MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: David J. Deutsch, City Manager
SUBJECT: CB-16-2003 & CB-35-2003
Planned Environmental Preservation Community
Response from Council Member Peters to City Council Position Letter
DATE: 5/29/03
Yesterday, you were provided with a copy of Council Member Peters’ May 22nd letter to the Mayor, received on May 28th, that attempts to address the City Council’s concerns with CB-16-2003 (Draft 2), now CB-35-2003. We indicated that staff would provide a more detailed analysis of the response letter.
The point-by-point response from Council Member Peters to Council’s May 20, 2003 letter raises numerous issues.
1. The letter indicates that the proposed legislation cannot be contingent on Nash property transactions or other specific requirements for the Maryland Science and Techology Center (MSTC). Since the five (5) items enumerated by Council at your April 21st public hearing are considered threshold criteria upon which the City’s position of support is premised, it is apparent that moving forward with either of the bills will conflict with Council’s policy.
2. The letter suggests numerous times that CB-35-2003 is now intended to not only apply to the MSTC but other properties as well. It has always been staff’s understanding that the applicability of the bill was intended for only Pods 5 and 7 of the MSTC. The original draft of CB-16-2003, which removed the acreage and other limitations of last year’s CB-13-2003, was intended to link the mixed-use planned community regulations from that bill to the MSTC. Staff was advised by MNCPPC staff that there are very few properties zoned E-I-A in the County and that the legislation was being written to accommodate the development proposal for the MSTC. It would be instructional to know what other E-I-A properties may be affected by the change in scope of the legislation and what its impact might be on these properties.
3. It is suggested that some of the City’s recommendations for amendments to the bill involve “substantial changes” that cannot be included without further study by Planning Commission staff. In the May 20th position letter to the County Council, the City Council plainly stated its desire to have the legislative process “slow down” until all of the items recommended by the City could be included. Council spent the better part of the May 5th City Council meeting fashioning constructive recommendations intended to address deficiencies in CB-16-2003 (DR-2). Staff feels strongly that this proposed environmental legislation should address impervious surface and water quality protection buffers, as these items are major omissions in the legislation and are among the most controlling factors in environmental protection.
4. Several of the responses conflict with significant recommendations made by City Council, including recommendations for:
· a full CDP submission rather than a reduced CDP submission that is more limited in scope and applicability;
· required structured parking for multi-family development;
· buffer encroachments where it must be demonstrated that there is no feasible alternative to the proposed disturbance;
· coordination of utility encroachments into the buffer within a single corridor;
· detailing the range of recreational amenities and open space improvements; and,
· residential design standards.
The City Council made numerous detailed recommendations regarding residential standards, based on the City’s approved Development Review Guidelines. From the outset of this process in January, Council Member Peters and those in his office repeatedly told the City that there would be opportunities for the City to craft standards and regulations that would be placed directly into the legislation. In this spirit, the standards suggested by City Council in the May 20th position letter were submitted as additions to the pending legislation. The response received does not place these important components into the bill, but rather suggests further deferral of the City’s requirements to be addressed during review of the CDP. CB-35-2003 actually goes as far as to require these design standards to be defined as part of the approval of the CDP or any amendments thereto. Staff is greatly concerned with the potential for a future developer to negotiate away these requirements during the review process and is also very concerned at what staff believes to be an overly generous amount of flexibility written into CB-35-2003 pertaining to these and other standards set forth in the bill.
5. Many of the City Council’s recommendations involved minor clarifications to the pending legislation, but such clarifications were left unaddressed.
Recommendation
Based on the above issues, staff recommends that Council withdraw its conditional support for the legislation and oppose enactment of either CB-16-2003 or CB-35-2003.
Cb35staffmemo52903
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: David
J. Deutsch
City Manager
SUBJECT: MSTC Update
DATE: May 28, 2003
In last week’s Council package, you were provided an assessment of CB-35-2003, which is a companion bill to the earlier version known as CB-16-2003. The final paragraph of the May 22, 2003 memorandum is reprinted below:
“Staff
concludes that CB-35-2003 reflects only a token attempt to address
the issues identified by the City to date. The few City changes that were
made are editorial, rather than substantive, in nature. Staff recommends
Council continue to hold the position that, unless the prerequisite
conditions are met prior to the public hearing and all of the City’s
other
recommended revisions are addressed through further revisions to the
bill, the legislation should not be approved.”
This afternoon the attached letter dated May 22, 2003 was received from Councilman Peters regarding the pending legislation. This letter attempts to address each of the points in the City Council letter of May 20, 2003, which contained Council’s position on CB-16. The letter from Mr. Peters contains a multi-page attachment which attempts to provide reasons why the vast majority of the Council’s positions on CB-16/35 cannot be accommodated. There are approximately 35 points contained in the City’s letter to County Council Chair Shapiro that have not yet been appropriately addressed, and it appears upon reading the Peters’ letter received today that those items will not be addressed.
Mr. Peters states “…the second bill, CB-35-2003 (DR-1) incorporates amendments proposed to CB-16-2003 (DR-2) by the Bowie Planning Department and by the Planning Department of the M-NCPPC”. It should be noted that the Council spent a significant amount of time developing a carefully worded position letter. The letter reflects City Council policy, rather than a staff proposal. Despite the earlier assurances of a vital role for the City in crafting the regulations, the City, other than attending a meeting on March 25, 2003, has not been consulted.
Both bills are on the County Council agenda for action on June 10, 2003. Given that the May 22, 2003 letter from Councilman Peters asserts a position that is in many ways contrary to the City Council position, the entire matter of County legislation regarding MSTC should be placed on the June 2 Council Agenda for review and possible action. This appears to be necessary in order to properly provide guidance to staff in order to make the most appropriate presentation at the June 10 public hearing.
Staff will have additional comments for distribution in tomorrow’s Council package. Please let me know if you have any comments or questions regarding this material.
DJD/asf
Attachments
May 20, 2003
The Honorable Peter A. Shapiro, Chair
Prince George’s County Council
County Administration Building
Upper Marlboro, Maryland 20772
RE: CB-16-2003 (Planned Environmental Preservation Community)
Public Hearing Draft (Draft #2)
Dear Chairman Shapiro:
On April 28, 2003, the Bowie City Council wrote to advise Council Member Douglas J.J. Peters that, after reviewing his plan to preserve the Nash property and the proposed changes that CB-16 would have on the Maryland Science and Technology Center (MSTC), the City Council agreed, in principle, to support the general theme of CB-16, with some exceptions. Specifically, the Council listed specific conditions we felt to be critical. We continue to support those conditions as prerequisites to move forward on this matter and desire to bring these items to your attention. The City’s specific stipulations include the following:
1. The owners of the developers of the MSTC shall obtain clear and unencumbered title to the Nash property and convey that title to the City of Bowie prior to County Council adoption of any version of CB-16 or any amendment of existing MSTC covenants.
2. The focus of CB-16 shall be limited to a comprehensive review of only Pods 5 & 7 of the MSTC and shall comply with all elements City of Bowie planning processes consistent with the specific design protocol requirements.
3. The City will limit its review of any changes to MSTC site design to Pods 5& 7.
4. This process must produce a clear and enforceable system of covenants relevant to Pods 5 & 7 that addresses all future development on the site as a prerequisite for any action and that the City of Bowie shall remain the steward of those covenants.
5. The number of residential units on Pods 5 & 7 shall not exceed a cap of 600 units. However, prior to the issuance of building permits in excess of 300 units, construction shall commence on at least one of the planned 150,000 square foot four-story office buildings on Pod 3. This action is specifically required to assure a commitment to the gateway signature feature of the MSTC. It also must be understood that the remaining portion of Pod 3 will be reserved solely for the construction of the second such four-story office building.
The City Council is aware of an expression of concern from the Department
of State Planning and from the State Attorney General’s Office, both
of which request a delay in the movement of this bill to allow those agencies
time to review it. The City Council feels this is a fair request. The Council
supports delay until all of our concerns are addressed in the proposed
legislation. The City Council shares the concern that review of CB-16-2003
must be a thoughtful and deliberate effort, driven by factual conditions
rather than timetables. The Council also wants to restate its position
that our threshold interest in this matter is the conveyance to the City
of the 100-acre site known as the Nash Property, located in the northwest
quadrant of the US 50/301 and MD 3 interchange.
Now that the City has had the opportunity to review Draft #2 of CB-16, the City Council can provide some additional comments and conditions that we believe will improve the scope and purpose of CB-16, while improving the controls and applicability of the legislation to the Maryland Science and Technology Center.
If the County Council chooses to go forward with the legislation, the following framework is provided for further revisions that the City finds must be made to the bill prior to its approval:
1. Section 27-107.01. Definition of Planned Environmental Preservation Community.
·
Clarify the phrase “on and adjacent to the community property”.
Is this intended to mean HOA land?
· To limit applicability of this legislation, substitute the date of CDP
approval for MSTC (4/10/86) in lieu of January 1, 2001.
·
Revise “planned” employment to “zoned” employment
and office uses, and note that these zoned uses do not have to necessarily
be part of this CDZ.
2. Section 27-478. Review process. Paragraph (e).
· Delete the last sentence proposed in the paragraph, as it does not make
sense.
· The reduced CDP amendment process for Planned Environmental Preservation
Community should not be allowed for the reasons stated below. (This reference
should be deleted from the paragraph.)
3. Section 27-518. Contents of Plan. Section (C)(2).
· The use of a reduced Comprehensive Design Plan review process for a
proposed Planned Environmental Preservation Community is not supported. The existence
of this less onerous process in the Zoning Ordinance is the result of a previous
text amendment intended to allow an expansion of an existing eleemosynary
institution at another location in the County. The large-scale nature of
the Planned Environmental Preservation Community does not lend itself to
an abbreviated review process. The proper avenue to address such a major
change to the content of the approved CDP is to process a full CDP amendment.
(Note that Mr. Benitez of MIE Properties, when asked at the Roundtable Meeting
of 3/12/03 about time constraints of the process vs. public participation,
stated that his company would take whatever time was needed to follow the
required processes.) The reduced CDP contemplated in CB-16-2003 shortchanges
the public of the type of review that all major CDZ projects are required
to through (including Bowie Town Center in 1999). Amending the law to use
the existing reduced CDP creates too large a loophole. There are also concerns
with how this community would be integrated with the surrounding CDZ.
We are concerned about a reduction in the processing period of this application.
As we indicated in our letter of April 28, 2003 we continue to insist on
a full review process that accommodates the entire City of Bowie review process
including, but not limited to: Stakeholders meetings, Bowie Advisory Planning
Board review, and City Council review. Our reviews will include examination
of CB-16 as it would address local review guidelines, wildlife habitat protections
issues and a range of environmental protection issues.
· Section 27-518 (D)(1) indicates that the reduced CDP “shall be in conformance with the approved Basic Plan”. It would be difficult to find conformance with the Basic Plan since it does not contain residential uses, either in the Plan or the specific list of permitted uses for the E-I-A zone approved for the MSTC. An Amended Basic Plan is required to permit residential uses at the MSTC. In addition, pursuant to CDP Condition #1, an Amended Basic Plan is required prior to development of Pod 7. Wording that requires compliance with “approved basic plan: should read, “amended basic plan”. This change is suggested because the basic plan never contemplated residential development on site and therefore, an amendment of the plan is required.
4. Section 27-532.04 (a) Purposes of Planned Environmental Preservation
Community.
This section should be improved with more specific language, specifically:
· General comment: Many of the terms used in this section are subjective
in nature, such as “significant environmental features”, “luxury
housing”, “high-quality multi-family” dwellings.
· Single-family detached development is not mentioned, even though there
are standards for this type of development in the bill.
·
Structured parking should be required for multi-family development, not only
provided “where feasible”.
·
Revise “planned” to “zoned” employment and office
uses in Purpose #4.
·
In Purpose #5, define “focal point”. The intention here appears
to be maximizing views of environmental preservation open space within the
community. There must be a clear and concise definition of “publicly
owned open space”.
5. Section 27-532.04 (d) Environmental standards.
· The natural buffer alternative described in this section represents
a good attempt to ensure that the intent of buffering standards is maintained,
even
when disturbance is found to be necessary. However, to ensure that future
encroachments eligible for the alternative process are kept to a minimum,
the bill should include specific language stating that the natural buffer
alternative process shall only be permitted if it is conclusively demonstrated
that there is no other feasible alternative to buffer disturbance.
6. Section 27-532.04 (D)(3) Stormwater management.
·
Given that this proposal will only affect Pods 5 and 7 of the Science and
Technology Center and given that the ponds were designated for commercial
use of the property, there should be a review of the process to determine
if the stormwater management pond system for these pods are “over designed” and
if there may be a lesser or smaller design that might be more effective.
7. Section 27-532.04 (D)(4) Impervious surfaces.
·
The legislation does not contain any specific quantitative requirements for
impervious surface. It simply states that the area of these surfaces should
be minimized. Because of the emphasis on environmental preservation in CB-16-2003
and the proximity of the Patuxent River, it is recommended that the bill
include maximum impervious standards. The City recommends a site-wide (i.e.
within Pods 5 and 7) maximum standard of 25% impervious area. Additionally,
consistent with the Patuxent River Policy Plan, a 150’ water quality
protection buffer (WQPB) should be provided adjacent to all streams and wetlands.
The maximum amount of impervious area within the WQPB should be limited to
10%. Wetlands are mentioned in the Purposes section of CB-16-2003 as worthy
of preservation; however, there are no standards for buffering of wetlands
in the legislation.
8. Section 27-532.04 (D)(5) Utilities clearing.
· The legislation encourages minimization of clearing in required buffer
areas for utilities. However, encroachments into environmentally sensitive areas
for utility installation are specifically recognized in the buffer alternatives
section and will likely occur. CB-16-2003 should be revised so that, if utility
encroachments are permitted, coordination of various utilities within a single
corridor should be required to minimize the amount of fragmentation of the
buffer.
9. Section 27-532.04 (D)(6) Recreational amenities.
· In addition to the requirement of providing an extensive trail system,
the text should state that sidewalks are required on both sides of all public
and private streets and parking facilities.
·
This section states that environmental education stations may be provided “with
curriculum available to schools for use in specific locations.” It
is not clear how this section can or will be enforced. If the intention is
for the developer to give something back to the community, the legislation
should be written more concisely to describe the range of public benefit
features possible under this provision and the obligation for the developer
to provide them. The wording regarding provision of services to schools must
be clarified to identify an enforcement process.
10. Section 27-532.04 (D)(7) Open space.
·
Due to the specific applicability of this legislation to Pods 5 and 7 of
MSTC, it should be possible to determine the types of open space and recreational
facilities that will be provided with the proposed residential development.
The bill should list the range of open space improvements intended for the
site, and it should state that suitable open space shall be improved for
recreational use by the community. If possible, the minimum area or percentage
of this open space should be specified and the terms and conditions of “open
space” should be specifically listed and approved in advance.
11. Section 27-532.04 (E) Residential standards.
· There is a popular saying in the industry that quality cannot be legislated.
This adage illustrates an area of major concern with this section of the
bill. One alternative perspective to providing specific standards in the
bill is to develop these requirements through the Comprehensive Design Plan
process. There is a myriad of design options and regulations that could be
fashioned to address site development and building quality. The City believes
the best way to create standards specific to the MSTC is through submission
of a Comprehensive Design Plan revision. The Zoning Ordinance identifies
the scope of this framework in Section 27-518. The approved Specific Design
Plan will establish the actual regulations for the development.
· In subsection (1), “net acre” should be defined specifically as the gross acreage minus any 100-year floodplain and land dedicated to public agencies.
If retained in CB-16-2003, the City would insist on a greater definition of residential standards, including the items noted below.
· Regarding standards for single-family development, several additional
items should be considered, based on the City’s Development Review
Guidelines:
o A minimum of two architectural features shall be provided in a balanced
composition on each endwall. Such features should include, but not be limited
to, standard windows, doors, fireplace chimneys, etc. For highly visible
units, a minimum of four architectural features (including decorative trim,
shutters) shall be required.
o Regarding subsection (3), building materials should reflect the use of
natural materials (including brick, stone or stucco). The number of dwellings
with siding used as the primary building material shall not exceed 15% of
the total number of dwelling units. For units where siding is the primary
building material, all such units shall contain additional design features
(such as porches, porticos, bay windows, etc.) to provide articulation of
visible facades.
o Garage doors shall not face the street.
o All driveways and driveway aprons shall be constructed of concrete.
· Regarding standards for townhouse and attached units, the following
items should be considered:
o A maximum of five (5) units shall be permitted in building groups of attached
dwelling units.
o Townhouse units shall be clustered into distinct neighborhoods of no greater
than 50 units per cluster.
o The minimum building width in any contiguous attached group shall be no
less than 22 feet.
o All townhouse end units shall be no less than 24 feet wide and either contain
at least two endwall features or be designed as side-entry units.
o Townhouse units shall be offset a minimum of four (4) feet. Townhouse rooflines
should be varied in height and roofline pitch shall not be less than 8/12.
o All driveways and driveway aprons shall be constructed of concrete.
o Parking shall be provided at a ratio of 2.25 parking spaces per dwelling.
· The legislation is very vague regarding standards for multi-family development.
The following items should be considered:
n At a minimum, examples of the “significant number of amenities typically
provided in luxury rental and condominium projects” should be identified.
n Subsection (C) should be revised to eliminate the word “required” so
that all parking for multi-family development will be structured parking.
n The “Form Determinants” chapter of the approved CDP document
sets forth the physical planning constraints for the MSTC site. The “Valley
Wall” (in Pods 5-7) just east of Curie Drive, is described as a visually
distinct element on the site. Design standards and principles for taking
advantage of the grade change when constructing large buildings with structured
parking are discussed. The intent is to “absorb intensity by building
into the edge of the valley wall to provide up to four stories between the
toe and top of slope.” This existing reference in the CDP demonstrates
the value of assessing development standards within the context of a full
CDP review (as recommended above), rather than through legislation. If multi-family
standards are retained in the legislation, the relationship noted above should
be addressed in specific design requirements.
The City Council thanks you for the opportunity to communicate these observations about this important bill. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
(signed)
Bowie City Council
G. Frederick Robinson
Mayor
CC: The Honorable Douglas J.J. Peters
The Honorable Samuel Dean
Letter
to City Council from Councilman Peters (5/22/03)
CB-35
legislation
CB16
draft 2 Summary
CB-16 legislation
Minutes of 4/21/03 Council Meeting