Palisades at Oak Creek Staff Report

LAND USE PETITION IN THE BOWIE PLANNING AREA

Md.-National Capital Park and Planning Commission ID: Comprehensive Design Plan #9705/03
The Palisades at Oak Creek
Bowie Advisory Planning Board # 03-11 Date: June 12, 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: Comprehensive Design Plan (revision)
2. Petitioner: Evangel Temple, Inc.
3. Represented by: Mr. Andre Gingles, of Gingles LLC
4. Location of Petitioned Property: South side of Md. Rte. 301 and west side of Church Road South
5. Proposed use of Petitioned Property: 166 lots for single-family detached dwellings
6. Size/Zone of Petitioned Property: 200.3 acres/zoned R-L (Residential-Low)
7. Date of hearing before BAPB: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 at 7:00 p.m.
8. Date of hearing before City Council: Monday, June 16, 2003 at 8:00 p.m.
9. Date of hearing before Prince George’s County Planning Board: Thursday, June 19, ’03 at 9:00 a.m.
10. Date of hearing before Hearing Examiner:
11. Date of hearing before District Council:

NOTICES/LEGALS DATE Number of Mailing/Signs
Notice sent to Adj. Properties: 4/9/03 18
Notice sent to Parties of Record 4/10/03 4
Date Signs Posted: 4/10/03 2
Date Legal Sent: 4/17/03
Date Legal Appeared: 4/10/03

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

Staff recommends DISPPROVAL of CDP #9705/03 for The Palisades at Oak Creek as found on page 10 of the staff report.

13. Bowie Advisory Planning Board Recommendation:
The Board recommends DISAPPROVAL of CDP #9705/03 as recommended by staff.

MEMORANDUM

TO: City Council

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

RE: Comprehensive Design Plan (CDP) #9705/03
The Palisades at Oak Creek

DATE: 6/12/03

The Bowie Advisory Planning Board met on 6/10/03 to review Comprehensive Design Plan (CDP) #9705/03 referred to as The Palisades at Oak Creek. The proposal is for the revision to the CDP to allow for 166 lots for single-family detached units in the northeast portion of the 370-acre Cameron Grove site. The site is zoned R-L (Residential-Low) and is located south of Md. Rte. 214 and on the west side of Church Road South. The applicant is Evangel Temple Church.

Presentations

Mr. Andre Gingles, an attorney representing the applicant introduced himself. He introduced several others present on behalf of the applicant including Ms. Silvia Silverman, a land planner and Mr. Michael Goodman, a professional engineer, both with Loiederman-Soltesz Associates and Mr. Sean Bruce, a Land Acquisitions Manager with Pulte Homes. Mr. Gingles explained the background of this portion of the Cameron Grove site and that the original CDP was approved in 1997, and that the Evangel Church facility was first constructed and then the retirement community was under development. He said the subject portion of the site was identified in 1997 as a ‘residue area’ for future residential development with the knowledge that the CDP would later have to be revised to address the design details to be associated with it. He explained the lot pattern on the Illustrative Plan and how the two southern pods would be separate from the units in Pod A in the northern portion of the site. Mr. Gingles said the developer of the adjacent Oak Creek Club to the south would purchase the lots in the two southern pods to include them into their development. He explained how these two pods will not have a vehicular access connection to Pod A. He said the Oak Creek Club site would be a gated community with privately maintained streets.

Next, Ms. Silverman oriented the Board to the site in relation to adjacent properties. She described the two vehicular access points from Church Road South, noting that the northern-most one would serve the lots in Pod A and the second one would serve two lots in Pod C She said the minimum lot size would be 10,000 square feet and the lots would mostly be in the 12,0000 to 14,000 square foot range. She explained the on-site active and passive recreational features that were planned (i.e., one tot lot, two pre-teen areas and a picnic/sitting area and several natural areas). She indicated on the Illustrative Plan a trail connection from Pod A to a 14-acre M-NCPPC-owned park site to the west. She said they are proposing two on-site stormwater management ponds and she identified their locations on the Illustrative Plan.

Mr. Bruce addressed the Board. He showed architectural renderings of four house types Pulte Homes plans to build. He discussed square footage and front facade details associated with these units. Mr. Bruce said their homes would be compatible with the homes built in Collington Manor, and those proposed in Oak Creek Club. He said none of the models would have side-loaded garages based on the lot widths. Mr. Gingles concluded the group’s presentation by saying he read the staff report and recommendation. He recognized that Planning staff brought out several issues and deficiencies about public facilities. He made two points to make about the staff recommendation. First, he said, in finding #7, the one-minute fire engine response time deficiency will be alleviated by sprinkler systems being provided in each house. Next, he said, public schools capacity concerns will be addressed soon. Mr. Gingles said the County Council has pending legislation to increase the surcharge to $12,000 per unit at building permit issuance, consistent with new State law. He also said several other large developments in this area were approved in the past two years that are farther outside of the required response time range. He noted County Bill (CB)-40 rules might be modified.

Mrs. Lori Shirley of the Planning Department presented the staff report and recommendation for disapproval. She summarized aspects of the proposal in relation to the 10 required findings for approval of a CDP from Section 27-521 of the County Zoning Ordinance. She noted that while criterion #1 through 6, 9 and 10 were satisfied by the plan submittal (and that #8 is not applicable because there are no historic resources on the site), a positive finding about criterion #7 and the available public facilities could not be made. She said after a close look at the existing public facilities that would serve this site, staff questions whether the finding could be made in criterion #7, that the staging of development will not be an unreasonable burden on available public facilities. Next she discussed findings in a referral memo from the Historic Preservation and Public Facilities Planning section of the M-NCPPC. She noted the deficiency as to the fire engine response time, and that Public Facilities staff concluded “there will be enough facility space on a countywide basis to accommodate all the officers.” Next, she discussed findings from the Public Facilities section referral on schools. She said all three school clusters are over 105% capacity and the applicant would be required to a six-year wait until capacities were at 105%.

Mrs. Shirley said Planning staff also considered statements in the May 2003 Public Information Brochure for the Bowie Master Plan update. She said the Brochure contains four key statements about growth and public facilities. She said in the Brochure community planners concluded that over the past decade, a higher than projected growth rate in the Planning Area occurred than anticipated in the 1991 Master Plan. She said three other key statements are about public facilities (schools, police and fire and rescue), including acknowledgement that the budgeting of public facilities in the Planning Area, to keep pace with the rate of growth, has not been a priority at the County level. Mrs. Shirley mentioned two large planned communities in relation to the Leeland Road Fire Station (Oak Creek Club and Beechtree), and how approvals of these Preliminary Plans of subdivision require pro-rata contributions to the construction funding of the Leeland Road station, and separate contributions for equipment to be housed there. She said the applicant performed a Traffic Impact Analysis in which two recommendations were made as to minor improvements to bring the Levels-of-Service (L-O-S) of the area road network to ‘D.’ She said also in relation to public facilities, Planning staff considered six policies from the City’s Development Review Guidelines. She said the CDP proposal is in conflict with these policies based on the existing public facilities situation. Mrs. Shirley concluded her comments by summarizing other considerations associated with the site in relation to the City’s Wildlife Habitat Management Guidelines, and that the submittal from the applicant (a floristic inventory) was inadequate and did not fulfill the required information in the form of an Environmental Report.

Citizen Participation

No persons signed the Speaker’s List to address the Board.

BAPB Discussion

· Vice Chairman Nuriddin asked staff to explain why 60% lot coverage was allowed in this zone? Mrs. Shirley said the R-L zone is a comprehensive design zone (CDZ) that allows for greater flexibility in the overall lot layout and design of a development, including the individual use of a lot and structure to be located there.
· Mr. Stith expressed his concerns for adequate public facilities available to serve this site, especially in relation to the traffic impact, the schools capacity and emergency vehicle service. He asked staff about the pro-rata contributions by the Oak Creek Club and Beechtree developers and whether these two sites were both within acceptable response times? Mrs. Shirley explained the Beechtree site is in the neighboring planning area to the south of Leeland Road. She said both of these two large planned communities were determined to have a significant impact on existing fire and rescue facilities. She said both were outside of acceptable response time ranges. She said M-NCPPC Public Facilities staff determined at the time of each site’s respective Preliminary Plan review, both developers should make pro-rata contributions toward the Leeland Road Fire Station in order to make a positive finding of adequate public facilities (APF). She said last year, when the Woodmore at Oak Creek subdivision (57 lots) was reviewed, it was determined that half of the site was inside an acceptable fire engine response time and the other half was outside of it. She said based on the extent of the impact from the proposal, Public Facilities staff did not require a similar pro-rata contribution from the developer toward the Leeland Road Fire Station. Mr. Stith asked staff whether the Board could require a similar condition of the subject developer in a recommendation of approval? He also asked for clarification about the schools six-year wait requirement. Mrs. Shirley said, yes, the Board could include a condition to that effect in their recommendation for a pro-rata contribution to the Leeland Road Fire Station. She clarified by saying, in the Planning staff review of the CDP, staff was demonstrating that the necessary public facilities would not be readily available in the foreseeable future by the time the subject development would be approaching build-out. Mr. Gingles explained the schools six-year wait requirement and that the option was still available under County current law, for the developer to pay the APF fee and surcharge and proceed with the development without waiting for six years. He also said the statements Mrs. Shirley referred to in the Master Plan Informational Brochure is not an approved Master Plan. He said it was inappropriate to refer to the Brochure as if it were an approved Master Plan document. He also clarified, in relation to criterion #7, a favorable finding could be made because at the CDP review phase, it was a question of whether or not the proposal would be an unreasonable burden on available public facilities instead of the question as to the adequacy of these facilities. He said the latter question is determined at Preliminary Plan review. Mr. Stith responded to Mr. Gingles, in his opinion, when a school exceeded 100% capacity, then it was over capacity, compared to 105% capacity as being the high end of the range.
· Mr. Rogers asked about the two on-site stormwater management ponds and whether Low Impact Development (LID) techniques would be used in the overall controls? He said he thought the effort was to get away from on-site ponds. Mrs. Shirley said the Illustrative Plan shows the two on-site facilities at this time as an illustration, however, stormwater concept plan approval will be addressed at the time of the Preliminary Plan review. She said the site is outside of the City limits and directly across from Collington Manor that is inside the City. She said, therefore, the developer is subject to the County’s stormwater management review authority. She said the LID program is the County’s effort to move away from the use of on-site ponds. She said, Prince George’s County Department of Environmental Resources (DER) might require the use of some LID controls coupled with the two proposed ponds.
· Mr. Troyer asked for an explanation as to the road improvements that are planned for Church Road South? Mrs. Shirley said the 1991 Master Plan shows it as being upgraded to a rural collector with two good travel lanes and paved shoulders. She said the developer of Oak Creek Club would provide the lion’s share of these improvements to upgrade the road to rural collector standards, including some off-site improvements in relation to Oak Grove Road. She said Oak Creek Club straddles both sides of Church Road and the site has extensive roadway frontage along it. She said both developers are responsible for making the road improvements along their frontage to County standards. Mr. Gingles added there would be the provisions of exclusive left turn lanes and acceleration/deceleration lanes as needed
· Mr. Loftin said he agreed with the comments from the Board about public facilities.
· Mr. Troyer expressed his concurrence with the comments made by his colleagues as to public facilities. He said in the finding made by Park and Planning staff about police needs to be revised, so that their guidelines are used to determine the adequacy of this type of facility in terms of the number of police officers. He said they have been looking at the wrong aspect (the spacing needs of police stations). He said their analysis of police adequacy should consider the number of available police officers in a given district.
· Vice Chairman Nuriddin said she also agreed with her colleagues about the concerns expressed for public facilities. She said she could not support this proposal based on the demonstration by staff that the development would create an unreasonable burden on the available public facilities. She clarified a statement by Mr. Gingles and that the devolvement would not create an unreasonable burden. She said the Board has the responsibility to review a proposal from a holistic approach and not from a fragmented perspective, that for example, as Mr. Gingles implied “this little piece will not hurt.” She said to state that the school capacity situation is just a little over is an oxymoron. She said she believes the Board must sometimes take the less popular stance and insist that the infrastructure be in place even before the development is underway.
· Chairman Cooper said he found it hard to believe that future residents of the site would be willing to pay $400,000 for a house in this development and find it acceptable to send their school-age children to local public schools that have trailers as temporary classrooms. He said it is the residents of the County who are left to deal with the reality of the public facilities as they are today.

BAPB Motion

Mr. Rogers made a motion to adopt the staff recommendation for DISAPPROVAL of CDP #9705/03 for The Palisades at Oak Creek. Vice Chairman Nuriddin seconded the motion. The motion passed by a 6 to 0 vote.

MEMORANDUM

TO: City Council

FROM: David J. Deutsch, City Manager

SUBJECT: Comprehensive Design Plan (CDP) #9705/03 DATE: 6/12/03
The Palisades at Oak Creek
______________________________________________________________________________ I. General Information

Applicant/Status: Evangel Temple, Inc., owner/applicant

Project Name: The Palisades at Oak Creek

Proposal: 166 lots for single-family detached dwellings

Location: South of Md. Rte. 214 and the west side of Church Road South (see Attachment 1)

Existing zoning/Acreage: R-L (Residential-Low)/ 200.3 acres

Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning: North: existing arterial highway Md. Rte. 214 and Belt Woods R-O-S (Reserved-Open-Space); East: Collington Manor developed single-family large lot residential subdivision and undeveloped/planned Woodmore at Oak Creek, R-A (Residential-Agriculture); South: undeveloped/planned Oak Creek Club including an 18-hole championship golf course V-L (Village-Low); West: Cameron Grove Mixed Retirement Community under construction, including a 14-acre active recreation M-NCPPC-operated park R-L (Residential-Low) and the Albert Turner property, undeveloped, R-L.

Master Plan Community Character/Living Area: Community IX/Low Density community character. Low Density development techniques are encouraged to preserve the rural landscape/viewsheds.

Sectional Map Amendment: R-L zoning approved in the 1991 Sectional Map Amendment (SMA) CR-120-1991 (A-9839)

Water and Sewer Category: S-4, W-4 planned public provisions by WSSC

Public Facilities: Police – District II Bowie Substation; Fire - Pointer Ridge Station #43; Schools – Elementary Cluster 3, Middle Cluster 2 and High School Cluster 2; Library: Upper Marlboro Branch

II. Background/Proposal

The proposal represents a revision to a previously approved CDP for a mixed retirement development of the 370-acre Cameron Grove site. In 1997, the Basic Plan was approved for the western portion of the Cameron Grove (150+ acres) for high-density residential housing (predominantly attached units) (see Attachment 2). With the District Council’s approval of the Basic Plan was the stipulation that there could be no more than 166 single-family detached dwellings and the uses be limited to a “Recreation center or other recreational uses” and “accessory uses” in addition to the single-family units for the standard R-L or eastern portion of the development. Subsequently, a CDP was submitted for approval to establish the design guidelines and characteristics for 170 of the 370-acre Cameron Grove site (including an active 14-acre park) (see Attachment 3). The CDP was approved in 1998. The remaining 200.3 acres of the Cameron Grove site is the subject of CDP #9705/03 for the eastern portion of the site, that in 1997 was identified for future residential development a “residue development area” on Attachment 3.

The subject CDP has been revised to show three development pods (A-C) (see Attachment 4). One hundred sixty-six single-family detached units are proposed on minimum lot sizes of 10,000 square feet as shown on the Illustrative Plan (see Attachment 5). Pod A will have sole vehicular access from Church Road South. A vehicular access connection between Pods A and B is not proposed. Pods B and C will be an extension of the Oak Creek Club development site. Pods B and C will be sold to and developed by the same developer of the contiguous Oak Creek Club site. These two pods will have sole vehicular access internally from Oak Creek Club. Pod A has 134 units and combined; Pods B and C have 32 units. Pod B has 27 lots with frontage along an internal street. This street terminates in a cul-de-sac and has a 50-foot right-of-way as a secondary street. Pod C has five lots with vehicular access from a private driveway that extends from the head of the cul-de-sac in Pod B. After the necessary approvals of The Palisades at Oak Creek proposal (i.e., the subject CDP, a Specific Design Plan (SDP) and Preliminary Plan), Pods B and C will be associated exclusively with Oak Creek Club.

Two related plans submitted with CDP #9705/03 include a Landscape and Recreation Plan (Attachment 6) and a Tree Conservation Plan Type I (Attachment 7). A table of calculations in the R-L zone and applicable public benefit features is found in Attachment 8. Based on the Density Increment Factor (DIF) for the R-L zone, the table demonstrates an additional 43 dwelling units could be achieved at the site given the public benefit features being provided. However, the applicant is not utilizing the DIF in this application.

The Palisades at Oak Creek CDP text includes design guidelines/details for the development area in Pod A. Attachment 9 is the Entrance Standard Detail that includes the provision of a four-foot wide concrete sidewalk on the west side of Church Road South, into the site. Sidewalks are proposed on both sides of the internal street at the main entrance. Monumental entrance signage is proposed on two entry walls at the Church Road South/main entrance street. The main entrance street is identified as a ‘parkway’ with a landscaped median and painted crosswalk for pedestrians. The main entrance will align directly across from Jones Bridge Road in the Collington Manor neighborhood on the east side of Church Road South. Attachment 10 depicts the Typical Residential Streetscape including the spacing of shade trees (35-feet apart), ornamental trees clustered at the apex of the street corners to accent these entrance points. An Entry Road Standard is shown in Attachment 11. The entry street will have an 80-foot wide r-o-w and a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk on one side. This cross section includes a rolled top concrete curb and gutter system. Two private secondary street cross sections are shown in Attachment 12. One cross section includes a four-foot wide concrete sidewalk on one side. The other cross section does not include a sidewalk. This road cross section will be open section without a curb and gutter system. Ornamental street sign standard details are shown for ‘stop’ signage, ‘speed limit’ signage and street signs in Attachments 13-15, respectively. A mailbox standard detail is shown in Attachment 16. Mailboxes will be painted dark green. Below each mailbox is a self-contained newspaper box. Each mail/newspaper box will be mounted on a six-inch by six-inch redwood or pressure treated post. Decorative stone insets flush with the grade will accent the base of each mail/newspaper box post. Three additional detail standards for ‘yield,’ ‘pedestrian and vehicular directional’ signs have not been included as attachments due to the similarity of their design with the other signage details that have been attached. Also in the CDP text is a Table for the Lot Standards. This table indicates the following:

MINIMUM LOT SIZE 10,000 square feet
Minimum Cumulative Yard Area 2,000 square feet
Maximum Lot Coverage 60%
Maximum Height (Stories) 3
Minimum Lot Width at Front Building Line 70 feet
Minimum Sideyard Setback 5 “
Minimum Total Sideyard 10 “
Minimum Lot Width at Street Line 25 “
Minimum Setback from Street Line 20 “

The Landscape and Recreation Plan includes a legend of proposed recreational uses (see Attachment 6). The legend identifies the location of the following on-site active and passive recreation areas: two pre-teen playgrounds; one tot lot playground; one sitting area; six natural areas; and, one picnic area. All of the active and passive recreational provisions are located in close proximity to or inside Pod A, with the exception of three natural areas located in vicinity of Pods B and C. One Master Plan trail is shown on the east side of Church Road South. The Oak Creek Club developer will build this trail as road improvements are made over the course of development of that site. Two secondary trails will be provided. One is in the southwest portion of the site in Pod A. This trail will connect to the west and the developing 14-acre M-NCPPC active recreation park. The second internal trail is located in the southern portion of Pod A. It will connect to Pod B to the south for a pedestrian/hiker/biker link to Oak Creek Club.

The Landscape Plan includes several landscape features (see Attachment 6). These include: main roadways hedge row plantings on berms; neighborhood street tree plantings; five landscape terminus areas; and, two on-site stormwater management ponds in Pod A. A 100-foot wide buffer parallel to Church Road South is proposed for the entire roadway frontage in relation to Pod A. The buffer will contain a series of earthen berms that will be landscaped to visually screen the rear yards of the proposed units from Church Road South. Attachment 6 also identifies the proposed limits of disturbance (L-O-D); 25-foot wetlands buffers; existing 100-year floodplain and 50-foot floodplain buffers; 50-foot stream buffers; and Primary Management Areas (PMAs) associated with the Patuxent River watershed. The Black Branch is located on this site.

III. Stakeholders Meeting

A Stakeholders Meeting was held on 5/22/03. A summary of the discussion is found in Attachment 17.

IV. Analysis

One of the purposes of a CDP is to establish the design intent, guidelines and characteristics for a site. In this instance, a revision to the previously approved CDP is necessary for the eastern portion of the Cameron Grove site (residue development area) now referred to as The Palisades at Oak Creek.

A. Review Criteria

The Prince George’s County Zoning Ordinance contains 10 required findings for Comprehensive Design Plan approval in Sec. 27-521:

(a) Prior to approving a Comprehensive Design Plan, the Planning Board shall find that:
(1) The plan is in conformance wit the approved Basic Plan;
(2) The proposed plan would result in a development with a better environment than could be achieved under other regulations;
(3) Approval is warranted by the way in which the Comprehensive Design Plan includes design elements, facilities, and amenities and satisfies the needs of the residents, employees, or guests of the project;
(4) The proposed development will be compatible with existing land use, zoning and facilities in the immediate surroundings;
(5) Land uses and facilities covered by the Comprehensive Design Plan will be compatible with each other in relation to:
(A) Amounts of building coverage and open space;
(B) Building setbacks from streets and abutting land uses; and
(C) Circulation access points;
(6) Each staged unit of the development (as well as the total development) can exist as a unit capable for sustaining an environment for continuing quality and stability;
(7) The staging of development will not be an unreasonable burden on available public facilities;
(8) Where a Comprehensive Design Plan proposal includes an adaptive use of a Historic Site, the Planning Board shall find that:
(A) The proposed adaptive reuse will not adversely affect distinguishing exterior architectural features or important historic landscape features in the established environmental setting;
(B) Parking lot layout, materials, and landscaping are designed to preserve the integrity and character of the Historic Site;
© The design, materials, height, proportion and scale of a proposed enlargement or extension of a Historic Site, or of a new structure within the environmental setting, are in keeping with the character of the Historic Site;
(9) The Plan incorporates the applicable design guidelines set forth in Section 27-274 of Part 3, Division 9, of this Subtitle, and where townhouses are proposed in the Plan, with the exception of the V-L and V-M zones, the requirements set forth in Section 27-433(d); and
(10) The Plan is in conformance with an approved Tree Conservation Plan. (CB-120-1989; CB-20-1990; CB-84-1990; CB-107-1992; CB-47-1996; CB-56-1996)

CDP #9705/03 satisfies criterion 1 through 6. In criterion 2, staff agrees the Illustrative Plan for dwelling units on (at a minimum of) 10,000 square foot lots results in a plan with a better environment than could be achieved under other regulations. However, staff questions whether the finding can be made in criterion 7, that the staging of the development will not be an unreasonable burden on available public facilities. Historic Preservation and Public Facilities Planning Section staff of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) provided referral comments in an April 25, 2003 memo. These comments include the following findings:

Fire Engine/Ambulance/Paramedic

“The existing fire engine service at Bowie Fire Station, Company 43 located at 16400 Pointer Ridge Drive has a service travel time of 6.25 minutes, which is beyond the 5.25 minutes travel time guideline.

The existing ambulance service at Bowie Fire Station, Company 43 located at 16400 Pointer Ridge Drive has a service travel time of 6.25 minutes, which is within the 6.25 minutes travel time guideline.

The existing paramedic service at Bowie Fire Station, Company 43 located at 16400 Pointer Ridge Drive has a service travel time of 6.25 minutes, which is within the 7.25 minutes travel time guideline.

The above findings are in conformance wit the Adopted and Approved Public Safety Master Plan 1990 and the Guidelines for the Analysis of Development Impact on Fire and Rescue Facilities.

In order to alleviate the negative impact on fire and rescue services due to the inadequate service discussed, an automatic fire suppression system shall be provided in all new buildings proposed for this subdivision, unless the Prince George’s County Fire/EMS Department determines that an alternative method of fire suppression is appropriate.

Police

The proposed development is within the service area for Police District II – Bowie. The staff concludes that the existing County’s police facilities will be adequate to serve the proposed Palisades at Oak Creek. Police facility adequacy is based on the amount of space available for officers on a countywide basis. Presently there is enough facility space on a countywide basis to accommodate all the officers.

Schools

The Historic Preservation and Public Facilities Planning Section has reviewed the comprehensive design plan in accordance with the Adequate public Facilities Regulations of Schools (CR-23-2001 and CR-38-2002) and concluded the following:

Finding

Impact on Affected Public School Clusters
Affected School Elementary School Middle School High School
Clusters # Cluster 3 Cluster 2 Cluster 2

Dwelling Units 166 sfd 166 sfd 166 sfd
Pupil Yield Factor 0.24 0.06 0.12
Subdivision Enrollment 39.84 9.96 19.92
Actual Enrollment 5,619 4,896 9,660
Completion Enrollment 276 197 393
Wait Enrollment 202 225 451
Cumulative Enrollment 7.92 5.52 11.04
Total Enrollment 6,144.76 5,333.48 10,534.96
State Rated Capacity 5,094.00 4,638.00 8,770.00
Percent Capacity 120.63% 115.00% 120.12%
Funded School Bowie* & Whitehall N/A Frederick Douglas Addn.
SOURCE: Prince George’s County Planning Department, M-NCPPC, January 2003

The affected elementary, middle and high school cluster percent capacities are greater than 105%. Bowie and Whitehall are the Funded Schools in the affected elementary school cluster. There is no Funded School in the affected middle school cluster. Frederick Douglas addition is the Funded School in the affected high school cluster. Therefore, this comprehensive design plan can be approved with a six-year waiting period. This plan will be tested again for adequacy for public schools at the time of preliminary plan of subdivision and a new adequacy finding will be made at that time.

Proposed Condition

No building permits shall be issued for this plan until the percent capacity, as adjusted pursuant to the School Regulations, at all the affected school clusters is less than or equal to 105% or 6 years have elapsed since the time of the approval of this plan; or pursuant to the terms of an executed school facilities agreement where by the subdivision applicant, to avoid a waiting period, agrees with the County Executive and County Council to construct or secure funding for construction of all or part of a school to advance capacity.”

*The Bowie elementary school funded for construction is located on Northview Drive.

In the May 2003 Public Forum Information Brochure for the Bowie Area Master Plan update process, there are several key statements about growth and development since the 1991 update of the Area Plan. In the ‘Planning Issues and Possible Strategies’ section, under the subheading: Land Use and Development Pattern Element, it is stated:

2. Higher Than Projected Growth Rate – During the 1990s, development in the
planning area occurred in accordance with the land use recommendations of the 1991
master plan. However, the rate of growth far exceeded the pace projected by the plan.
The 1991 master plan projected a total buildout capacity of 38,660 dwellings, based
on zoning approved in 1991. Because of the subsequent rezoning of the Turf Farm
area south of MD 450, and the buildout of densities in the southeast quadrant area of
US 50/US 301, development levels have exceeded projections and should be
reevaluated.

This brochure also contains three key statements from the Public Facilities Issues section as follows:

The adequacy of public facilities is a concern. For example, the 1991 master plan’s
Recommendations for funding construction of a new Woodmore-Glenn Dale police
station along Glenn Dale Road, proposed fire stations in the vicinity of Leeland Road/US
301 and Bowie Town Center, and construction of several schools have not occurred.
Although some of these and other facilities are within the county’s CIP, they are taking a
long time to complete. Their implementation has not been a priority.

1. School Facilities Issues – Six elementary schools (Pointer Ridge, Kenilworth, Tulip
Grove, Heather Hills, Highbridge and Samuel Ogle), as well as Bowie High, lack
Adequate capacity to support student enrollments. However, remaining elementary
capacity deficits can be accommodated by adjusting school boundaries and by
renovating Whitehall Elementary (Woodhaven Lane) and constructing Bowie Area
(Northview Drive) elementary schools in 2003 and 2004, respectively. High school
capacity remains an issue with the recent decision to place a new school in Upper
Marlboro, rather than along Mitchellville Road in Bowie.

3. Police Facility Issues – The need for additional support for the District II station has
been acknowledged since 1989, when a proposed Woodmore-Glenn Dale station was
first placed in the county’s CIP to share a site with the existing fire station on MD 193.
The plan process will examine continued need and alternatives in the context of level
-of-service criteria and the possible interim expansion of the existing District II station
by 2,500 square feet or possible relocation to a site in the center of the service area.
The existing station does not meet adequacy guidelines regarding space per employee.

4. Fire and Rescue Facility Issues – There is an existing need for a new emergency
service facility in the vicinity of the Bowie New Town Center (programmed in the
CIP). The plan will evaluate an appropriate location for this town center area facility.
Also, a need exists for the proposed fire and rescue facility at a dedicated site in the
Northwest corner of the intersection of Leeland Road and US 301 to address gaps in
service response times. This facility has not been programmed in the county CIP.

Staff notes that fire engine service to the site is beyond the acceptable travel time. Ambulance service is shown as within an acceptable travel time, however, the travel time is at the maximum 6.25-minute guideline. As was noted in the 2002 reviews of the Oak Creek Club and Woodmore at Oak Creek plans, there is a planned fire station on the 1991 Bowie-Collington-Mitchellville Area Master Plan at Leeland Road. The County has not budgeted for construction of this fire station facility. Recent approvals by the County Planning Board of the Beechtree and Oak Creek Club developments (both are planned residential/mixed use communities) requires each developer make pro rata share contributions for the funding to construct the Leeland Road fire station. In addition, each developer is required to make separate contributions for equipment to be housed there (i.e., fire trucks). Staff believes since the Leeland Road facility is not constructed, this development will create an unreasonable burden on public facilities.

All three of the cluster schools to serve this site are over 105% capacity. The Oak Creek Club site has a proposed ‘park conditional’ elementary school facility on the 1991 Area Master Plan and there is also a planned middle school site on the 1991 Master Plan in close proximity to the subject development adjacent to Kettering (see Attachment 18). However, neither school facility is programmed for construction in the next six years.

The applicant prepared a Traffic Impact Study for the site in January 2003 and revised it in April 2003. The AM and PM peak hour trips identified in the study are as follows:

Trip Generation AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use Size Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Single-family 166 1,494 25 100 125 98 51 149
Detached units

In the Summary and Recommendations section of the traffic study two findings were made:

· The signalized intersection of MD 214/MD 193 operates at capacity conditions during the AM peak hour and at above capacity conditions during the PM peak hour. With the completion of the background development, this intersection is expected to operate at above capacity conditions during both the AM and PM peak hours. Thus, this intersection is expected to operate at LOS F either with or without this proposed development.
· All other intersections analyzed are expected to operate at LOS D or better during the peak hours.

The following recommendations are made:

· Provide stop-sign controlled access for the proposed development across from Jones Bridge Road. Provide a southbound to westbound right turn lane at the site access point.
· Consider re-striping the northbound and southbound approaches at the MD 214/MD 193 intersection to provide an exclusive left turn lane and a shared left/through lane. With this improvement, this intersection is expected to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour. It should be noted that these improvements would require that both the northbound and southbound approaches be striped to have a right turn lane, a through lane, a through/left turn lane, and a left turn lane. As stated in the Guidelines for the Analysis of the Traffic Impact of Development Proposals (The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission Prince George’s County, 2002), this will mitigate the impacts of traffic due to the proposed development by more than 100 percent of the development-generated critical lane volume.

Staff concurs with the conclusions of the applicant’s Traffic Impact Analysis.

In the City’s Development Review Guidelines, there are six policies in relation to adequate public facilities (APF) about fire/rescue and schools. These include:

1. All developments should be staged to coincide with the actual availability of required public facilities (such as schools, roads, libraries, fire and rescue, etc.).

2. In general, use of fee-in-lieu to satisfy APF requirements should not be supported. However, pro-rata contributions where the entire cost of the facility is known is divided between a number of developers, such as road clubs can be used to satisfy APF requirements provided they contain sufficient enforcement ability. “School clubs” should be investigated as a means of developer funding of needed school facilities. When fee-in-lieu is used, money collected should be used solely for facilities determined necessary to support the specific development that causes the impact.

3. Funds for improvements necessary to satisfy APF should be contained n the first year of a capital improvement document, not the first six years.

4. School facilities in excess of 100% of their design capacity should be deemed overcrowded and subject to a school APF test.

5. The City encourages major developers to participate in the Partners with Education Program.

6. The City will support and assist in efforts to adopt new “Fire and Rescue” APF guidelines to better address the issue of adequacy of EMS units, ladder units, etc. The City also encourages installation of Opticon traffic controls to enhance public safety service delivery.

At the heart of staff review of this development are the findings to be made, especially in relation to public facilities as in Criterion #7. Based on these findings and the inadequacies associated with the public facilities, staff cannot support CDP #9705/03.

In relation to Criterion #8, no historic sites are located on the subject property. Criterion #9 requires submittal of design guidelines. This criterion has been met. However, staff notes that while the streetscape design and detail standards are contained in the CDP text, a detail standard for streetlights and fixtures is not included. In compliance with Criterion #10, a Tree Conservation Plan Type I has been submitted.

The TCP identifies the proposed tree save areas. In this instance, in the R-L zone, a total of 49.34 acres of woodland will be conserved. This number excludes the existing woodland acreage inside the floodplain (54.0 acres). Adding these two numbers together means 103 acres will be retained on site in woodland conservation. This is slightly more than 50% of the 200.3-acre site. Twenty-seven specimen trees are identified on the TCP as within the subject property. A grouping of thirteen specimen trees is located in Pod B. All of these trees will be removed as a result of the grading and infrastructure improvements. As many as ten other specimen trees in Pods A and C, and one along Church Road South, may also be removed based on the planned grading, infrastructure installation and road improvements.

B. Other Considerations

Consistent with the City’s Wildlife Habitat Management Guidelines, the applicant submitted an Environmental Report on June 3, 2003. The Report only contains information about a Floristic Inventory of the site that was prepared on April 26, 2003 by Brent Steury. The purpose of the survey was to determine whether rare, threatened or endangered species are found at the site. Mr. Steury was trying to locate populations of Wister’s Coralroot, which has been reported at the nearby Belt Woods property (to the north of the site). The result of Mr. Steury’s survey is that no population of Wister’s Coralroot was found. During the survey, two Maryland State listed species, Large-seed Scorpion-grass and Spearwort, were found within a few meters of the proposed construction area for this development. The Large-seed Scorpion-grass is listed as a State “rare to watchlist” species and the Spearwort is listed as a “Status Uncertain” (SU) species. A total of 57 plants of Large-seed Scorpion-grass were found in a field just north of the proposed construction area and at least 50 plants of Spearwort were found in still pools along the Black Branch, just to the south of the westernmost corner of the site. One additional species, Carolina Foxtail (about 100 flowering stems), were located in a wet depression of a field in association with species including Virginia Dwarf Dandelion and Blue Toadflax. The Carolina Foxtail was recently delisted in 2001. The dominant presence of Mutiflora Rose and Japanese Honeysuckle (both non-native invasive plant species) was noted. Open fields at the site were observed as dominated by non-native Common Chickweed. Many native plants and trees were observed throughout the site and documented in the survey. A copy of the Floristic Survey is on file in the Planning Department for further details.

Information that is part of the Floristic Inventory states that the existing forest stands at the site provides minimal habitat for Forest Interior Dwelling Bird species (FIDS). The existing forest is described as having been fragmented by cultivated fields, and the result of adjacent land uses (to the north and northwest) that have undergone development in recent years (i.e., the Evangel Temple and the retirement community component of Cameron Grove).

The Environmental Report submittal is considered to be incomplete. Additional information requested in the Environmental Report’s corresponding outline should be submitted in the event the CDP is approved and the Preliminary Plan of subdivision is filed.

V. Recommendation

One of the ten required findings in Sec. 27-521 from the County Zoning Ordinance in the approval of a CDP cannot be made. A positive finding cannot be made in relation to Criterion #7 and that the staging of the development will not be an unreasonable burden on available public facilities. It has been demonstrated that the majority of the existing public facilities are either overburdened or over capacity at this time. There are few funding mechanisms in place at the County level to resolve these public facilities inadequacies in the foreseeable future. Based on current City policy as to adequate public facilities and the fact these many existing public facilities in the Bowie area are overburdened, this proposal cannot be supported. Therefore, it is recommended CDP #9705/03 for the Palisades at Oak Creek be DISAPPROVED.

Attachments