Staff Report -- Karrington 6/5/03

LAND USE PETITION IN THE BOWIE PLANNING AREA

Md.-National Capital Park and Planning Commission ID: Conceptual Site Plan (CSP) #02004
Karington Mixed-Use Planned Community
Bowie Advisory Planning Board # 03-13 Date: June 5, 2003
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTRODUCTORY NOTE: The proposed application is a request for approval:

_____ (a) of a zoning type case involving the specific use of land;
_X_ (b) of a conceptual site plan;
_____ (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: Conceptual Site Plan
2. Petitioner: Kenneth H. Michael Company
3. Represented by: Mr. William Knight, Esq.
4. Location of Petitioned Property: Southwest quadrant of MD 214 and US 301
5. Proposed use of Petitioned Property: 1,259 mixed dwelling units, 343,000 sq.ft. of retail space and up to 650,000 sq.ft. of office space
6. Size/Zone of Petitioned Property: 361.53 acres/zoned E-I-A (Employment and Institutional Area)
7. Date of hearing before BAPB: June 3, 2003 at 7:00 p.m.
8. Date of hearing before City Council: Monday, June 9, 2003 at 8:00 p.m.
9. Date of hearing before County Planning Board: Thursday, June 12, 2003 at 9:00 a.m.
10. Date of hearing before Hearing Examiner: N/A
11. Date of hearing before District Council: ---

NOTICES/LEGALS DATE Number of Mailing/Signs
Notice sent to Adj. Properties: 5/16/03 384
Notice sent to Parties of Record n/a
Date Signs Posted: 5/19/03 5
Date Legal Sent: 5/19/03
Date Legal Appeared: 5/22/03

RECOMMENDATIONS:
12. Department of Planning & Economic Development Recommendation:

The Department of Planning & Economic Development staff recommends DISAPPROVAL of CSP #02004.

13. Bowie Advisory Planning Board Recommendation:

The Bowie Advisory Planning Board recommends DISAPPROVAL of CSP #02004 in accordance with the City staff recommendation.

MEMORANDUM

TO: City Council

FROM: David J. Deutsch, City Manager

SUBJECT: Conceptual Site Plan (CSP) #02004
Karington Mixed-Use Planned Community

DATE: 6/5/03

I. General Information

Applicant: Kenneth H. Michael Company/Karington LLC

Status of Ownership: Owner

Subject: Conceptual Site Plan #02004

Project Name: Karington

Location: Southwest quadrant of MD 214/US 301 intersection

Acreage: 361.53 acres

Existing Zoning: E-I-A (Employment and Institutional Area)

Existing Land Use: Vacant (wooded)

Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning:
North: Vacant land, zoned E-I-A and C-M (Commercial Miscellaneous)
Ternberry Subdivision, zoned R-S (Residential Suburban)
South: Collington Center employment park, zoned E-I-A
East: US Route 301; vacant land, zoned R-R (Rural Residential)
Wawa convenience store, zoned C-M
West: Vacant land, zoned E-I-A; CSX railroad tracks, zoned R-R;
Collington Station Subdivision, zoned R-R

Master Plan Land Use Category: Employment (part of Employment Area 6)

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) – Facility is adequate

Fire Engine Service: Company #43—Anticipated service travel time is 2.17 minutes, which is within the 3.25-minute travel time guideline for commercial development. Anticipated service travel time of 2.44 minutes is also within the 5.25-minute travel time guideline for residential development.

Fire Truck Ladder Service: Company #39—Anticipated service travel time is 11.55 minutes, which is beyond the 4.25-minute travel time guideline for commercial development. There is no guideline for residential development.

Medic Service: Company #43—Anticipated service travel time is 2.17 minutes, which is within the 7.25-minute travel time guideline for commercial development. Anticipated service travel time of 2.44 minutes is within the 7.25-minute travel time guideline for residential development.

Ambulance Service: Company #43—Anticipated service travel time is 2.17 minutes, which is within the 4.25-minute travel time guideline. Anticipated service travel time is 2.44 minutes, which is within the 6.25-minute travel time guideline for residential development.

School Facilities: Elementary School Cluster #3 (119.84% over capacity)
Funded schools include Bowie and Whitehall Elementary. Expected elementary school pupil generation from Karington is 283 students.
Middle School Cluster #2 (114.51% of capacity)
There are no funded middle school projects to alleviate overcrowding in Cluster #2. Expected middle school pupil generation from Karington is 71 students.
High School Cluster #2 (119.83% of capacity)
Funded school improvement includes Frederick Douglass addition. Expected high school pupil generation from Karington is 127 students.

II. Background

The proposed application is the first of its kind since County zoning regulations were changed last year to permit a mixed-use planned community in the E-I-A (Employment and Institutional Area) zone. CB-13-2002, passed by the County Council last year, allows a “mixed-use planned community” as a permitted use on properties zoned E-I-A that are over 250 acres in size and have their own Comprehensive Design Zone (CDZ) Basic Plan. The subject property, which includes approximately 361.53 acres, located in the southwest quadrant of the US 301/MD 214 interchange (see Attachment #1), is eligible to be developed under the mixed-use provisions of CB-13-2002 (see Attachment #2).

III. Stakeholder’s Meeting

A Stakeholders Meeting on this project was held on 4/9/03. A summary of the Stakeholders Meeting discussion is provided as Attachment #3.

IV. Proposal

The proposed development concept includes a total of 1,259 dwelling units, up to 343,000 square feet of retail space and up to 650,000 square feet of office space (see Attachment #4). Copies of the proposed Illustrative Site Plan and Conceptual Site Plan are provided as Attachments #5 and #6.

The proposed residential use includes 154 single-family detached lots located in the western portion of the site adjacent to the Collington Branch stream valley, 245 townhouse units located in the central and western portions of the site, and 860 multi-family units located adjacent to the project’s central stormwater management lake.

Two (2) hotel sites are proposed: one fronting on the lake on its eastern edge and one at the northern end of the property along the main access road connecting to MD 214. A public use parcel is also proposed in this area and has been designated as a possible location for a satellite campus of Prince George’s Community College. This parcel would also contain active recreation facilities. The retail component of the project is situated along the US 301 frontage, creating a shopping district between Route 301 and the central lake amenity. Office development is proposed both north and south of the retail uses.

The development is served by a network of public streets, including two major signalized entrances connecting to MD 214 at Hall Road at the northern end and to US 301 at the Wawa median crossover in the southern end of the project. Substantial open space will exist in the form of preserved steep slopes and floodplain along the western third of the property and along MD 214. A grid-street pattern will provide access within the commercial and multi-family areas and traffic-calming devices, such as roundabouts, will be used. The single-family areas will be served by a private street system in a gated community configuration.

V. Requirements for Approval

The Prince George’s County Zoning Ordinance, as amended by CB-13-2002, provides the criteria for approval of a mixed-use planned community in the E-I-A zone. The development process defined in CB-13-2002 supersedes the standard CDZ zoning requirements for a Basic Plan, Comprehensive Design Plan and Specific Design Plans. The applicable regulations permit the Planning Board to approve a Conceptual Site Plan if:

· the property and Plan satisfy all criteria for M-X-T Zone approval in Part 3, Division 2;

· the Plan and the proposed development meet the purposes and applicable requirements of the M-X-T Zone;

· the Plan meets all requirements stated in the definition of the use; and

· the Plan shows a reasonable alternative for satisfying, in a high-quality, well-integrated mixed-use community, all applicable site design guidelines.

Following approval of a Conceptual Site Plan, the applicant would have to submit a Preliminary Plan of subdivision to divide the property for sale and to create individual lots for development. Under Zoning Ordinance regulations, each development parcel is also subject to approval of a Detailed Site Plan by the Planning Board.

The proposal was also reviewed with respect to the City’s Development Review Guidelines and Policies, including the Wildlife Habitat Management Guidelines approved by the City Council last year.

V. Analysis

A. Criteria for M-X-T Zone Approval (Part 3, Division 2)

The criteria contained in the Zoning Ordinance for M-X-T Zone approval include:

Sec. 27-213. Map Amendment approval; amendments.

(a) Criteria for approval of the M-X-T Zone.
(1) The District Council shall only place land in the M-X-T Zone if at least one (1) of the following two (2) criteria is met:

(A) Criterion 1. The entire tract is located within the vicinity of either:
(i) A major intersection or major interchange (being an intersection or interchange in which at least two (2) of the streets forming the intersection or interchange are classified in the Master Plan as an arterial or higher classified street reasonably expected to be in place within the foreseeable future); or
(ii) A major transit stop or station (reasonably expected to be in place within the foreseeable future).
(B) Criterion 2. The applicable Master Plan recommends mixed land uses similar to those permitted in the M-X-T Zone.
(2) Prior to approval, the Council shall find that the proposed location will not substantially impair the integrity of an approved General Plan, Area Master Plan, or Functional Master Plan and is in keeping with the purposes of the M-X-T Zone. In approving the M-X-T Zone, the District Council may include guidelines to the Planning Board for its review of the Conceptual Site Plan.
(3) Adequate transportation facilities.
(A) Prior to approval, the Council shall find that transportation facilities that are existing, are under construction, or for which one hundred percent (100%) of construction funds are allocated within the adopted County Capital Improvement Program, within the current State Consolidated Transportation Program, or will be provided by the applicant, will be adequate to carry anticipated traffic for the proposed development.
(B) The finding by the Council of adequate transportation facilities at this time shall not prevent the Planning Board from later amending this finding during its review of subdivision plats.

STAFF COMMENT: Staff finds that all three of the above requirements are not met for CSP #02004. The site meets the locational test outlined Item #1, since MD 214 is classified as a State expressway and US 301 is classified as a State freeway in the Bowie-Collington-Mitchellville and Vicinity Area Master Plan, and these roads are currently function as arterial roads. However, staff concludes that the remaining two criteria, for the reasons detailed below, are not met.

1. General Plan and Master Plan Criterion

Regarding compliance with Item #2, staff finds that the proposed community if approved at this time will substantially impair the integrity of the County’s approved 2002 General Plan. The approved General Plan shows the property as part of the Developing Tier without any other designation. The site is not designated as a Center or part of a mapped Corridor. (In fact, the site no longer enjoys the Major Employment Center designation of the previously approved 1982 General Plan.) The large scale of development proposed at Karington would rival other planned Centers identified in the General Plan, particularly the Bowie Center. Moreover, in a December 10, 2002 referral response on this project, Mr. Joseph J. Valenza, Acting Planning Supervisor for the MNCPPC Information Center, opined that additional commercial square footage is not expected or needed in this portion in the planning area, based on current demographics (see discussion below).

The vision for the Developing Tier is to “maintain a pattern of low- to moderate-density suburban residential communities, distinct commercial Centers, and employment areas that are increasingly transit serviceable.” According to the General Plan, one of the goals for the Developing Tier is to develop compact, higher-intensity, mixed-uses in Centers and Corridors. A related strategy is to discourage isolated commercial activities and promote new commercial development primarily in designated Centers and Corridors. The General Plan identifies the different characteristics associated with a range of Centers, including Metropolitan Centers, Regional Centers and Community Centers. The recommended mix of land uses proposed at Karington fits squarely within the definition of a Regional Center and the percentage thresholds identified for Regional Centers (i.e. maximum 70% residential; minimum 10% retail and services, 10% employment, 10% public uses). An evaluation of the appropriateness of a new center of this magnitude on the Karington property and its impact on the Bowie Center should be conducted as part of the update of the Bowie Area Master Plan. Staff concludes that, unless and until the approved General Plan is amended to include a designated Center at Karington, the proposal will not be in conformance with, and will substantially impair, the approved County General Plan.

Based on the above discussion, staff does not agree with the finding of the Community Planning Division in their referral dated April 11, 2003 that “this conceptual site plan for a mixed-use planned community is generally consistent with Developing Tier polices for land use and will not impair the integrity of the 2002 General Plan.” It should be noted that the Community Planning Division recognized in their memorandum that Developing Tier policies and strategies do not specifically address applications in industrially zoned planned employment areas that are not in designated centers or corridors. They conclude: “Land use policies for these areas will need to be clarified as future master plans are updated and development regulations revised.” Staff concurs with this comment and finds it supports the conclusion stated in the above paragraph.

In addition to the project’s noncompliance with the General Plan, the proposal is also not in conformance with the current Area Master Plan. The 1991 Bowie Master Plan identifies the subject property as part of a larger employment area (Employment Area 6), known as the Collington Center employment park. The Master Plan provides specific recommendations for the northern 414 acres of Employment Area 6, known as “Collington Corporate Center”. The site is identified for intense office development between 2.64 million square feet and 4.76 million square feet over a 20-year buildout. The Master Plan recommends that retail and service functions not be oriented to serve local retail convenience needs, only those deemed necessary and functional to serve the demands of business park employees.

The Master Plan Concept for Employment Areas states the following:

The concept encourages the promotion of the seven recommended employment areas. Advocating attributes of the employment areas along with a supportive public attitude will have a significant impact on fulfilling the employment potential of the area and can, in turn, stimulate other sectors of the local economy such as housing and retail commercial. (page 129)

Staff believes that removal of another large employment area from the planning area’s inventory of such uses must be evaluated in the larger context of the Master Plan update, since several of the other employment areas recommended by the Plan have already been lost to less intensive retail and residential development (e.g. Bowie Gateway Center, Governor’s Green/Home Depot, Bowie Crossing). Staff also believes it is critical to view requests for continued reductions in employment land use in the context of the new County General Plan’s economic development objective to increase the jobs-to-population ratio by 39% by the Year 2025.

Staff finds no provisions in the current Master Plan for an activity center on the subject property. A planned activity center intended to serve adjacent and nearby single-family residential development is endorsed by the plan at Hall Road/MD 214, approximately one-half mile from this site. The Master Plan characterizes a hierarchy of activity centers, including Community Activity Centers, Major Community Activity Centers and New Town Centers. The scope of development proposed at Karington would equate to at least a Major Community Activity Center, if not a New Town Center. In addition, according to the MNCPPC Information Center, additional retail space is not supportable (see discussion below). Because the Bowie-Collington-Mitchellville and Vicinity Area Master Plan does not currently show an activity center on the subject property, placement of such a center on the Karington parcel would be in conflict with the recommendations for activity centers contained in the approved Master Plan. In addition, it would eliminate much of the remaining employment potential of Employment Area 6.

Staff disagrees with the Community Planning Division’s conclusion in their April 11, 2003 referral that, because the proposed conceptual site plan for Karington is generally consistent with the General Plan’s countywide goals, objectives, policies and strategies, it therefore will not impair the integrity of the Master Plan recommendations for this part of the Collington employment area. The Community Planning Division also cited two specific recommendations that are not fulfilled by this Conceptual Site Plan, as follows:

1. The master plan road connection between this development (along I-2 Road) and Prince George’s Center Boulevard to the south at Collington Center.
2. The master plan trail connection extending west to the Collington Branch Stream Valley Park.

These issues are mentioned, but then left unresolved, in the referral memorandum. The referral from the MNCPPC Senior Trails Planner dated April 21, 2003, however, confirms that the trail connection noted above is shown on the applicant’s plan. Staff finds the issue of connecting the subject property to the rest of Collington Center in accordance with the Master Plan’s recommendation for a central access road throughout the employment area to be a significant one and one that would greatly influence how the Karington parcel is designed. Including the road connection between Karington and Collington Center will fulfill the Master Plan recommendations, provide relief from traffic congestion on Route 301 and at its interchange with MD 214, enhance accessibility and improve response times for emergency services. Without the road connection, the proposed development would not conform to the Master Plan.

Based on the preceding paragraphs above, staff concludes that the proposal would violate the integrity of, and substantially impair, the approved Master Plan.

2. Transportation Criterion

Regarding Item #3, staff finds that proposal does not meet the test for adequate transportation facilities described in the Part 3, Division 2 of the Zoning Ordinance for M-X-T Zone approval. The applicant’s traffic study concludes that facilities will be adequate, assuming construction of the Route 301 improvements and other improvements funded by the applicant.
There are several reasons for staff’s finding. First, the traffic analysis is incomplete and does not address the full impacts of the proposal on transportation facilities that are existing, are under construction, or for which one hundred percent (100%) of construction funds are allocated within the adopted County Capital Improvement Program, within the current State Consolidated Transportation Program, or will be provided by the applicant (see attached letter from the City’s traffic consultant – Attachment #7).

Staff also finds the programming of $24 million in the Year 6 of the County’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) does not satisfy the provision of “construction funds” for the Route 301 improvement project. The County CIP document summary states that projects: “included in the first two years of the CIP are closely related to current development and can be expected to be carried out essentially as programmed. Projects shown in the later years of the CIP may be subject to modification either in scope or timing, based on the review of needs, the availability of funding, or other circumstances which cannot be predicted with any certainty so far in advance.” The CIP Glossary defines a Project Authorization as “the total amount included in an approved CIP for a specific project when the project is also included in the Capital Budget (i.e. the Budget Year of an Approved CIP). The amount authorized is the total amount included in the CIP. Projects in the CIP, which have not been included in an Approved Capital Budget, are not authorized.” The current CIP authorization for the US Route 301 improvement project is zero dollars ($0).

Staff finds the funding proposal contained in the CIP to be unrealistic and inadequate. The $24 million CIP project cost estimate for constructing an additional lane in each direction on Route 301, between MD 725 and MD 214, and other geometric improvements at selected intersections was established in 1990, approximately 13 years ago. This same project would cost about $33 million in today’s dollars. According to the CIP, funding will come from developer contributions and the State of Maryland. However, no monies have been collected from developers for this project. With current and forecasted State budget deficits, no State funding exists or is anticipated for this project into the foreseeable future. Staff concludes that the representation of a potential project cost in Year 6 of the CIP is not “construction funding”.

While the Karington developer is proposing to install several traffic signals, make geometric improvements to several existing roadways, and participate in a Traffic Facilities Mitigation Program at Church Road/MD 214, the traffic impact of the proposed development on transportation facilities is not completely addressed. Reliance on an “illusory” CIP project is necessary to find traffic facilities acceptable. Based on the above analysis, staff concludes that transportation facilities will not be adequate to carry anticipated traffic for the proposed development.

B. Purposes and Applicable Requirements of M-X-T Zone

M-X-T requirements, including special regulations for Mixed-Use Planned Communities (beginning on page 8 of CB-13-2002) include requiring conformance to the purposes; minimum use and mixture requirements; emphasis on a central public space, at least 25 acres in size, surrounded by a combination of commercial, civic, cultural or recreational facilities that provides amenities for the entire community; inclusion of linked and accessible open space; and conformance to specific retail and residential design standards. Additional findings for the M-X-T Zone must also be made, in addition to the required findings of Part 3, Division 9.

The purposes of the M-X-T Zone are as follows:

Sec. 27-542. Purposes.

(a) The purposes of the M-X-T Zone are:
(1) To promote the orderly development and redevelopment of land in the vicinity of major interchanges, major intersections, and major transit stops, so that these areas will enhance the economic status of the County and provide an expanding source of desirable employment and living opportunities for its citizens;
(2) To conserve the value of land and buildings by maximizing the public and private development potential inherent in the location of the zone, which might otherwise become scattered throughout and outside the County, to its detriment;
(3) To promote the effective and optimum use of transit and other major transportation systems;
(4) To facilitate and encourage a twenty-four (24) hour environment to ensure continuing functioning of the project after workday hours through a maximum of activity, and the interaction between the uses and those who live, work in, or visit the area;
(5) To encourage diverse land uses which blend together harmoniously;
(6) To create dynamic, functional relationships among individual uses within a distinctive visual character and identity;
(7) To promote optimum land planning with greater efficiency through the use of economies of scale and savings in energy beyond the scope of single-purpose projects;
(8) To permit a flexible response to the market; and
(9) To allow freedom of architectural design in order to provide an opportunity and incentive to the developer to achieve excellence in physical, social, and economic planning.
(CB-84-1990; CB-47-1996)

STAFF COMMENT: Staff finds the proposed plan meets most, but not all, of the Purposes of the M-X-T Zone. Due to the proposal not meeting the requirements for M-X-T Zone approval cited above, staff cannot find that the specified purpose of the E-I-A zone written into CB-13-2002 regarding mixed-use communities, as well as other purposes relating to General Plan and Master Plan conformance, are met.

In addition, staff cannot find that the proposal conforms to Purposes 3, 4, and 6 of the M-X-T Zone. Issues related to transportation facilities noted above have led staff to the conclusion that the proposed use does not promote the effective and optimum use of transit and other major transportation systems. From the information submitted with this application, staff finds it difficult to determine how the proposal will facilitate and encourage a twenty-four (24) hour environment to ensure continuing functioning of the project after workday hours through a maximum of activity, and if there will really be interaction between the uses and those who live, work in, or visit the area. Staff is also not convinced that the plan for Karington will create dynamic, functional relationships among individual uses within a distinctive visual character and identity, based on the land use plan and drawings submitted with this application.

The other applicable requirements of the M-X-T Zone are contained in Section 27-544, Section 27-547 and 27-548 of the Zoning Ordinance. With respect to the proposal’s conformance with these M-X-T regulations and the specific regulations for Mixed-Use Planned Communities, staff finds:

· The proposed Mixed-Use Planned Community does not conform to the purposes, regulations and required findings set forth in Division 2, Subdivision 6 for the M-X-T Zone;
· The proposed Karington project meets the minimum use mixture requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, including provision of at least one hotel site and one institutional or civic use;
· The proposed Karington project contains an integrated network of streets, sidewalks and open space but does not give priority to public space and appropriate placement of institutional and civic uses;
· The proposed project only minimally addresses the requirement to focus the community on a central public space that is surrounded by a combination of commercial, civic, cultural or recreational facilities, and the plan uses a stormwater management feature (lake) with undefined amenities to make up most of this area;
· The community does not contain effectively linked open space or substantial common greens or parks that are entirely accessible, visible, safe and comfortable;
· Retail uses, architecture and amenities have not been sufficiently described to respond to the design guidelines of the Zoning Ordinance; and
· Residential units, their design principles and architecture have not been described or illustrated to respond to the guidelines of the Zoning Ordinance.

The findings for Conceptual Site Plans in the M-X-T Zone are addressed below:

(1) The proposed development is in conformance with the purposes and other provisions of this Division;
STAFF COMMENT: As noted above, staff finds the proposed development is not in conformance with the purposes and other provisions of the M-X-T Zone.

(2) The proposed development has an outward orientation which either is physically and visually integrated with existing adjacent development or catalyzes adjacent community improvement and rejuvenation;
STAFF COMMENT: Staff concludes that the proposed development does not have an outward orientation. Rather, the design is one that provides extensive buffering around the perimeter, except for the northern boundary along Old Central Avenue where a continuation of the office park component of the mixed-use planned community concept is shown. There is no vehicular connection, or attempt to integrate similar land uses with land, to the south where employment uses exist. It is not clear to staff how the proposed community will catalyze adjacent community improvement rejuvenation.

(3) The proposed development is compatible with existing and proposed development in the vicinity;
STAFF COMMENT: The applicant has not submitted information to address the project’s compatibility with existing and proposed development. Staff conducted a review of the Master Plan map and made the following findings. The northern office component of Karington does not appear to be compatible with the (now vacant) Service Commercial land use designated across Old Central Avenue. The office use component at the southeastern end of the property is somewhat compatible to the employment uses in Collington Center to the south of the subject site, while single-family land use component is not. Also, generally speaking, single-family detached land uses west of the central access road are compatible with the Collington Station Cluster single-family development west of the CSX Railroad tracks (although these uses are separated by several hundred feet of undisturbed floodplain). The proposed retail area is compatible with the existing Wawa store on Route 301. However, the Master Plan currently identifies the large undeveloped area opposite the subject property as a conditional employment area. It is not clear how the proposed community would be compatible with this use. Based on these findings, staff cannot make a finding that the proposed development will be completely compatible with existing and proposed development in the vicinity.

(4) The mix of uses, and the arrangement and design of buildings and other improvements, reflect a cohesive development capable of sustaining an independent environment of continuing quality and stability.
STAFF COMMENT: While the mix of uses addresses the standards for this type of community, staff has noted elsewhere in this report that sufficient information regarding the arrangement and design of buildings and other improvements is lacking. For this reason, staff finds it difficult to determine if the plan reflects a cohesive development capable of sustaining an independent environment of continuing quality and stability.

(5) If the development is staged, each building phase is designed as a self-sufficient entity, while allowing for effective integration of subsequent phases;
STAFF COMMENT: A Phasing Plan was submitted that shows a total of four (4) building phases. The office uses will be developed almost exclusively in Phases 3-4. To ensure that the project proceeds as a coordinated and balanced mixed-use community, at least 10% office use should be included in each of the first two phases. In addition, Phase 1 contains all residential units and no retail use. A revision should be made to the Phasing Plan to include some retail development in Phase 1.

(6) The pedestrian system is convenient and is comprehensively designed to encourage pedestrian activity within the development;
STAFF COMMENT: Staff finds the pedestrian system shown on the Pedestrian Path Diagram of the CSP to be relatively convenient and comprehensively designed to encourage pedestrian activity within the development.

(7) (Not applicable at Conceptual Site Plan review)

(8) (Not applicable: this requirement only applies to a Conceptual Site Plan for property placed in the M-X-T Zone by a Sectional Map Amendment)

(9) (Not applicable at Conceptual Site Plan review)

(10) On a property or parcel zoned E-I-A or M-X-T and containing a minimum of 250 acres, a Mixed-Use Planned Community including a combination of residential, employment, commercial and institutional uses may be approved in accordance with the provisions set forth in this Section and Section 27-548.
STAFF COMMENT: The site contains at least 250 acres and is therefore eligible for consideration of a mixed-use planned community. However, staff has concluded that the application does not meet all of the provisions of this Section and Section 27-548.

C. Requirements Stated in Definition of Mixed-Use Planned Community

The definition of a Mixed-Use Planned Community is provided on page 2 of CB-13-2002 (see Attachment #2).

STAFF COMMENT: At 414 acres, the site exceeds the minimum requirement of 250 acres specified in the definition of a mixed-use planned community. Situated at the intersection of two State highways classified as expressways or freeways, the site also meets the locational test outlined in the definition, since MD 214 is classified as a State expressway and US 301 is classified as a State freeway in the Bowie-Collington-Mitchellville and Vicinity Area Master Plan. However, as noted in Section A, above, it has been determined that the proposal does not meet all of the specific requirements of Part 3, Division 2 (also part of the definition) for classification in the M-X-T zone.

The definition of Mixed-Use Planned Community also requires ALL of the following:

…mixing of residential, employment, commercial retail, commercial office, hotel or lodging, civic building, parks or recreational use; creating a self-sustaining neighborhood with a balanced mix of residential, commercial, public, institutional, and recreational uses; providing uses which are physically and functionally coordinated, with a network of streets and sidewalks forming an integrated circulation system; giving priority in use placement and site design to public spaces, civic uses, recreational uses and institutional buildings; and exhibiting throughout a high quality of architecture, site design and landscaping, and placement of different uses.

Staff finds these standards to be problematic because they are highly subjective and open to interpretation. There is no doubt that the proposal contains all of the land use elements of a mixed-use plan. However, the definition requires the mixing of these uses, as well as their physical and functional coordination, and the true integration of different uses, especially prominent uses and structures associated with the public realm, throughout the project. The analysis that follows addresses the proposal’s level of conformance with these threshold attributes found within the definition of Mixed-Use Planned Community.

1.) Are the various uses mixed?
Yes and no. The CSP Land Use Plan identifies several locations where multiple uses may occur. However, the site plan segregates these uses into separate pods. To adhere to the purposes and definition of Mixed-Use Planned Community, the concept of live-work space (proposed at only 60,000 square feet, or less than 2% of the total project square footage) would have to be expanded and illustrated in greater detail. Mixing residential or office uses in the same structure over retail uses and the integration of various dwelling types within the same residential block are two examples of mixed-use principles that should be used and described more extensively. In addition, the proposed CSP still suffers from a lack of institutional uses, first observed by the MNCPPC Urban Design Section in their initial review of the plan (see letter from Wagner to Milborne dated 11/21/02):

“The development pattern seems to emulate more of a conventional pattern with an emphasis on retail, office and residential in separate, large development pods. Only one institutional use is provided…More institutional, public and civic uses should be added into the mix, particularly in the Main Street area. Institutional uses such as day care, church, or a nursing home could be provided; public uses such as a library or post office could be provided; and civic uses such as a community building, movie theater, amphitheater, fitness center, or playgrounds could be provided. These types of uses should be physically and functionally integrated into the Main Street area design along with the other major uses to achieve a sense of place.”

2.) How is this a self-sustaining neighborhood? How is the “mix” a balanced one?
The type of office and retail use has not been described in sufficient detail as to illustrate how it will sustain the development proposed. Additional residential density may well be needed to sustain the level of retail use proposed, even though the percentage of residential square footage is near the upper end of the permitted range and the percentage of retail square footage is near the lower end. There is also some question about whether any additional retail uses are needed in this portion of the Bowie planning area.

In a 12/10/02 memorandum to Gary Wagner of the Development Review Division, Mr. Joseph Valenza, Acting Planning Supervisor of the MNCPPC Information Center, noted that currently existing and approved retail square footage far exceeds the amount envisioned as necessary for the area south of US Route 50. Mr. Valenza observed that existing and approved retail space “does indeed more than satisfy the need for additional space in the area.” In addition, Mr. Valenza points out that the supportable space figures were based on the population anticipated in the 1991 Bowie Master Plan. The 2000 Census, however, revealed a smaller average household size than expected, resulting in a population decrease of approximately 7% below what was expected for the area south of US 50.

Some discussion of what staff believes would constitute a balanced land use proposal is offered here. Under the requirements of CB-13-2002, the maximum allowable residential use percentage is 70%, the minimum retail percentage is 10% and the minimum office percentage is 20%. Staff believes an overall mixed-use project designed with this composition would reflect the optimum balance in a suburban setting. Recognizing the above information regarding supportable retail space, staff believes that an overall reduction in total project square footage yielding lesser amounts of retail space and office space at the 10% and 20% minimums might render the project more in balance with (and supportable by) the maximum residential uses. To illustrate this point, the example below reduces the number of residential units by one-half:

Reduced Development Scenario
Residential 1,017,000 sq.ft. (or approximately 630 dwelling units)
Retail 145,285 sq.ft. reduced by 58%
Office 290,571 sq.ft. reduced by 55%
TOTAL 1,452,857 sq.ft. vs. 3,027,000 sq.ft. in Karington proposal

Staff also believes a project containing mostly multi-family units would best fit into a compact mixed-use development site design. A recent publication by the Urban Land Institute highlights the advantages of multi-family housing in achieving smart growth objectives (see Attachment #8). To avoid the more land-consumptive residential use and preserve more of the site’s environmentally constrained land, staff recommends that the single-family detached dwelling type with a minimum floor area of 2,700 be eliminated. Additional dwelling units may be achieved beyond those cited in the above scenario, because multi-family units have a smaller floor area than single-family detached units.

The proposed recreation program includes numerous active and passive recreational areas, both public and private. Although these facilities are geographically dispersed throughout the community, the mix of recreational uses is not balanced. Most of the active recreational uses (including a wide variety of facilities, such as swimming pools, weight room, club house, etc.) are devoted solely to the private communities where they are located. With the exception of the park parcel north of the lake, which includes a playground and ballfield, no publicly owned or accessible active recreational facilities have been provided. In fact, the preponderance of public recreational space is passive space located in the western half of the overall site.

3.) How are the uses physically and functionally coordinated? How does the network of streets form an integrated circulation system?
The uses shown on the CSP are physically connected with sidewalks and streets, as well as trails. High-density apartments are organized adjacent to the central lake feature, with access to commercial areas and live-work space. Land use density transitions from higher intensity uses near US Route 301 to lower density uses adjacent to Collington Branch. A grid street pattern is used, and a main spine road provides central access. There is a hierarchy of streets. A public park/school parcel north of the lake serves as a transitional green area.

Despite the attempt to tie the various use pods together with density transition techniques and access connections, there are some characteristics of the CSP that do not comply with this aspect of the definition. The overall community is not a compact mixed-use design. On the contrary, the design sprawls across the site, severely impacting the Patuxent Primary Management Area, areas of Marlboro Clay, and wooded steep slopes containing highly erodible soils. At least one of the two hotel uses should be eliminated, as these uses bear no physical or functional relationship to the planned community. The mixed single-family and attached uses should be relocated to occupy the office-only pods north and south of the Main Street area, to provide a closer physical proximity and walkable distances to the mixed office and retail areas. According to Tony Nelessen in Visions for a New American Dream, the optimum walking distance between the edge of the community and the community core is between 1,000 feet – 1,500 feet. Similarly, the General Plan establishes a recommended distance of 1,300 feet to 1,500 feet between the core and the edge of a Center. Relocation of the residential pods to these areas will place them within acceptable walking distances to the Main Street area, increasing its viability and the potential for community interaction.

In addition, the site’s design is not successfully integrated with the larger Collington Center development, since the collector road shown on the Bowie Master Plan has not been incorporated into this CSP. A trailhead facility adjacent to the Collington Branch trail system, including a small parking lot, would successfully interface the planned trail system with the remainder of the site’s circulation system. To be more functionally coordinated, the street sections should contain sufficient width to include bike lanes, especially within the retail and office components of the plan, as recommended by the MNCPPC Senior Trails Planner in his April 21, 2003 memo to Gary Wagner of the Urban Design Section.

4.) How have public spaces, civic uses, recreational uses and institutional buildings been given priority in use placement and site design?
It is staff’s opinion that public spaces, civic uses, recreational uses and institutional building have not been given priority in use placement and site design, although the plan is sensitive to this requirement in several respects. The open space/park site designated in the northern end of the development, which will also be the site of an institutional building, would afford this structure a prominent location. The use of traffic circles is encouraging, and the lake serves as a principal public amenity central to the project. The intention to create a “restaurant row” and the semi-public space around the hotel/conference center are also good efforts intended to address this need.

Staff believes that additional commons or squares, connected by a green axis running parallel to Route 301, should be provided within the above-referenced mixed residential pods, once they are relocated. Angled streets and alleyways should be included throughout the plan to provide improved functional relationships between uses and to enhance opportunities for visual orientation to important buildings. Additional institutional buildings should be sited in visually prominent locations as part of the overall design.

As identified by the MNCPPC Trails Coordinator, some of the street sections do not provide for adequate bicycle access. Street sections should be revised to give priority to this recreational use. For example, the Street B prototype contains a wide sidewalk, while the Streets C and I prototypes do not. All of these streets serve a public function within the core areas of the site and should be given priority to enhance community interaction. Also, while the hotel site bordering the lake has been given a priority location within the project, it is not public space and no public or civic space has been included around it. In addition, the “gated community” design thwarts the emphasis to create public spaces, civic uses, recreational uses and institutional buildings that have priority within the development.

5.) How is high quality architecture, site design and landscaping, and placement of different uses exhibited throughout?
Architectural and landscape concepts have not been discussed in detail. A landscape buffer along US 301 is shown in the Open Space Diagram and street trees have been shown on the typical street cross sections. Walled entrance features with signage are proposed at all entrances. At least this same level of detail should be provided for other public spaces such as Sitting Areas 4 and 5, along the lake, at the proposed park site and at major entryways to the trail system (similar to the Fairwood open space program). Overall, the site design should be more compact in nature and establish a community character and identity throughout the project. The need to maintain high architectural standards for this project through to its build-out was a major concern expressed at the Stakeholders Meeting.

D. Compliance With Site Design Guidelines

A mixed-use planned community is subject to site design guidelines and findings for Conceptual Site Plans as identified in Part 3, Division 9 of the Zoning Ordinance. These guidelines address: parking and circulation; lighting; views; green area; site and streetscape amenities; grading; service areas; public spaces; and, architecture. The City’s Development Review Guidelines and Policies document is also used in conjunction with these site planning standards and will be analyzed in this section of the staff report.

STAFF COMMENT: Staff finds that the proposed Karington Conceptual Site Plan meets some, but not all, of the site design guidelines contained Part 3, Division 9 of the Zoning Ordinance.

Staff finds the CSP fails to meet the following Zoning Ordinance guidelines:

(2) Parking, loading and circulation.
C.(i) The location, number and design of driveway entrances to the site should minimize conflict with off-site traffic, should provide a safe transition into the parking lot, and should provide adequate acceleration and deceleration lanes, if necessary.
STAFF COMMENT: As noted in referral comments from the Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA), only two of the five proposed access points on US 301 will be allowed. Staff finds that, if the project is constructed as proposed, there will be conflicts with off-site traffic on US 301, and inadequate distances would be available for construction of the necessary acceleration and deceleration lanes. Therefore, this site design standard is not met.

(5) Green area.
A.(vi) Green area should incorporate significant on-site natural features and woodland conservation requirements that enhance the physical and visual character of the site.
STAFF COMMENT: Earlier sections of this report have suggested that the site would be overdeveloped if the proposed Conceptual Site Plan is implemented. There are many high priority woodland features on the western half of the site that are worthy of preservation, including areas of steep slopes, Marlboro Clays and highly erodible Westphalia soils. The Tree Conservation Plan (TCP) proposes approximately 39 acres of off-site woodland conservation. Forest Stands A and C, where the woodland occurs on highly erodible soils with slopes 15% or greater, should be preserved as green area. Preservation of these areas would allow TCP requirements to be met on-site and would enhance the physical and visual character of the site.

(6) Site and streetscape amenities.
A. Site and streetscape amenities should contribute to an attractive, coordinated development and should enhance the use and enjoyment of the site.
STAFF COMMENT: As discussed previously, the information submitted with this CSP is inadequate to illustrate the type of amenities that will be provided. Additional information must be provided for review, prior to any finding that this standard is satisfied.

(7) Grading.
A. Grading should be performed to minimize disruption to existing topography and other natural and cultural resources on the site and on adjacent sites. To the extent practicable, grading should minimize environmental impacts…
(ii) Excessive grading of hilltops and slopes should be avoided where there are reasonable alternatives that will preserve a site’s natural landforms.
STAFF COMMENT: The development proposal for Karington contains a sprawling development pattern that involves mass grading of the virtually the entire site, except for the 100-year floodplain, wetlands and adjacent steep slopes. Over 160 acres of the 302 acres comprising the net site forested acreage (approximately 53%) are proposed for clearing in the TCP. Staff concludes that the proposed CSP grading does not minimize disruption to existing topography and other natural resources on the site and will result in unnecessary and harmful environmental impacts.

(9) Public spaces.
A. A public space system should be provided to enhance a large-scale commercial, mixed-use, or multi-family development.
STAFF COMMENT: As discussed in the above sections, the public space system is not truly coordinated throughout the project. Although open space is provided, in many instances it is privately held acreage, such as homeowners association land. The CSP contains only three significantly sized public open space areas (the Collington Branch Stream Valley park, the active park at the north end of the site and parkland around the perimeter of the lake). These features are not coordinated or tied together in any logical way to enhance the development. In addition, while two sitting areas are located adjacent to the eastern edge of the lake, these areas are relatively narrow and are surrounded by roads; no other public space is indicated on the Open Space Diagram between the lake and US 301. Based on the above, staff finds the public open space system does not enhance the proposed development in the manner suggested by the Zoning Ordinance guidelines.

Regarding the City’s Development Review Guidelines and Policies, staff finds that the proposed Karington Conceptual Site Plan meets many, but not all, of the City’s requirements. Staff finds the CSP fails to fully address or meet the following City guidelines and policies:

· To continue to provide a broad range of housing types and styles within the planning area, each builder within a new residential development is encouraged to provide at least one single-story unit type or a model which includes a first floor master bedroom in their architectural portfolio to address the needs of the 55-and-over population, persons with disabilities, and empty nesters. (p. 9)
· Articulated storefronts should be provided on large buildings and should be designed to relate to adjacent streetscape. (p. 10)
· On multi-building sites, architecture should be designed to relate buildings to one another while maintaining proper proportions of size and scale. New buildings should also be constructed with adequate setbacks to provide streetscapes. (p. 10)
· Consolidated signage should be encouraged. Only the minimum signage necessary (number and size) should be supported. Signs should be small, yet visible to both pedestrians and motorists. (p. 10)
· Larger commercial developments should provide town greens, parks, plazas or other types of public space as amenities (p. 11)
· Mixed use commercial buildings, such as those with retail on the ground floor and office or housing on upper floors are encouraged. (p. 11)
· Large development projects should be designed with a “theme” to unify buildings and facades and to create a distinctive identity that should be integrated into the surrounding community. (p. 12)
· Berming should be designed to project a natural appearance, rather than a man-made feature. (p. 12)
· Environmentally conscious building materials should be used. Roof materials should be light reflective and energy-sensitive. (p. 12)
· All development requirements (e.g. Landscape Manual, Woodland Conservation, recreation facilities, etc.) should be provided on-site if practical. (p. 13)
· New, planned residential neighborhoods should have landscape plans associated with their monumental entrances and overall sites that include the provision of a minimum of 80% native plants in their plant schedules. (p. 13)
· Generally, unless there are no feasible alternatives, access to individual properties having frontage on arterial and collector roads should be discouraged. (p. 15)
· The Patuxent River is recognized as being a valuable environmental resource within close proximity to the City of Bowie…(p. 18)
· Woodland conservation/tree preservation is required in relation to high priority forest areas as identified in the County’s Woodland Conservation/Tree Preservation Ordinance and the 1991 State Forest Conservation laws. (p. 18)
· The protection and preservation of open space to protect environmentally sensitive areas is strongly encouraged…The preservation and protection of stream valleys, tracts of land with pristine environmental characteristics and a system of interconnecting greenways is a primary objective. (p. 18)
· Wildlife Habitat Conservation shall be addressed by new development in all site plans presented for review…(p. 19)
· The City endorses the concept of “Green Building” in the design and construction of buildings and the development of sites. (p. 19)
· Growth should occur in compact locations adjacent to major interchanges to promote reduced burdens on public infrastructure, conserve farmland, and to preserve existing woodlands and wetlands. (p. 23)
· Frontage roads should be located on the east and west sides of US Route 301 where necessary to provide access to existing roads and to maintain the viability of local business areas. (p. 23)
· All developments should be staged to coincide with the actual availability of required public facilities (such as schools, roads, libraries, fire and rescue, etc.). (p. 24)
· In general, use of fee-in-lieu to satisfy APF requirements should not be supported. (p. 24)
· Funds for improvements necessary to satisfy APF should be contained in the first year of a capital improvement document, not the first six years. (p. 24)
· Additional opportunities for water-related recreation, including lakes, ponds, and streamside parks, should be encouraged in new developments. (p. 24)
· No residential project should be recommended for approval unless the necessary adequate public facilities, including but not limited to, roads and related improvements, are either in place or will be constructed simultaneously with the project itself. Funds approved for public facilities improvements in the latter years of an adopted Capital Improvements Program should not be considered to fulfill this requirement. (p. 27)
· Commercial and office development should be concentrated in the Bowie New Town Center area. (p. 28)
· Development should occur in a pattern where the highest densities and intense commercial uses are concentrated in the vicinity of Bowie New Town Center. The overall Town Center area should contain a range of uses, with a high quality pedestrian experience that incorporates existing natural features and parks as design features. (p. 29)

Several of these guidelines and policies, such as providing single-story unit types, articulated storefronts, architectural and signage details, native species landscaping and Green Building techniques could be addressed through submittal of additional information regarding their use at Karington. However, the project specifically does not comply with 17 of the City’s 26 guidelines and policies mentioned above.

The following summarizes staff’s findings regarding the project’s deficiencies in relation to the City’s guidelines. As noted elsewhere in this report, the project does not provide a sufficient number of town greens, parks, plazas or other types of linked public space as amenities. The amount of square footage devoted to mixed-use buildings in the current proposal is only minimal. A project “theme” or identity has not been created to unify buildings and facades. Berming has not been used to project a natural appearance in lieu of walls along MD 214 and US 301. Woodland Conservation requirements have not been met on-site and high priority forest areas (e.g. highly erodible steep slopes) have not been preserved. An Environmental Report submitted in response to the City’s Wildlife Habitat Management Guidelines was only received after the close of business on Wednesday, May 28, 2003. (Staff comments about the Environmental Report will be available at the City’s hearings.) The Karington project introduces too many access points on US 301 and does not include a compact development design. The project is not predicated on the availability of required public facilities (including schools, roads, libraries, fire and rescue facilities). The developer’s proposal to “pay-and-go” to satisfy transportation facilities deficiencies is not acceptable; the County CIP does not include capital funding for needed improvements to US 301 in the first year of the program. The Karington plan does not provide, or describe opportunities for, water-related recreation at the proposed lake. Finally, the Karington Conceptual Site Plan proposes intense commercial and office development that will rival the Bowie Town Center, where the highest densities and intense commercial uses in the planning area should be concentrated.

VI. Recommendation

Based on the analysis in this staff report, staff finds that the requirements for approval of a Mixed-Use Planned Community in the E-I-A Zone are not met. In addition, the proposal does not comply with many of the City’s Development Review Guidelines and Policies. Staff therefore recommends DISAPPROVAL of CSP #02004 for Karington.

MEMORANDUM

TO: City Council

FROM: Reverend John S. Cooper, Sr., Chairman
Bowie Advisory Planning Board

SUBJECT: Conceptual Site Plan (CSP) #02004
Karington Mixed-Use Planned Community

DATE: 6/5/03

The Bowie Advisory Planning Board conducted a public hearing on the above-referenced application on June 3, 2003. The Karington mixed-use planned community is proposed to include a total of 1,259 dwelling units, up to 343,000 square feet of retail space and up to 650,000 square feet of office space.

Presentations

The applicant’s attorney, Mr. William Knight, gave an orientation to the site using an aerial photograph and the Bowie Master Plan. He noted that the site had previously been approved as an industrial site. The Mannekin Corporation proposed office, employment and warehouse uses on the parcel prior to it being conveyed to Karington, LLC for a mixed-use community. Mr. Knight described the overall plan for Karington, noting that the residential portion to the west would be a gated community. Office uses would serve the community. The concept intends to allow residents to live, work and shop in the same community. Mr. Knight stated that the principals of Karington, LLC are Mr. Gary Murray and Mr. Ken Michael. He added that the applicant saw a unique opportunity for a developing a neo-traditional community. He said the developer extends an open invitation to all in attendance to participate in a bus tour of The Kentlands and King Farm developments in Montgomery County this Saturday.

Mr. Knight further discussed the particulars of the project, stating that it would be a pedestrian friendly community. The plan includes a large undisturbed buffer on its western side and gradually more intense development moving toward Route 301. The project would generate a limited amount of traffic: 4.7 million square feet approved under the previous proposal for the site would generate 5,500 vehicle trips in the a.m. peak hour; only 1,300 trips would be generated by Karington. He indicated that the type of development would be compatible, and he referenced some of the expected sale prices of the dwelling units. For example, an average single-family home price of $700,000 is anticipated. For townhouses, an average sale price of $340,000 is expected. For apartments, rents starting at $1,800 per month are proposed. For multi-family condominiums, the anticipated sale price is $400,000 per unit. Live-work dwelling units would also sell for approximately $400,000. Mr. Knight concluded by characterizing the type of retail and office space proposed.

Mr. Steve Gang of The Lessard Architectural Group, planners for the project, addressed the Board. Mr. Gang discussed the formulation of the development concept, noting that many of the ideas contained in the Vision Plan created for the City by consultant Tony Nelessen are embodied in the plan. He briefly described design techniques such as using front porches to create a community atmosphere, mixing single-family detached and townhouse units on the same block, and providing neighborhood parks and walkable streets. Mr. Gang showed architectural renderings of the community and proposed dwelling types.

Mr. Knight then reviewed the requirements for approval. He observed that MNCPPC staff says the proposal complies with the Master Plan. The community is not intended to compete with Bowie Town Center; there will be no big-box department stores, but specialty retail stores. Their traffic consultant found adequate public facilities requirements are met. Mr. Knight said the funding question is whether it is in the CIP or not, and the Route 301 improvement project clearly is in the CIP for construction. Regarding staff’s issue about lack of market support, he stated that this ignores the fact that people who live in the community will support the retail uses. The Master Plan road to the south is not appropriate because it would cause truck traffic to drive through the center of the planned community. He disagreed with staff’s recommendations that the residential component should be mostly multi-family units. Mr. Knight added that this project may have its own shuttle bus service to the Largo Metro station. Contrary to staff’s conclusion, he does believe the project will create a 24-hour environment as required by the Zoning Ordinance. He concluded by stating that the proposal meets many of the City’s guidelines.

Mr. Joe Meinert, Director of Planning & Economic Development, presented the staff report. He indicated that the project did not meet all of the requirements for approval; therefore, staff recommended DISAPPROVAL of CSP #02004.

Questions by Board Members

Questions by Board members centered on the following:

· The lack of civic and institutional uses in the plan;
· The status of the community college campus building (Mr. Knight indicated that a Letter of Intent from the president of the community college had been obtained);
· Traffic concerns, especially on US 301;
· The use of a gated community vs. requirement for space that is open to the public;
· The possibility of a library site being provided;
· The need for multi-family units units, especially in light of the possibility that very tall buildings might result;
· Specific details of the traffic consultant’s report and findings;
· Refinements to the proposed mixture of uses and the ability to condition the project to address certain design considerations; and
· How high-technology employment will be attracted to this site.

The developer’s traffic consultant, Mr. O.R. George, addressed several questions from Board members about the findings of the traffic study.

Citizen Participation

Several residents signed up to speak. The following individuals spoke at the public hearing:

1. Mr. Russ Ideo of 16403 Pointer Ridge Drive, representing the Citizens Association of South Bowie, addressed the Board. Mr. Ideo’s major concerns relate to traffic and funding issues. He stated that traffic on US 301 is unbearable at all times, and he indicated his support for the staff recommendation of disapproval (see attached letter dated June 3, 2003).

2. Mr. Richard Schroder of 1305 Port Echo Lane stated his support for the staff recommendation. He is not opposed to mixed use here, but feels the applicant misses the points raised by staff. Mr. Schroder also has difficulty with MNCPPC’s assumptions about traffic. He pointed out that the State does not have the money to fund road improvements, so we are left with traffic impacts that will have no solution. Regarding the commercial development, he was skeptical about how it can be oriented only to the community, and he stated his concern about losing the Giant at Pointer Ridge Shopping Center to this site and the problems it would create for the existing center.

3. Mr. Sidney Wise of 618 Jennings Mill Drive agreed with the prior speakers’ comments, adding that the existing residents’ peace and quiet enjoyment would be violated if this project is approved. He stated that the area does not have the infrastructure (such as police, fire/rescue and school facilities) to support additional development.

4. Mr. Oliver Murdock of 15202 Jennings Mill Drive discussed his concerns with the project, which included issues related to traffic, the retail portion of the project and the false expectation that high-tech employees will come to the site.

5. Mr. Clyde Boykins of 14520 Dolbrook Lane in Twelve Oaks agreed with previous speakers. He is not opposed to development; however, infrastructure is a concern. Inadequate schools is the biggest problem he sees. Anything that distracts from the tax base is also a problem. Mr. Boykins asked to see how taxes from the sales of the dwelling units will be able to offset the costs to County to provide services to residents of the rental units.

6. Ms. Faye L. Freeman of 805 Palatine Place in Ternberry agreed with other speakers. She questioned who would afford the rental units.

7. Mr. Sam Hutchinson of Jones Bridge Road in The Manors at Collington stated that the number one concern of his is the impact on preservation of the community’s property values. His neighborhood provides one of the largest sources of tax base in the county; therefore, he is looking for high-quality housing that will support a strong tax base. Mr. Hutchinson said it is not clear what they are proposing (e.g. townhouses for sale or rent?). He also has infrastructure concerns and concern about the ability of this developer to follow through on what’s been said. What makes this developer any different than other developers? He believes we are seeing a pie-in-the-sky philosophy being applied here. Mr. Hutchinson concluded by stating he agrees with the conclusion of the staff report, but disagrees that more multi-family units are needed. He suggests a greater percentage of single-family detached units be included in the project.

8. Mr. Michael Minor of 802 James Ridge Road in The Manors noted his concern about crime coming into areas of new development. He believes that a 24-hour environment will encourage high density and traffic. He is also concerned about schools.

9. Mr. Reginald Woods of 804 James Ridge Road agreed with previous speakers. He is worried about diminishing the tax base and the fact that traffic seems to be an all-day problem. He agrees the items raised in the staff report are unacceptable, and he recommended that the developer consider doing all single-family detached development on the parcel. Mr. Woods also registered his frustrations that developers can make piecemeal changes to the Master Plan and that the County does not provide enough police protection. The developer should help to resolve the issue of shortages in police protection. Given these issues, he would not support the project.

BAPB Discussion

Mr. Ron Skotz stated that he likes the idea of mixed-use and that this is a developer of high integrity. He likes the plan, but does not feel it is appropriate now. It has potential as a quality development; however, he has to accept the conclusions of staff.

Mr. Lonnie Stith was concerned with the “conditionalities” associated with this project. He felt the staff’s findings were so serious and broad that the project cannot be conditioned. He feels it is a good proposal, but this area is not ready for it. He said mixed use appears to be the future, but is not warranted now at the location proposed.

Vice-Chairman Terry Nuriddin respects the developer’s comments, but takes exception to saying they are in compliance with the requirements. She proposed that the developer sit in traffic on Route 301 to understand the reasons why the lack of funding is an issue. She felt the traffic solution is unrealistic. Emergency response issues are also a major factor.

Mr. Ray Loftin agreed with comments of other Board members. He stated that the biggest problem is lack of infrastructure. This project would add to the problem. He feels many on the Board are not saying no to the design, but to its context in this application. Mr. Loftin supports what staff is saying.

Chairman John Cooper stated that he has some very deep concerns, especially with the Route 214/301 interchange area. He feels we are getting so far in front of providing the necessary infrastructure that people can’t get in or out. This portion of the County is way behind in public investment for infrastructure. He is also frustrated by the Master Plan being gutted by County legislation. He said he would encourage the City Council to not only see to it that CB-16-2003 becomes a thing of the past but also suggest that the County to revoke CB-13-2002 as well. Chairman Cooper agreed with staff’s identified deficiencies and will vote in favor of the staff recommendation.

BAPB Motion

Mr. Ron Skotz moved for DISAPPROVAL of CSP #02004 for Karington, in accordance with the staff recommendation. Mr. Lonnie Stith seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

Attachment 1 - CB13-03
Attachment 2 - Map 1
Attachment 3 - Map 2