Existing zoning: Mixed-Use-Community (M-X-C)
Existing Land Use: scattered large lot, single-family residential and agriculture (turf farm)
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: U.S Route 50/John Hanson Highway; the Nancy Walker property, large lot, single-family residential/agricultural uses, R-A (Residential-Agriculture); West: PEPCO right-of-way; 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); Community Character: Large lot/Alternative Low Density (see Attachment 3)
Sectional Map Amendment: Rezoned from R-A to R-E in 1991
Water and Sewer Category: S-3 and W-3
Police: District II - Bowie Substation
Fire and Rescue: Engine - Station #18 (Glenn Dale)
Ladder - Station #18 (Glenn Dale)
Ambulance and Medic - Station #19 (Glenn Dale)
Public Schools: Woodmore Elementary, Benjamin Tasker Middle, Bowie High
Library: Bowie Branch
II. Background
The Rouse Company, the developer of the Fairwood Turf Farm site has submitted a Preliminary Plan of Subdivision for Phase II, Part One of the 1,058 acres comprising the development (see Attachment 4). A total of 266.33 acres are within the scope of review for this plan. At the same time, the applicant has submitted a Final Development Plan (FDP) for concurrent review. The FDP comprises 263 acres.
Numerous previous plans have been reviewed in the Fairwood site for both Phases I and II. A summary of these include Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA) 9894 (and corresponding Preliminary Development Plan [PDP]), a Comprehensive Sketch Plan CP-9504, a Preliminary Plat of Subdivision #4-97024, and a Final Development Plan (FDP) #9701. In late 1999, Detailed Site Plan (SP) #99034 was reviewed for the community-wide signage program. A second Preliminary Plan (#4-00057) was reviewed in late 2000. In late 2001, a Detailed Site Plan (DSP #01026) was reviewed for single-family architecture, including over 500 elevations form ten individual builders.
A description of the site design/lot layout in Pre. Plan #4-02023 is as follows: A total of 292 lots are proposed for single-family detached units. A total of 24 parcels are provided for open space areas. One of these parcels is a 10-acre park site to be dedicated to the Park and Planning Commission. It is identified as Parcel D on Attachment 4 and is named the Collington West Community Park. Parcel D is located in the southwest portion of the site and is partly contiguous to the Marleigh site. Along the common property line in the Marleigh site is a portion of the planned Collington West Community Park. Three parcels are within an "Other Residential" area of this plan.
Primary vehicular access to the site will be from Fairview Drive, which is a "T" intersection at Church Road (relocated). Fairview Drive will have a 52-foot right-of-way and it will serve as the main spine road in this area of the development. A series of secondary residential streets (all having a 50-foot r-o-w) branch off from Fairview Drive. All secondary streets either terminate at a "T" intersection, or a cul-de-sac. There are four "eyebrow-like" courts (or half cul-de-sacs) located in the southeast portion of the site (and south of Fairview Drive and west of the PEPCO power lines). A total of 19 cul-de-sac-streets are proposed throughout the site, all originating from Fairview Drive. The plan does not provide for a vehicular connection to the adjacent Marleigh site to the west (see Attachment 4).
A series of interconnected trails are proposed throughout the site. This pedestrian/biker system includes four types of trails with various surfaces. For example, Master Plan pedestrian/biker trails will be 10 feet wide with asphalt pavement. Neighborhood trail connectors will be six feet wide (at a minimum) and will also have an asphalt pavement surface. The applicant proposes a "general trail system not on land to be conveyed to the M-NCPPC including existing farm lane and/or new path: width and materials vary." The fourth trail type is a concrete sidewalk system in the public r-o-w with a minimum width of four feet.
General Notes contained on #4-02023 are found in Attachment 5. The notes detail design specifics including the historic Fairview homestead that is not a part of this subdivision. Based on lot layout and overall design, secondary streets and lots are proposed around all four sides of the homestead (see Attachment 4). Twenty lots in close proximity to the Fairview historic site's perimeter have been identified on the plan (see Attachment 4 and the hash-marked lots). These lots have been identified to ensure compatibility with the historic setting of the homestead (see Attachment 5, Note #27). One large barn structure in Parcel B and adjacent to and southeast of the homestead will have portions of its foundation preserved for a "barn interpretive site" (see Attachment 5, Note #12). Notes #21 and Note #22 stipulate that all residential and "Other Residential" structures in this plan will have full sprinkler systems in compliance with national fire protection standards and applicable County laws. Noise levels and associated decibel ranges have been shown on the plan, especially in relation to U.S. Route 50/John Hanson Highway (see Attachment 4).
There are both natural and man-made characteristics on and adjacent to the subject site. The Northeast Branch, a tributary of the Patuxent River, is found on this portion of the Fairwood site. One hundred-year floodplain is also present at this site. One visually prominent man-made characteristic associated with the site is the presence of the Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO) twin towers with high voltage transmission lines (see Attachment 4). The towers and transmission lines are within a 250-foot wide right-of-way (r-o-w) owned and maintained by PEPCO. This r-o-w runs in a north/south direction. In relation to the subject property, the PEPCO r-o-w serves as an eastern border of the proposed subdivision area. A second significant man-made characteristic about the site is the adjacent location of U.S. Route 50/John Hanson Highway. The highway has eight lanes and it serves as a major transportation facility for motorists traveling west to Washington, D.C. and east to Annapolis.
A Tree Conservation Plan (TCP) Type I has been prepared and submitted to the M-NCPPC Environmental Planning section. Most of the site has been used for a turf farm. This land use pre-dates the County's Woodland Conservation/Tree Preservation Ordinance (WC/TPO). Based on this land use, minimal areas of woodland/forest are found at the site. The applicant has also submitted stormwater management plans to the Prince George's County Department of Environmental Resources (DER) for concept approval. This site is outside of the City limits. Provisions for stormwater management will be through a series of on-site ponds for both retention and extended detention.
III. Analysis
The proposed Preliminary Plan has been reviewed for compliance with Subtitle 24 of the County Code (the County Subdivision regulations). A Preliminary Plan of Subdivision may be approved if the County Planning Board finds: adequate public facilities exist or are proposed for the area within which the subdivision is located; a stormwater management concept plan has been approved; and, the subdivision is designed in accordance with the provisions for woodland conservation and tree preservation.
In the M-X-C zone, Sec. 27-546.06 (c) (1) (D) of the County Zoning Ordinance, the FDP shall contain:
(D) Supporting evidence which shows whether the proposed development will exceed the capacity of transportation facilities that are existing, under construction, or for which one hundred percent (100%) of construction funds are allocated within the adopted County Capital Improvement Program or within the current State Consolidated Transportation Program.
A. Master Plan Considerations
On the adopted 1991 Area Master Plan, a community park site symbol is located on the southwest corner of the subject property (see Attachment 3). The Master Plan also shows proposed trails throughout the site. The implementation of these Master Plan considerations is during the Preliminary Plan review stage. These two considerations will be fulfilled with the provision of the park land dedication and an extensive trails system shown on the proposed Preliminary Plan. The developer intended early on to retain as many of the existing farm roads as possible, for integration into the site's pedestrian/bike trails system. One omission in the trails system is a connection to the adjacent Marleigh site at a stub street (Hallbright Place). In #4-02023 a trail is proposed from Mollies Pride Drive into Parcel C and the Collington West Community Park. The Fairwood developer should provide a trail connection to the Marleigh site.
B. Adequate Public Facilities (APF)
1. Schools
The M-NCPPC Growth Policy and Public Facilities Planning Section applied the new cluster methodology to the subject site and prepared the following chart with these findings:
Impact on Affected Public School
Clusters
AffectedSchoolClusters # SubdivisionEnrollment ActualEnrollment CompletionEnrollment
WaitEnrollment "CumulativeEnrollment"Approved Preliminary since
1-1-02 TotalEnrollment State RatedCapacity PercentCapacity FundedSchool
ElementarySchoolCluster 3 13.68 5864 339 128 0 6472.84 5054 128.07% Bowie,Whitehall
MiddleSchoolCluster 2 3.42 4397 201 189 6.19 4828.65 3648 132.36% East Central
HighSchoolCluster 2 6.84 12045 412 377 12.36 12917.28 10811 119.48% F. DouglasAddn.
SOURCE: Prince George's County Planning Department, M-NCPPC, January 2002
In the April 15, 2002 M-NCPPC referral the finding was made:
"The affected elementary, middle, and high school cluster percent capacities are greater than 105%. Bowie and Whitehall are the Funded Schools in the affected elementary school cluster. East Central is the Funded School in the affected middle school cluster. The Frederick Douglas addition is the Funded School in the affected high school cluster. Therefore, this subdivision can be approved with a three-year waiting period.
Based on this information, staff finds that the subdivision can be approved subject to conditions in accordance with Section 24-122.02.
Proposed Condition
No building permits shall be issued for this subdivision until the percent capacity at all the affected school clusters are less than or equal to 105% or 3 years have elapsed since the time of the approval of the preliminary plan of subdivision; or pursuant to the terms of the executed school facilities agreement whereby the subdivision applicant, to avoid a waiting period, agrees with the County Executive and County Council to construct or secure funding for construction of all or part of a school to advance capacity."
Similar to the Woodmore at Oak Creek (Pre. Plan #01100) reviewed by the City earlier this month, County Bill CB-40-2001 enables a developer to pay an up front, one-time fee instead of being subjected to the three-year wait. The applicant will most likely pay the required amount in an executed school facilities agreement to avoid the waiting period. This amount would be $4,940 per dwelling unit x 292 units = $1,442,480. This amount ($4,940) must be paid prior to the issuance of each building permit. This money is earmarked to resolve deficiencies within the school clusters serving the property. Above and beyond this is the $5,000 per dwelling unit School Facilities Surcharge. A total of 292 dwellings would yield $1,460,000. The Surcharge funds can be used anywhere within the County to improve school facilities. Thus, the total school revenue raised by the APF fee and Surcharge for this development is $2,902,480. This is approximately 21% of the cost of a new elementary school. Staff concurs with the inclusion of the condition recommended by M-NCPPC staff.
In the review of an earlier Preliminary
Plan (#4-00051) for Fairwood, the applicant's attorney disclosed that they
met with the County Superintendent as to the proposed elementary school site
at Fairwood. Mr. Ed Gibbs, the applicant's attorney, said they made the Superintendent
aware of the proposed school site, that the developer would be dedicating
the land for the school site, and that the developer is not responsible for
the construction of the public facility. Mr. Gibbs also said the Superintendent
did not discuss information as to when the proposed elementary school would
be added to the County School System's construction schedule.
2. Transportation
The M-NCPPC Transportation Planning Section did not require a Traffic Impact Study of the applicant. In their referral comments dated March 29, 2002, it was determined: "The subdivision is subject to findings made for preliminary plan of subdivision 4-97024. No new traffic data will be requested." However, in their referral they did express concern "about excessive development on cul-de-sacs (i.e., Goodloe's Promise Drive and Lee's Progress Drive). We will review approved cross-sections but have great concerns about the length of these cul-de-sacs, the number of lots on them, and the amount of traffic which would use a street within a 50-foot right-of-way which might have parking on both sides."
Although the applicant was not required to have a Traffic Impact Study prepared for this Preliminary Plan, Planning staff calculated the a.m. and p.m. peak hour trips to and from the site based on the proposed 292 dwelling units. Vehicle trips generated in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours by this development are as follows:
Morning Peak Hour Evening Peak
Hour
Entering Exiting Total Entering Exiting Total
Trips/SFU 0.15 0.60 0.75 0.59 0.31 0.90
Trips/ 292 SFU 44 175 219 172 91 263
Based on the developer's proffer to contribute $5.5 million to the State Highway
Administration (SHA) for the MD Route 450 project, M-NCPPC Transportation
Planning staff viewed this as more than the developer's fair share for road
improvements in relation to this site. It has also been previously determined
that the internal road network and major intersections in proximity to the
site will be at acceptable Levels-of-Service (L-O-S) once the MD Route 450
project is completed. Also, the three parcels in this plan in "Other
Residential" have not undergone analysis as to the uses proposed and
their related traffic impacts.
Attachment 6 is a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) aerial photo. It identifies the subject plan and several surrounding properties. The Marleigh development is located to the west of and contiguous to Fairwood. Marleigh contains a proposed stub street for future vehicular access to Fairwood (Hallbright Place). During the Marleigh Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA #9881) review in April 1995, the City recommended "that the street connection between Marleigh and the Turf Farm sites be retained." The reason for the condition was so that there would be a vehicular access connection to the two residential developing sites, especially with the knowledge of the proposed elementary school site at Fairwood.
3. Other Public Facilities
M-NCPPC staff from the Growth Policy and Public Facilities Planning Section has released referral comments for police services and emergency vehicle response times. A summary of the comments for police services are as follows: "the staff concludes that the existing County police facilities will be adequate to serve the proposed Fairwood Phase II, Part I development. This police facility [Bowie Substation] will adequately serve the population generated by the proposed subdivision." Park and Planning staff was contacted about their findings. The basis of their finding is that they can comment only on police facilities (buildings). However, they cannot comment as to manpower and the how and where manpower is assigned. Manpower assignments are the responsibility of the police management. Therefore, based on Planning Board guidelines, the police facility (building) is adequate.
The same Park and Planning Section released referral comments as to emergency vehicle response times for fire engine, ambulance and paramedic services. Their comments are as follows:
"The existing fire engine service at Glenn Dale Fire Station, Company 18 located at 11900 Glenn Dale Boulevard has a service response time of 8.76 minutes, which is beyond the 5.25 minutes response time guideline."
The existing ambulance and paramedic service at Glenn Dale Fire Station, Company 18 has a service response time of 8.76 minutes, which is beyond the 6.25 minutes response time guideline for ambulance, and a response time of 8.76 minutes, which is beyond the 7.25 minutes response time guidelines for paramedic."
Their referral comments also state: "In order to alleviate the negative impact on fire and rescue services due to the inadequate service discussed above, the Fire Department recommends that all residential structures be fully sprinkled in accordance with National Fire Protection Association Standard 13D and all applicable Prince George's County Laws."
Park and Planning staff was also contacted about their findings in these areas, in light of similar issues raised during the recent review of Woodmore at Oak Creek. There are slightly different circumstances in relation to the Woodmore at Oak Creek subdivision and the proposed Leeland Road Fire Station, compared to the subject proposal and the proposed Bowie New Town Center Fire Station [located on the east side of the Northview Drive/Health Center Road intersection]. In the former instance, the Leeland Road Station is on the adopted 1991 Area Master Plan. However, this public facility is not in the County's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for construction funding. The Bowie New Town Center Fire Station is in the County's CIP. Construction funding for this proposed facility has been delayed in the CIP for a number of years. Park and Planning staff was asked to consider two hypothetical situations in relation to the subject proposal and the New Town Center Station. First, they were asked to run the response time numbers for these three emergency services based on the existing road network, to the subject property, as if the New Town Center Station was fully operational. The results were most of the lots (292) were still "beyond" the response time guidelines in all three areas of emergency service. Next, they were asked to consider the hypothetical situation of the New Town Center Station being operational and an interchange being available on U.S. Route 50 at Church Road in the vicinity of the proposed A-44 interchange on the 1991 Master Plan (see Attachment 3). Park and Planning staff said this scenario could not be tested since it would require, first, a change to an adopted Area Master Plan for the suggested interchange and, second, the actual construction of an operational fire station at the New Town Center location. However, they said that if this two-part scenario were to come to fruition, the district ("service area") for the Fairwood site would probably be changed so that the New Town Center facility would have the subject site in its service area (and Fairwood most likely would be within an acceptable response time by their guidelines, given the reduced distance between the two points). An interchange on U.S. Route 50 between MD Route 197 and MD route 704 is on the County's Highway Priority listing.
Based on the existing service area for the three types of emergency response vehicles, the lack of construction funding for the New Town Center Fire Station in the County's CIP and no such interchange on an adopted Area Master Plan at U.S. Route 50/Church Road, Planning staff believes the finding of adequacy of the three emergency vehicles serviced by these three public facilities (engine, ambulance and paramedic) cannot be made. In addition, no such-long-range commitments are pending to alleviate the emergency services in these three areas in the foreseeable future. Similar to the Woodmore at Oak Creek Preliminary Plan, the Fairwood developer should be required to contribute their fair share funds to the proposed fire station facility on an adopted Master Plan (as was required of the developers of Beechtree and Oak Creek Club) that would provide emergency vehicle services to the residents and employees at the development.
Under M-X-C zoning regulations, there is a relationship between the two plans (Preliminary Plan #4-02023 and FDP #0201). In the Preliminary Plan, the applicant has the burden of proof as to the adequacy of 'other public facilities' (i.e. fire, ambulance and paramedic emergency vehicles). Staff recognizes transportation facilities for both the Preliminary Plan and the FDP are considered adequate based on findings from the M-NCPPC Transportation Planning Section. However, because the two plans must be reviewed in conjunction with each other under M-X-C zone regulations, and the Preliminary Plan cannot be supported, staff cannot recommend approval of the FDP.
C. Environmental Characteristics
Based on the presence of the Northeast Branch this natural resource will be preserved and protected with required buffers. The M-NCPPC Environmental Planning section oversees the establishment of Primary Management Areas (PMAs) and the establishment of the buffers in relation to the tributary. The applicant has also prepared a 100-year floodplain study, and M-NCPPC Environmental Planning staff has approved it.
The applicant has prepared and submitted a Tree Conservation Plan (TCP) Type I that is currently under review by the M-NCPPC Environmental Planning Division for compliance with the County's Woodland Conservation/Tree Preservation Ordinance (WC/TPO). In the M-X-C zone, the conservation/afforestation threshold is 15%. Early in the development review for the Fairwood site, a condition of plan approval required that the applicant prepare a comprehensive TCP for the entire site so that afforestation areas would be identified. This was partly done so that towards the end of the plan review for the site that has a 15 to 20 year build-out, it could be demonstrated that ample room for afforestation areas would be available on-site as the site developed in phases. The other reason the comprehensive TCP was necessary early on was based on the long-time land use of most of the site (turf farming). Existing woodland/forested areas are minimal. Conservation/afforestation needs at the Fairwood site are such that the developer would have to mostly afforest on-site to bring the woodland/forest needs up to the threshold. The turf farm land use precluded woodland retention at the site. It is anticipated the County Planning Board will approve the TCP Type II for the subject plan on the day of their scheduled hearing on May 16, 2002.
According to the M-NCPPC Environmental
Planning Division, information from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources
(MDNR) Natural Heritage Program publication "Ecologically Significant
Areas in Anne Arundel and Prince George's Counties" December 1997, indicates
"there are no rare, threatened or endangered species found to occur in
the vicinity of this lot."
D. Stormwater Management
The applicant obtained stormwater management plan concept approval from Prince George's County on March 28, 2002. This approval is valid until June 30, 2004.
IV. Recommendation
Preliminary Plan #4-02023 represents the third subdivision plan for the creation of lots for residential dwelling units at Fairwood. In close review of the three required findings to be made at the preliminary plan review stage, with emphasis on adequate public facilities, all of the 292 lots are beyond acceptable response times for fire engine, ambulance and paramedic emergency vehicles. These represent critical public health and safety inadequacies for future residents at this phase of Fairwood. Exacerbating this problem, no long-term planning commitments are on the horizon to alleviate these response time inadequacies. Based on the required relationship between the Preliminary Plan and the FDP under M-X-C zoning regulations, the FDP cannot be supported. Therefore, it is recommended Preliminary Plan #4-02023 and the corresponding FDP #0201for Fairwood Phase II, Part I be DISAPPROVED. It is further recommended that the City's transmittal letter include a statement regarding extension of the Fairwood trail system to connect to the Marleigh property.
Attachments
DJD:LJS
H:/lhsirley:keith:Turfpreplan02reort
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Reverend John C. Cooper, Sr.,
Chairman
Bowie Advisory Planning Board
RE: Preliminary Plan #4-02023 DATE:
5/1/02
Fairwood
The Bowie Advisory Planning Board (BAPB) met on Tuesday, April 30, 2002 to
review a Preliminary Plan of subdivision known as Fairwood Phase II, Part
One. This is a proposal for a 292 lot residential subdivision in the M-X-C
zone. The site is located north of U.S. Route 50/John Hanson Highway and west
of the PEPCO power lines.
Presentations
Mr. Ed Gibbs, an attorney representing the applicant, the Rouse Company, gave a brief history of the Fairwood site and the numerous plan reviews the phases and parts have undergone. He said the overall site contains a total of 1,058 acres, and this plan represents 266 acres in the southwest portion of Fairwood. He also said the plan includes a small portion of land in relation to Church Road relocated for that planned road improvement. He said he read the City Planning staff report and recommendation for disapproval. He said he understood the basis of the recommendation was due to two of three emergency services being beyond adequate response times for this part of the Fairwood site. He said, according to Park and Planning guidelines for adequate public facilities (APF), since the developer will provide sprinkler systems in all of the buildings, they meet the guidelines.
Mrs. Lori Shirley of the City Planning Department presented the staff report and recommendation. She said she would condense her comments down to the issue of adequate public facilities as discussed in the staff report. First, she said, as a result of the staff analysis of the proposal, the finding was made that all three of the emergency service vehicles were beyond acceptable response times. She said all three emergency vehicles would be dispatched from the Glenn Dale Station. She reminded the Board of their recent review of the Woodmore at Oak Creek subdivision, and how that plan had similar APF deficiencies in comparison to the subject proposal. She reminded the Board that, in the former case, M-NCPPC Growth Policy and Public Facilities Planning Section staff required conditions of approval on the Beechtree and Oak Creek Club planned community developments. She said these latter two sites are within the proposed Leeland Road Fire Station service area, however, that proposed fire station is not funded in the County's Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The developers of these two sites are required to make their fair share contributions toward construction funding of the fire station and the cost of an ambulance (equipment). She said in the instance of Fairwood, the Bowie-Collington-Mitchellville Area Master Plan includes a proposed New Town Center Fire Station at the intersection of Health Center Drive and Northview Drive. She said this public facility is in the County's CIP, however, it has been repeatedly delayed for construction.
Mrs. Shirley explained in contacting M-NCPPC staff involved in determining the adequacy of public facilities, she was told once the New Town Center Fire Station was constructed, that it would service the Fairwood site. She said, based on that understanding, M-NCPPC staff was requested to consider several hypothetical situations about the New Town Center Fire Station. First she said, Park and Planning staff ran the response time calculations from the New Town Center Fire Station as if it were fully operational and responding based on the existing road network. She said the results were that most of the 292 lots in Fairwood were beyond the acceptable response times for all three emergency vehicle types. Next, she said, the question was asked what would happen if the Glenn Dale Station got the call under existing conditions (and the New Town Center Station was not built, but the 292 subject units were constructed), and if the Glenn Dale Station vehicles were responding to another call, what fire station would receive the call? She said the answer was the dispatcher would go down a short list of facilities, and in this instance, Pointer Ridge (Station #43) would next be notified. Next, she said the hypothetical situation was asked if the New Town Center Fire Station was constructed, and an interchange was available at U.S. Route 50 and Church Road (in the vicinity of the A-44 interchange as shown on the 1991 Master Plan), would the 292 lots be within an acceptable response time range? She said M-NCPPC staff gave a two-part answer. She said first, with the reduction of distance between the two points (with an existing interchange at U.S. Route 50 and Church Road), the response times from the New Town Center Fire Station would probably be in acceptable ranges. However, she said, M-NCPPC staff could not run the numbers under this scenario because the interchange was not a consideration at this time. She also said M-NCPPC staff did suggest this was the appropriate time to begin dialogue on this transportation aspect with the knowledge that the Area Master Plan would be updated in 2003.
Mrs. Shirley concluded her comments by saying Planning staff has serious concerns for the findings related to emergency response vehicles, and this was at the basis of the staff recommendation. She said the County Planning Board has approved preliminary plans of subdivision when similar APF deficiencies were noted about a proposal. She said, however, the Planning Board bases their approval on the finding that the provision of sprinkler systems in residential units satisfies the Park and Planning Commission's guidelines used in this analysis. She said the City Planning staff is of the opinion that in this instance the finding as to adequate public facilities could not be made, especially in light of the fact that no long range planning commitment is under consideration at this time as to a possible interchange in the U.S. Route 50 and Church Road vicinity. She said it is unacceptable for the provision of sprinkler systems in residential units to serve as the finding of adequacy of public facilities (emergency vehicles), especially when the emergencies are medically-based. She said the Planning staff recommends DISAPPROVAL of Preliminary Plan #4-02023. She added in the City's review of the subject Preliminary Plan, staff was made aware late last week that a corresponding Final Development Plan (FDP) was concurrently filed by the applicant. She said the City did not receive the FDP in the referral from the Park and Planning Commission, and that she was not prepared at this time to explain the details of the FDP. She said the City received a copy of the FDP earlier today. She said for the benefit of the newer Board members, an FDP shows development pods by unit type and land use. She said an FDP is a more broad based plan, while the Preliminary Plan shows the specific details of proposed public rights-of-way (r-o-w), the location of building lots, hiker-biker trails, open space parcels and parcels for high density residential.
Citizen Participation
Mr. Roger Goll of 13314 Vanessa Avenue identified himself as representing the Highbridge Citizens Association. He said that Bowie Council members borrowed a phrase from him about the inadequacy of public facilities in the County, in that "fire sprinklers don't alleviate the medical needs of heart attack victims." He said a person may get their forehead wet, but that doesn't help when the emergency is a medical one. He said sometimes the delayed response in a medical emergency makes a difference between life and death. He expressed concerns for Church Road south of U.S. Route 50 and that there are no County planned improvements, yet there are continued development approvals that put more and more traffic on the road.
BAPB Discussion
Questions and comments by BAPB members centered on the following:
· Mr. Stith asked Mr. Gibbs
if there would be a loss of lots in relation to the Church Road relocated
portion to be resubdivided in this plan? [ Mr. Gibbs said no.]
· Mr. Stith asked Mr. Gibbs to explain the number of vehicular access
points into the site, and what Fairview Drive and Fairwood Parkway would both
like since both ended in "T" intersections. Mr. Stith said he was
concerned that Church Road and Md. Route 450 are both two-lane roads. [Mr.
Gibbs said the main access point into the site from Md. Route 450 would be
Fairwood Parkway. He said Fairview Drive would have a 52-foot right-of-way.
Both of these will end in "T" intersections at Church Road relocated.
He said Church Road would be partly relocated and improved to collector road
standards as required in the Master Plan to handle the north/south traffic.
Mr. Gibbs said Md. Route 450 is undergoing widening and relocation, and it
will look nothing like it does now in the next few years.]
· Mr. Stith asked Mr. Gibbs when the improvements to Md. Route 450
would be made? [Mr. Gibbs said the State Highway Administration (SHA) is in
the early stages of beginning the road improvements to this segment of the
highway.]
· Mr. Stith asked what area of MD Route 450 was the Fairwood developer
responsible for making improvements to? [Mr. Gibbs said road improvements
would be made along their total property frontage. He said several years ago
the developer proffered $5.5 million toward the necessary road improvements
for the site.]
· Mr. Stith asked what road improvements to Church Road south of U.S.
Route 50 will be made by the Fairwood developer? [Mr. Gibbs said the developer
would not be making any road improvements to Church Road south of U. S. Route
50.]
· Mr. Stith asked when the Fairwood site would be under construction?
[Mr. Gibbs said the site is under construction now. He said grading activity
is underway and the company anticipates they will have building permits issued
from the County for model homes in the next few months.]
· Chairman Cooper asked where does this portion of the site fall within
the pending airport safety legislation? [Mr. Gibbs said no portion of this
phase of Fairwood falls within the APA zones in the airport study. He said
all of the proposed lots are west of the PEPCO power lines. APA zones in the
airport study are to the east of the power lines. He said a portion of Church
Road does, however, fall within APA 3.]
· Mr. Rogers asked if a Traffic Impact Analysis was done? [Mr. Gibbs
said several of them have been done. He said the finding has been made by
M-NCPPC Transportation Planning staff that all the major roads in the development
will be at acceptable Levels-of-Service (LOS) as result of the road improvements
they will be making, including the $5.5 million proffer. He said several years
ago the City of Bowie appealed an approval by the District Council. That appeal
went to the Court of Special Appeals, and the Court ruled in favor of the
developer.]
· Mr. Rogers asked what was the basis of the City's appeal? [Mrs. Shirley
said it was a challenge as to the finding of adequacy of transportation facilities
and the developer's proffer of $5.5 million for road improvements to MD Route
450. She said the appeal was filed partly because in the Planning Board's
approval and finding of adequacy as to APF transportation, the developer was
absolved from further road improvements/contributions for the entire Fairwood
site. She said, as Mr. Gibbs stated, the City's appeal was unsuccessful.]
· Mr. Skotz asked whether there was the understanding at the County's
Department of Public Works and Transportation (DPW&T) for Church Road
relocated to be considered a substitution for A-44? [Mr. Gibbs said no.]
· Mr. Rogers stated he understood how the applicant believes the finding
of adequacy of fire service can be made with sprinkler systems. He asked how
the applicant could say public facilities for ambulance and paramedic services
will be adequate since sprinklers will be installed in residential units?
[Mr. Gibbs explained Chief Woods of the Glenn Dale Station has testified before
the Planning Board as to the adequate response times from that station for
Fairwood. He said Chief Woods has a different opinion about the response times
and that, based on the equipment and manpower at that facility Chief Woods
believes the guidelines are met.]
· Mr. Stith asked staff about the applicant's lack of a traffic impact
analysis for this part of the site. [Mrs. Shirley said, as Mr. Gibbs earlier
stated, the developer is not required to prepare a further traffic study based
on the Planning Board's finding of adequacy associated with the $5.5 million
proffer. She said, however, City Planning staff did provide a.m. and p.m.
peak hour information (based on the 292 units) in the staff report.]
· Mr. Stith asked staff to describe planned road improvements for Church
Road south of U.S. Route 50. [Mrs. Shirley stated there has been piecemeal
improvements required of developers along their property frontage as they
develop a site on Church Road. She said it is a County-maintained road and
the extent of the improvements developers typically make are acceleration/deceleration
lanes. She said there are no planned road improvement projects in the County's
CIP for Church Road. Mr. Meinert said Mrs. Shirley is correct in her description
of incremental improvements to Church Road. He added that each year as the
City provides comments to the County's proposed budget, the City has consistently
encouraged the County to include funding for Church Road in an improvement
project. He said, in fact, in the most recent comments from the City to the
County, the City identified Church Road as being the highest priority planning
project. He said the County has looked to improvements to Mount Oak Road before
they have considered an improvement project for Church Road.]
The Chairman asked for comments
from individual Board members prior to the motion.
· Mr. Loftin said he has very strong feelings for the findings as to
adequate public facilities. He said he was concerned that this development
would start out with deficiencies in public facilities and the site would
grow on that. He said he agreed with the staff recommendation.
· Ms. Nuriddin said she too was concerned about the public facilities
aspect. She was especially concerned for the impact the development would
have on neighborhood public schools. She said this site would only add to
the overcrowding. She said she agrees with her colleagues and staff.
· Mr. Stith said he lives in vicinity of the Fairwood site and he frequently
uses Church Road. He said he wants to go on record in support of now being
the time to begin the discussion of an interchange at U.S. Route 50 and Church
Road. He said he does not approve of this site going forward with the deficiencies
in the area of public facilities as these have been brought out tonight.
· Mr. Tanoe said he agrees with the staff recommendation as his concerns
about the development have been brought out.
· Mr. Rogers said this area is a high growth area. He said public facilities
intended to serve this site are clearly not adequate. He said the Board should
accept the staff recommendation.
· Mr. Skotz said he agrees with the comments from the other Board members.
He said he is concerned about the public schools surcharge fees going into
escrow accounts. He said what we need to see more of in the County is new
school buildings being built and not new escrow accounts being opened.
· Ms. Griffith said the traffic impact from this development was a
primary concern to her. She said she is not disputing that the Rouse Company
is a quality developer, however, the developer is a little ahead of the game.
· Chairman Cooper said there is no incentive for the developer to alleviate
the response times deficiencies, because there are no alternatives for traffic
onto U.S. Route 50 at Church Road. He said response times at eight minutes
(for ambulance and paramedic) are not going to save lives. He said we couldn't
go along with the inadequacies and lead future residents to believe that the
services in their neighborhood are adequate. He said government does a disservice
to residents in leading them to believe there is (public facilities) adequacy
in their neighborhood.
BAPB Motion
Mr. Stith made a motion to accept the staff recommendation for DISAPPROVAL of Preliminary Plan #4-02023 based on inadequate public facilities. Ms. Nuriddin seconded the motion. The motion passed by a 7 to 0 vote. (Mr. Troyer was absent and, as a new member not yet sworn by the City Council, Mr. Rogers did not vote.)
LJS
H:lshirley/keith turfpreplan02BAPB
LAND USE PETITION IN THE BOWIE PLANNING AREA
Md.-National Capital Park and Planning
Commission ID: Preliminary Plan #4-02023
Fairwood Phase II, Part One and FDP #0201
Bowie Advisory Planning Board # 02-10 Date: May 2, 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: Preliminary Plan and Final Development Plan
2. Petitioner: Rouse-Fairwood Development Limited Partnership
3. Represented by: Mr. Ed Gibbs, Gibbs and Haller
4. Location of Petitioned Property: North of U.S. Route 50/John Hanson Highway
and west of the PEPCO power lines.
5. Proposed use of Petitioned Property: 292 lots for single-family detached
dwelling
units.
6. Size/Zone of Petitioned Property: 266.33 acres/zoned M-X-C (Mixed-Use-Community)
7. Date of hearing before BAPB: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 at 7:00 p.m.
8. Date of hearing before City Council: Monday, May 6, 2002 at 8:00 p.m.
9. Date of hearing before Prince George's County Planning Board: Thursday,
May 16, 2002
at 8:30 a.m.
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: 4/22/02 86
Notice sent to Parties of Record 4/22/02 3
Date Signs Posted: 4/22/02
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 DISAPPROVAL.
13. Bowie Advisory Planning Board
Recommendation:
The Bowie Advisory Planning Board recommends DISAPPROVAL as found in the staff
recommendation.