MEMORANDUM
To: City Council
From: David J. Deutsch, City Manager
Subject: MSTC/MIE Properties, Inc.
Specific Design Plan
Block (Pod) 2 Lots 2 & 3
Block (Pod) 4, Lots 3 & 4
Date: April 11, 2002
______________________________________________________________________________
I. General Information
The applicant, MIE Properties, is proposing to construct two flex-office buildings
in Block 2, and four flex-office buildings in Block 4. The buildings are identical
to those currently under construction along Telsa Drive in Block 4.
Contract Purchaser: MIE Properties,
Inc.
Owner: 50/301 Associates, LLC
Project Name: Maryland Science and Technology Center
Proposal: Six one-story research/development office buildings (2B, 2C, 4E-H)
totaling 210,040 sq. ft.
Location: Melford Boulevard and Telsa Drive in the northeast quadrant of US
50/301
(see Attachment #1)
Acreage: 466 acres (overall site)
Block 2 - 19.65 acres
Block 4 - 14.63 acres
_______________________________
TOTAL - 34.28 acres in current proposal
Existing Zoning: E-I-A (Employment and Institutional Area)
Existing Land Use: Vacant
Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning:
North: Sherwood Manor single-family detached subdivision, zoned R-A (Residential
Agriculture)
South: US 50/301 and vacant land, zoned O-S (Open Space) and V-L (Village
Low Density)
East: Patuxent River/Anne Arundel County
West: MD 3/Belair Drive interchange and vacant land, zoned R-R (Rural Residential)
Master Plan Land Use Category: Employment
Master Plan Living Area: Employment Area 3
Sectional Map Amendment: Retained in E-I-A Zone
Water and Sewer Categories: W-3 and S-3 (Public service available to the site)
Police: District II, Bowie Substation
Fire Engine and Ambulance Service: Station #39 (Bowie, MD Route 450)
Ladder Truck Service: Station #18 (Glenn Dale Boulevard)
Medic Service: Station #43 (Pointer Ridge, US Route 301)
II. Background Information
Prior to its current zoning, the MSTC property was zoned R-A (Rural- Agricultural)
and O-S (Open Space). Because of the site's location at the crossroads of
two major highways, the property was submitted by the owner for a rezoning.
The MSTC property was rezoned to E-I-A (Employment and Institutional Area)
in 1981. The current zone is referred to as a Comprehensive Design Zone (CDZ),
which has a unique approval process. First, a Basic Plan is approved as part
of the rezoning process. The Basic Plan is largely a conceptual plan that
must show adequate transportation and other public facilities, compatibility
between land uses, conformity with the Master Plan, preservation areas and
a construction schedule. The next step is the approval of a Comprehensive
Design Plan (CDP). The CDP, among other criteria it is required to meet, must
establish design guidelines, building coverage, building setbacks, and circulation
access points. The final step of the process is the approval of a Specific
Design Plan (SDP). Actually, there are likely to be multiple SDPs in one CDZ.
The SDP shows the greatest amount of detail, including building footprints,
architecture, sidewalks, trails, lighting, landscaping, stormwater management
facilities, woodland conservation areas, and so forth.
The approved Basic Plan for the MSTC site proposed a two-part phasing plan with a total of seven development "pods." Phase I includes Pods 1-4; Phase II includes Pods 5-7. Development has been approved only for Phase I. The Comprehensive Design Plan (CDP 8601) for this project was subsequently approved by the District Council in 1986 for a maximum of 1.95 million square feet of development in Phase 1 and a total of 6.4 million square feet of high tech office and employment uses on the overall 466 acres (see Attachment #2). An SDP (SDP #0103) was approved last year for Parcels 2F, 4A and 4B which included a 30,450 square foot, one-story office building; a 150,000 square foot, four-story office building; a 150,000 square foot, four-story flex-office building; and 122,800 square feet contained in four (4) research/development (flex) buildings.
Two of the research/development
buildings are completed and partially leased; two more are under construction.
The 30,450 sq. ft. office building on Parcel 2F is also nearing completion.
III. Stakeholders Meetings
A stakeholders meeting was held on December 4, 2002 to discuss the current
proposal (see Attachments 2-3). Six residents from the Sherwood Manor subdivision
attended the meeting. Issues raised by the residents included stormwater management,
tree clearing, lighting, and timing of development.
IV. Architectural Review Committee (ARC)
Condition #22 of the CDP approval stipulates that an architectural committee
shall be established prior to SDP approval and shall include one (1) designee
by the City of Bowie. The current proposal is a continuation of the prototype
reviewed previously by the ARC on 2/5/01.
V. Criteria for Specific Design Plan Approval
According to Section 27-528 of the Prince George's County Zoning Ordinance,
the Planning Board must make the following findings prior to approval of a
SDP:
(1) the plan conforms to the approved CDP and applicable standards of the
Landscape Manual;
(2) the development will be adequately served within a reasonable time period
by existing or programmed public facilities;
(3) adequate provisions have been made for draining surface water so there
are no adverse effects on the subject property or adjacent properties; and,
(4) the SDP is in conformance with an approved Tree Conservation Plan (TCP)
.
The Zoning Ordinance, in Section 27-480, states that the dimensions for yards,
building lines, lot area, lot frontage, lot coverage, and building height
shown on an approved Specific Design Plan shall constitute the development
regulations applicable to the development of the land area addressed by that
particular Specific Design Plan. Regulations for development in the E-I-A
Zone are found in Section 27-501 of the Zoning Ordinance.
VI. Analysis
A. Specific Design Plan for Buildings 2B and 2C
1. Site and Building Data
The site and building data for this project are as follows:
Building 2B Building 2C
Area of Site: 10.51 acres 9.14 acres
Building Area (gross floor area): 39,120 sq. ft. 36,120 sq. ft.
Building Height: 19 ft. (one story) 19 ft. (one story)
Building Setbacks:
Building 30 ft. 30 ft.
Parking 20 ft. 20 ft.
Green Space Provided: 7.35 acres 6.16 acres
The above building sizes, setbacks and green space are all in conformance
with the regulations and requirements for these sites.
2. Parking
Parking has been computed at a ratio of 65% office 35% warehouse. For Building
2B, 79 parking spaces are required, 85 are provided. Three loading spaces
are required, 14 are provided. Four handicap spaces are required and are provided.
For Building 2C, 73 parking spaces are required, 82 are provided. Three loading
spaces are required, 13 are provided. Five handicap spaces are required and
are provided.
B. Specific Design Plan for 4E-4H
1. Site and Building Data
The site and building data for this project are as follows:
Building 4E-G Building 4H
Area of Site: 9.07 acres 5.56 acres
Building Area (gross floor area): 83,860 sq. ft. (total) 51,120 sq. ft. .
Building Height: 19 ft. (one story) 19 ft. (one story)
Building Setbacks:
Building 30 ft. 30 ft.
Parking 20 ft. 20 ft.
Green Space Provided: 3.06 acres 1.74 acres
The above building sizes, setbacks and green space are all in conformance
with the regulations and requirements for these sites.
2. Parking
Parking was computed at a ratio of 70% office/ 30% warehouse for buildings
4E-G, with 169 spaces required and 197 spaces provided. Six handicap spaces
are required; 12 are provided. Three loading spaces are required; 28 are provided.
For Building 4H, parking was computed at a ratio of 65% office/ 35% warehouse.
One hundred spaces are required, 104 are provided. Three loading spaces are
required; 12 are provided. Finally, five handicap spaces are required and
provided.
C. Architecture
Building elevations have been provided for all four sides of the buildings.
The architectural style is identical to that previously approved on Parcels
4A and 4B. Brick is the dominant building material with glass at the proposed
tenant spaces. Exterior columns are finished in polished steel. These building
materials are used in a different context on the two four story office buildings
previously approved for Parcel 3A and 3B, thus maintaining continuity and
visual rhythm. The building footprints contain numerous jogs to add visual
relief. Loading areas are situated in interior courts which are screened from
view by landscape screening and masonry screen walls. For consistency with
the previous approval, staff recommends that all downspouts be covered with
material matching that of the building, and that all roof-mounted HVAC equipment
shall be screened with screen walls angled at the ends to give them a more
subtle appearance.
D. Conformance with CDP
The submitted proposal is consistent with the previous approval for SDP #0103
and conforms to the CDP text and maps, as well as the provisions of the Landscape
Manual. SDP #0103 was approved for a one-story office building, two four-story
office buildings, and four one-story flex-office research and development
buildings.
E. Landscape Plan
Landscape Plans have been submitted for both sites in conjunction with this
application. The Landscape Plans propose several varieties of deciduous, ornamental
and evergreen trees, shrubs, groundcovers and seasonal flowers to be planted
throughout the site. The current Plant List includes Red Maple, Sweet Gum,
Red Oak, White Pine, Loblolly Pine, Flowering Dogwood, Washington Hawthorne,
Inkberry and Bayberry. The applicant's choice of plant materials complies
with the City's Development Review Guidelines policy document which encourages
at least 50% native vegetation. (Similarly, the CDP also encourages the use
of native vegetation.) The plan includes 99% native species.
The Landscape Manual's minimum height of 12' to 14' for shade trees (8' to
10' height is acceptable for minor shade trees) should be indicated on the
Landscape Plan. For consistency with the previous approval, it is also recommended
that the white pine be replaced by other types of evergreen species such as
Red Cedar, American Holly and Arborvitae (Green Giant).
F. Lighting
A note on the applicant's plans states that the parking lot lighting shall
be designed so as not to cause glare onto adjacent residential properties
or public streets. In addition, the notes include the standard language from
the City's Development Review Guidelines regarding use of full cut off fixtures
and the use of timing devices to turn off unneeded lighting. Lighting fixture
details have not been provided for the current SDP. Staff recommends that
prior to approval, the site plan be revised to include a lighting plan and
details consistent with the previous approval for SDP #0103.
G. Public Facilities
Criterion #2 for SDP approval involves the timing of public facilities. Water
and sewer service is currently available from the City. The City's engineers
have determined that there is sufficient plant capacity at both the water
and sewer treatment plants to accommodate all of the development approved
in the CDP for Phase 1. In accordance with an agreement with the WSSC and
per the terms of the Annexation Agreement, the City will provide ultimate
water service to the property, while WSSC will ultimately be responsible for
sewer service.
The amount of development in this
SDP may generate the need for improvements to the City's water and wastewater
systems in the future. Plant capacities, however, will continue to be sufficient.
The type and extent of these improvements have been identified by the City
Engineer and were provided to MIE Properties. However, the exact timing of
the needed improvements cannot be reliably predicted as they are dependent
upon the water consumption characteristics of each user. The City will continue
to monitor water and wastewater flows and advise the developer when the improvements
become necessary.
Pursuant to the County's approval of the Preliminary Plan of subdivision for
Phase 1, County police facilities were determined to be adequate to serve
Phase 1 of the UMSTC. Funding for the Glenn Dale Boulevard (Maryland Route
193) police station is contained in Year 6 of the approved County Capital
Improvements Program (CIP). During subdivision review, MNCPPC found that engine,
ladder truck and ambulance services to the site were beyond the response time
guidelines. The Bowie New Town Fire Station, programmed in Year 5 of the County's
approved Capital Improvement Program, will resolve any deficiencies related
to fire and rescue facilities. In addition, automatic fire suppression sprinklers
are required for each building per the County Code.
Based on the above, staff finds that the development will be adequately served
within a reasonable time period by existing or programmed public facilities.
H. Stormwater Management
A Stormwater Management Concept Plan was reapproved for Phase 1 in November,
1998. Both sites in Block (Pod) 2 are served by the regional stormwater management
system consisting of the Upper and Lower Ponds. These ponds provide water
quantity control and, to some extent, water quality control. A Stormwater
Management Concept Plan was approved in early 2002 that includes two smaller
ponds in Pod 5 and 6 that will serve the development in Block (Pod) 4. A detailed
SWM Plan will be required by the City to ensure that stormwater management
will be provided concurrent with development. Based on these factors, staff
finds that adequate provisions have been made for draining surface water so
that there are no adverse effects on the subject property or adjacent property.
I. Woodland Conservation Plan
A Tree Conservation Plan (TCP) (Type II) was approved for the overall site
on 10/30/00. However, the plan contains notes which require the limits of
clearing to be reexamined upon review of each SDP. Pursuant to the Woodland
Conservation Ordinance, 52.54 acres of woodland conservation are required
for the 466 acre property. The TCP indicates that 140.28 acres of existing
woodlands on-site are being preserved, well above their obligation. While
some of this woodland will likely be cleared during construction in Phase
2, the developer is still providing over 168 acres of preserved open space
within the overall project, with an additional 74 acres to be dedicated to
MNCPPC and 16 acres to be dedicated to the City. A total of 68 acres are restricted
on development sites.
Because the locations of development in Block 2 and Block 4 are in compliance
with the CDP's Building, Parking and Open Space Envelopes, staff concludes
that the clearing proposed in this SDP is in conformance with an approved
Tree Conservation Plan.
J. Compliance with the E-I-A Zone and City Covenants/Annexation Agreement
Staff finds the proposed SDP application complies with the purposes and regulations
of the E-I-A zone. The current proposal also complies with the City's Annexation
Agreement and Covenants (see Attachments 4-5).
VII. Recommendation
The SDP application meets many of the standards and guidelines contained in
the CDP and the City's Development Review Guidelines. The proposal generally
meets the criteria for SDP approval contained in Section 27-528 of the Zoning
Ordinance. Staff therefore recommends the City forward a recommendation to
the County Planning Board for APPROVAL of the SDP application with the following
conditions, which are intended to provide site, architectural and landscaping
enhancements to the project and to bring the project into compliance with
the Zoning Ordinance and City policy:
1. The Landscape Manual's minimum height of 12' to 14' for shade trees (8'
to 10'
height is acceptable for minor shade trees) shall be indicated on the Landscape
Plans.
2. As an alternative to white pine, other types of evergreen species such
as Red Cedar,
American Holly and Arborvitae (Green Giant) shall be included in the Plant
List.
3. The applicant shall provide lighting
plans and details consistent with the previous
approval for SDP #0103.
4. All downspouts shall be covered
with material matching that of the building.
5. All roof-mounted HVAC equipment shall be screened with screen walls angled
at the
ends to give them a more subtle appearance.
MEMORANDUM
To: City Council
From: Reverend John C. Cooper,
Sr., Chairman
Bowie Advisory Planning Board
Subject: Specific Design Plan
Maryland Science and Technology Center
Block 2, Lots 2-3; Block 4, Lots 3-4
Date: April 11, 2002
The Bowie Advisory Planning Board (BAPB) met on Tuesday, April 9, 2002 to
review the proposed site plan submitted by MIE Properties, Inc. The applicant
proposes 210,040 square feet in six (6) one-story buildings on approximately
34 acres of land located off of Science Drive, Telsa Drive and Melford Boulevard
in the northeast quadrant of Routes 50/301.
Presentations
Mr. Ramon Benitez of MIE Properties, Inc. gave an overview of the site plans included in this proposal. Mr. Joe Meinert, Assistant Planning Director, made a brief presentation of the staff report. Staff recommends approval with conditions, which were further explained by Mr. Meinert.
Questions by BAPB Members
Ms. Terry Nuriddin asked about the number of loading spaces required versus the large number proposed. Mr. Benitez described that the buildings are designed in pairs so that the loading areas face each other and are screened by screen walls from the street. The flexibility is there for tenants who do not want garage doors or space to finish the space with glass in lieu of a door. The spaces are designed to be 18 feet in height for flexibility; many start up companies like front office space with additional space to grow into behind them. These spaces could be finished as Grade A office space, if the tenant so chooses.
Ms. Terry Nuriddin asked several questions of staff relating to Adequate Public Facilities, stormwater management and tree conservation. Mr. Meinert noted that public safety issues are exactly the same as with the prior proposal. He described that stormwater management would be provided through the two existing ponds and two other ponds to be constructed in Phase 2. Water quality will be addressed on each site. Mr. Meinert also described the Tree Conservation Plan, which "banks" a large amount of preserved woodland in Phase 2. Clearing in Phase 2 will have to be watched closely to ensure there are no problems. Mr. Skotz asked if water consumption could be monitored through the hook-up process. Mr. Meinert stated that WSSC is in charge of this process, so the City is attempting to devise an early warning system that identifies the need for delivery system improvements at the site plan review stage, rather than later.
Citizen Participation
Mr. John Lally, a neighbor of the subject property residing in the Sherwood Manor subdivision, stated his support for the development proposed for this site. He noted that his issue is with the safety of the access road to Sherwood Manor. Mr. Lally agreed that the issue is more for the County than MIE Properties since the road is under County maintenance. He pointed out that the location of the guard rail immediately adjacent to the curb prevents pedestrians from getting off of the road surface in the event a speeding vehicle approaches them. He agreed that residents of his subdivision drive too fast. Mr. Lally observed that the development of the MSTC site will exacerbate this situation because it will pose a health hazard to workers who walk this area during lunchtime hours. He requested that the developer work with the City to have the guard rail moved back five feet to allow for a grass walkway adjacent to the road, preferably on the south side of the access road.
Mr. Eugene Zehner, of 9343 Dewberry Avenue in Lanham, stated that he owns 10 acres of property located between the developer's land and Route 50. His land was cut off from the remainder of his property south of Route 50 when the State purchased right-of-way for the highway. He wants to make sure he gets access to his isolated parcel. Mr. Benitez displayed the overall plan for the MSTC and indicated how access might be provided. However, he added that he couldn't commit to providing this access. Mr. Ron Skotz asked Mr. Zehner if he had been compensated by the State for cutting off access to his property. City Attorney Levan inquired if there had been a compensation hearing with the State. Mr. Zehner replied there were several. Mr. Meinert stated that the issue Mr. Zehner is raising is not as a result of anything contained in the current MIE proposal--his situation was created when the State took the land many years ago. If Mr. Zehner continues to participate in the public hearing process for Phase 2 in the future, the matter of access to his parcel may be able to be addressed then.
Mr. William Freed, of 16531 Abbey Drive in Sherwood Manor, spoke about the need to protect the steep slopes from development. Disruption of steep slopes would result in polluted runoff and erosion difficulties. Mr. Freed submitted a letter identifying all of his concerns for the record (see attachment to this report).
Board Discussion
Mr. Ty Troyer asked about the location of the Sherwood Manor access road shown on the site plan. Mr. Benitez pointed out the location on the SDP.
Ms. Terry Nuriddin asked why the need to upgrade water and sewer lines is not an issue for the developer now. Mr. Meinert replied that the test for site plan approval relates more to plant capacity than the ability of the delivery systems to provide water and sewer service. Staff wanted the applicant to be aware that at some point in the future, the allocation given by the City will be maximized and improvements to existing utilities may also be needed. The work would involve off-site improvement to the City's water and sewer lines and pump stations, as would be required of any developer during the normal course of construction. The discussion in the staff report is provided for informational purposes only. The current proposal does not trigger a need for any improvements at this time.
Acting Chairman Cooper asked if the developer was taking advantage of the new "universal" sized parking space allowed by the City at Bowie Town Center. Mr. Benitez stated that all of the spaces on this site plan are standard size spaces. Reverend Cooper asked about the type of commercial uses planned for the site. Mr. Benitez responded that commercial uses are not part of the plans before the Board tonight but are planned for Pod 1, according to the CDP. They are working on a plan now for "Crofton-type" commercial uses (i.e. similar to the area in Crofron village where the Sly Horse Tavern is located), working around the historic structure in Pod 1. As an alternative, they could disperse the retail function. Reverend Cooper asked if the retail uses would be designed to only serve this site. Mr. Benitez replied that, yes, they would. Acting Chairman Cooper also asked about the type of tenants proposed by MIE Properties. He does not consider a dance studio a high tech use. Mr. Benitez replied that his company is in the process of revisiting the covenants drawn up in the Annexation Agreement from 1985. They are committed to doing a quality research and development park, but the covenants do not reflect how business is done today and need to be revised.
Mr. Troyer asked if the development proposed on Parcels 2B and 2C will result in the parcels being completely cleared. Mr. Benitez described how the parcels would be developed and indicated that, post-development, they would be one-third developed/two-thirds undisturbed. The parcels include a bioretention facility to manage water quality. This is more environmentally friendly and avoids a pond being built further down the slope.
Ms. Joan Griffith asked several questions about the leasing status of the project. Mr. Benitez offered that they have 22,000 square feet occupied in the first building and 28,000 square feet in the second building. At present, they have approximately 62,000 square feet under negotiation for leases. That corresponds to the square footage now under construction. He added that since they are using up their capacity, they need to get more space approved to market to future tenants.
Ms. Griffith continued by asking about Mr. Zehner's property and whether or not better notice could be provided to them. Since Mr. Zehner does not currently use his property, would it be of some benefit to MIE Properties? Mr. Benitez stated that all property has some value but he can't say now whether or not his company has an interest in buying Mr. Zehner's property. He added that he is legally required to notify adjacent owners of record.
BAPB MOTION:
Acting Chairman Cooper stated that he would like Board members to state their concerns before voting. Mr. Loftin stated he is concerned about runoff and pollutants. Ms. Nuriddin said her concerns are similar to those voiced during review of the last SDP, including APF test issues. She feels the applicant is glossing over the issues because they are anxious to occupy so soon. Ms. Griffith agreed the development is necessary and hopes the adjacent owner (Mr. Zehner) gets his issue addressed. It is critical that projects meet all Code requirements, she said. Mr. Skotz supported the idea of bioretention, but has a concern with the fire and rescue response times. He agrees with the staff recommendation, but cautions that tampering with the Annexation Agreement's covenants will be opening Pandora's box. Millions of dollars were put into infrastructure improvements for a science and technology center, and it needs to stay this way.
Mr. Troyer is glad to see the development of the otherwise vacant site, but it appears that this will end up being a run-of-the-mill business park. He referred to comments in Mr. Freed's letter that suggested innovative architecture that conform to the land or unique building designs. He noted that this proposal does not do either. Reverend Cooper indicated that he is pleased with MIE's development of the site, thus far, and is in favor of the proposal.
Mr. Ron Skotz moved to accept the staff recommendation of APPROVAL with conditions. Mr. Ray Loftin seconded the motion, which passed by a vote of 5-1 (Nuriddin opposed).
p:/bapbmstc