LAND USE PETITION IN THE BOWIE PLANNING AREA
Md.-National Capital Park and Planning Commission ID: Preliminary Plan #4-03025
Race Track Road Cluster
Bowie Advisory Planning Board # 03-18 Date: July 28, 2003
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTRODUCTORY NOTE: The proposed application is a request for approval:
_ __(a) of a zoning type case involving the specific use of land;
__ (b) of a conceptual site plan;
__X_(c) to subdivide property into building lots and obtain adequate public
facilities approval;
(d) of a site plan for building and parking design, landscaping, architecture,
etc.
under the development regulations of Prince George’s County. The application has been referred to the City for our review and recommendation. The position of the Bowie Advisory Planning Board in this matter is advisory to the City Council. The City Council will also conduct a public hearing on this application and their vote will become the final City recommendation. Persons wishing to participate in these hearings must submit written testimony or sign up to speak at each public hearing. Each person wishing to speak at the City’s hearings will be given up to three (3) minutes. To participate in the County’s hearings, you must make a separate, written request to become a person of record.
GENERAL DATA:
1. Nature of Petition: Preliminary Plan of subdivision
2. Petitioner: Cherrywood Development, LLC.
3. Represented by: Mr. Torben Agesen of Cherrywood Development, LLC.
4. Location of Petitioned Property: South of Jericho Park Road and south
side of Race Track Road
5. Proposed use of Petitioned Property: 85 lots for single-family detached
dwellings in a cluster design
6. Size/Zone of Petitioned Property: 53.06 acres/zoned R-R (Rural-Residential)
7. Date of hearing before BAPB: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 at 7:00 p.m.
8. Date of hearing before City Council: Monday, August 4, 2003 at 8:00 p.m.
9. Date of hearing before Prince George’s County Planning Board: Thursday,
Sept. 11, ’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: 6/27/03 69
Notice sent to Parties of Record 6/27/03 1
Date Signs Posted: 6/26/03 2
Date Legal Sent: 6/25/03
Date Legal Appeared: 7/3/03
RECOMMENDATIONS:
12. Department of Planning & Economic Development Recommendation:
Staff recommends DISAPPROVAL of Preliminary Plan #4-03025 as found on page 12 of the staff report.
13. Bowie Advisory Planning Board Recommendation: The Board unanimously adopted the staff recommendation of DISAPPROVAL of Preliminary Plan #4-03025.
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Reverend John S. Cooper, Sr., Chairman
Bowie Advisory Planning Board
RE: Preliminary Plan #4-03025 DATE: 7/28/03
Race Track Road Cluster
The Bowie Advisory Planning Board met on 7/15/03 to review Preliminary Plan #4-03025 referred to as the Race Track Road Cluster. The proposal is for a cluster subdivision for 88 lots for single-family detached units. The site is zoned R-R (Rural-Residential) and is located on the south side of Race Track Road, south of the Jericho Park Road intersection. The applicant is Cherrywood Development, LLC.
Presentations
Mr. Tom Haller, of Gibbs and Haller was present to represent the applicant. Mr. Haller introduced Mr. Torben Agesen of Cherrywood Development, LLC. Mr. Haller described the site and explained the average lot size is 14,500 square feet. He said, based on the revised plan, there is more open space that will be dedicated to and maintained by the homeowners association. He said they believe the plan conforms to all of the County requirements and they understood the Planning staff recommendation was based on City policy in relation to the public schools situation. Mr. Agesen addressed the Board and explained the revised plan was to address concerns from Park and Planning staff in relation to Waters of the United States. He said Park and Planning staff agreed the third street could be included in the revision since it is in the area of an existing farm road. He said, as a result of the revision, one lot is proposed with frontage along Race Track Road, which is a change from the four lots with frontage previously proposed in this area.
Mrs. Lori Shirley of the Planning Department presented the staff report and recommendation for disapproval. She summarized highlights from the report, noting the public facilities findings as to schools and paramedic service. She said Prince George’s County staff confirmed the School Facilities Surcharge does not stay within the affected cluster schools, but rather goes into the General Fund. She noted these aspects of the site were in conflict with City policy. She also noted aspects of the applicant’s traffic study including details as to the remaining road improvements to Race Track Road by the developer of the Saddlebrook West site and a sight-distance problem at the Jericho Park Road intersection that would have to be addressed. She concluded her comments by saying, in addition to concerns with public facilities, the applicant did not adequately address the City’s Wildlife Habitat Management Guidelines.
Citizen Participation
Dr. Charles Colao of 9009 Race Track Road, stated he lives across the street from the proposal. He said this site is one of the last pristine sites in Bowie. Once this property is developed there will be sites along Race Track Road solid with houses all the way to Old Chapel Road. He noted his concerns for the dangerous curve at Race Track Road. He said there have been about 100 accidents at that location, including one fatality. He said the schools inadequacy would be addressed with the Surcharge. He said representatives of Bowie State University still intend to close Jericho Park Road and, in his opinion, this will cause traffic congestion in the area. He said the Saddlebrook site did not have a wildlife plan before grading was done there. He noted several years ago, before the New Town Center site was cleared, almost 1,000 animals were removed by a group of volunteers. He said he was involved in that effort and that some wildlife protection measures should be required at this site.
Mr. Benjamin Woolery of McGill and Woolery, 4331 Northview Drive, Bowie identified himself as an attorney representing several of the local residents. He said Mr. Haller’s comments invite questioning this development in relation to the impacts to the extensive environmentally sensitive areas at the site. He said there are significant environmental constraints about the property. He suggested the City should require an independent analysis of the environmental impacts. He said, if this was done, it might conclude that it is not feasible to develop this site, given these constraints. He said at the Stakeholders Meeting several residents requested copies of the reports prepared for the site. The reports were prepared much earlier, but only the traffic study was made available. He noted the Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared based on 85 lots and that it should be revised for 88 lots as there is slightly more impact.
Mr. Gene Townend of 12311 Stafford Lane, stated he has been a Bowie resident since 1967. He questioned the cumulative impacts of development in the area on the Horsepen Branch. His main concern is regarding siltation of local streams which has a tremendous impact on the State’s ability to clean the Chesapeake Bay. He said the Horsepen Branch is full of silt and the local roads are getting clogged with traffic, too. He said our children must be tired of getting the short end of the stick in the local public schools. He concluded his comments by saying we have to get the amount of development in the area under control.
Mr. John Gugliotti of 8706 Race Track Road, addressed the Board. He said Mrs. Shirley told the attendees at the Stakeholders Meeting that annexation of the site was in the works. He said the use of rumble strips at the curve in the road would not be effective. He located his property on the display plan and said Radon was found there, and it may possibly be found on this site. He said there is a shallow well on his property that is about 100 feet away from the southeast portion of the site and where stormwater will naturally drain toward his property.
Mr. Tim Baird of 8606 Race Track Road, said he is a life long resident of the area. He said his number one concern about the proposal was the increased traffic on Race Track Road. He said on Attachment 2 of the staff report, his property is shown downhill and southeast of the site. He said his concern was that his property would be on the receiving end of the runoff. His property is north of and adjacent to the Horsepen Branch, and he and his sons periodically dig out the fallen trees that block the flow of water in the stream. An inspector from the State came to his property and they walked along the Horsepen Branch toward the Saddlebrook West site. He said the inspector told him the runoff from Saddlebrook was the source of the siltation problem of the Horsepen Branch that runs brown right now.
Mrs. Marianne Baird of 8606 Race Track Road, said she mostly has traffic concerns about the proposal. She said sometimes speeding motorists going south on Race Track Road end up in the parking lot for the WB&A Trail because they lose control of their vehicle and they can only come to an abrupt stop in the parking lot. She said, in her opinion, rumble strips won’t work because she hardly notices the ones at the entrance to the Saddlebrook sites. She questioned whether the developer would be able to provide for trails with handicap access since the southern portion of the site is so steep.
Mr. Haller responded to questions raised by
the citizens and Planning staff. He said although the APF guidelines used
by Park and Planning staff were
adopted 10 years ago, it is a cumulative test. He said Park and Planning’s
use of the guidelines is intended to be a snap shot
of what will be today. He said, as to the question of public schools and
how will the Bowie cluster be improved as a result of this development, the
County Council has identified a funding source of $30 million to fix schools
with the increased Surcharge. He said the money would be used to build new
schools. He explained the trail connections would be made from existing horse
trails at the site, and this as an enhancement about the proposal. He said
they are being environmentally sensitive and as a result of this development
a number of benefits will be given back to the community. He noted, for example,
road improvements along Race Track Road will improve the sight-distance situation
and safety concerns, including provision for acceleration/deceleration lanes
to further improve the condition of the roadway, and this plan will preserve
natural resources at the site. He said the developer would be making these
improvements in compliance with all applicable County laws. He concluded
by saying they were in agreement with Planning staff’s suggestion that
rumble strips be installed at the southbound approach of the main entrance
to slow motorists from speeding, but that this aspect was mostly an enforcement
problem.
BAPB Discussion
§ Mr. Terry Rogers asked staff and the
applicant to explain the status of annexation. Mr. Haller said there was
nothing in the works at this time.
Mrs. Shirley clarified what she said at the Stakeholders Meeting and that
she was referring to the Saddlebrook West site, as annexation was to take
place there in the foreseeable future. She explained the Saddlebrook West
site was undergoing annexation upon completion of sequential phases of the
development and that Phase I was annexed this past May. She said the subject
site is not contiguous to the City limits at this time, and, in accordance
with State law, the City could not annex a site that is not contiguous to
it. She said, once Phase IV of Saddlebrook West is annexed, then the subject
site will be contiguous. She said she mentioned at the Stakeholders Meeting
that the City and Cherrywood Development broached the subject of future annexation,
but an annexation agreement was not being formulated. Mr. Haller said his
client would be willing to consider annexation.
§ Mr. Ray Loftin said this proposal represents the same problem as others,
in that the support services are not adequate.
§ Vice Chairman Terry Nuriddin said much of what has been said concerns
her. She said it reinforces the need for the City to have its own zoning authority.
She said the increased surcharge at $12,000 per unit will be passed on to
the buyer and then the citizens are left with a haphazard development. She
said the City needs zoning authority so it has the law behind its decisions.
§
Mr. Lonnie Stith agreed with Vice Chairman Nuriddin. He said the City has
the skills and abilities to have zoning authority. He said he has several
issues with the proposal, especially in relation to schools and roads. He
asked staff to explain what the “cumulative enrollment” meant
from the schools capacity chart. He questioned who at the County was keeping
track of the schools capacities and the projected impacts from the new developments?
He said, in his opinion, it appeared that this was not being done. Mrs. Shirley
said she would provide a written definition of “cumulative enrollment” to
the Board. Mr. Stith said he could not support the proposal and that he would
vote in favor of the staff recommendation.
§ Mr. Rogers said we have the proverbial collision of interests, and that
the adequate public facilities are overriding this proposal. He said, when you
add up the nearby development, the Saddlebrook site, this one and others,
the issue is the County has not adequately planned to provide the services
to the residents.
§ Mr. Ty Troyer said he agreed with his colleagues and, in addition, on
the environmental impacts of this proposal, there are numerous sensitive areas
of the site. He said we need to take into consideration how this all adds
up and impacts the Chesapeake Bay.
§
Mr. Ron Skotz said he believed the annexation should be further discussed
tonight. He said the additional traffic on Race Track Road coupled with the
access for this site is very dangerous. He said the Hubbard school bill is
tiered, and while he appreciates the one million dollar contribution by the
developer for the School Facilities Surcharge, the funds would go directly
into the County’s General Fund. He reminded the Board of the time when
the race track was thriving. Now that it is a horse training facility, he
wonders whether it will someday become the Bowie Casino. He said the City
must look at the long-term ramifications of the development. He noted he
has concerns for how the site is impacted by A-58. He said the A-58 alignment
is a concern. He wondered where the Crofton traffic will go, other than to
become a major connection from Md. Rte. 197 to U.S. Rte. 301.
§ Chairman John Cooper said the planned A-58 is more than just a connector,
and that the traffic impacts were a huge concern about the proposal. He said
he was concerned for where the $12,000 Surcharge goes, and that the County
is typically hesitant to give us information as to where and how it is spent.
He noted the paramedic service was inadequate and it was inappropriate for
Park and Planning staff to make the finding as to adequacy. He concluded
his comments by saying he, too, had concerns for the siltation of the Horsepen
Branch and would support the staff recommendation.
BAPB Motion
Mr. Stith made a motion to adopt the staff recommendation for DISAPPROVAL of Preliminary Plan #4-03025 for the Race Track Road Cluster. Vice Chairman Nuriddin seconded the motion. The motion passed by a 7 to 0 vote.
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: David J. Deutsch, City Manager
SUBJECT: Preliminary Plan #4-03025 DATE: 7/28/03
Race Track Road Cluster
______________________________________________________________________________
I. General Information
Applicant/Status: Cherrywood Development, LLC, owner/applicant
Project Name: Race Track Road Cluster
Proposal: 88 lots for single-family detached dwellings in a cluster design
Location: South side of Race Track Road and south of Jericho Park Road (see Attachment 1)
Existing zoning/Acreage: R-R (Rural-Residential)/ 53.06 acres
Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning: North: existing single-family detached residential, a day care center, zoned R-A (Residential-Agriculture) and Bowie State University, zoned O-S (Open-Space); East: one adjacent large lot for single-family detached (n/f Erick A.Neese Property) and two developed single-family detached residential Patuxent Riding and Kimberwick cluster subdivisions, zoned R-R (Rural-Residential); South: the WB&A Trail, the Horsepen Branch and the developing single-family detached residential Saddlebrook West 330-unit cluster, zoned R-R (Rural-Residential); West: large lot, undeveloped properties and existing Berwyn Rod and Gun Club, zoned R-R (Rural-Residential).
Master Plan Community Character/Living Area: Community IV, Permanent Low Density community character. The rural environment dominates the character.
Sectional Map Amendment: R-R zoning retained
Water and Sewer Category: S-4, W-4 planned public provisions by WSSC
Public Facilities: Police – District II Bowie Substation; Fire - Station #19 (Huntington); Schools – Elementary Cluster 3, Middle Cluster 2 and High School Cluster 2; Library: Bowie Branch
II. Background/Proposal
Cherrywood Development, LLC, of Waldorf, Maryland, has submitted a Preliminary Plan of subdivision for the former Engleman property. The Engleman family previously used the site as a horse farm. There is a primary dwelling and several agriculture-related structures. There are open portions of the site that were used as paddock areas and outbuildings. All of these structures will be razed.
In Spring, 2002 the applicant submitted a pre-preliminary plan for internal review and comment by the Development Review Division of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC). As a result of the pre-review, the original concept plan was modified and the lot yield was reduced from 95 to 85 lots. In the internal staff review, environmental characteristics were closely examined to protect these features as required by the applicable regulations.
At the March 4, 2002 City Council meeting, a category change request was heard for application 01/W-15 – Engleman Property in the County’s Ten-Year Water and Sewer Plan review cycle. The request was for a change from Category 5 to 4. Mayor Pro Tem Peters moved to deny the request for Category 4, seconded by Councilman Aleshire. The motion carried unanimously.
Initially, the Preliminary Plan contained 85 lots. However, on 7/7/03 the
applicant submitted a revised plan for 88 lots. The area of the redesign
includes Lots 1-18 in the northwest portion of the site along Race Track
Road.
The lot layout is within a cluster subdivision design (see Attachment 2). The
proposed lot sizes are shown in Attachment 3. The site has approximately 1,760
feet of roadway frontage along the south side of Race Track Road. Three streets
are planned into the site; one is the primary entrance to serve 70 lots. The
two secondary streets both end in cul-de-sacs. One secondary street will serve
nine lots and the other will serve eight lots. The first secondary street is
located approximately 400 feet west of the Race Track /Jericho Park Road intersection.
Lot 9 will have direct vehicular access onto Race Track Road. The primary entrance
into the site is located across from, and aligns with, Patuxent Riding Lane.
This entrance has a 90-foot right-of-way (r-o-w). There is a 10-foot wide landscaped
median in the r-o-w to separate the ingress and egress lanes. Beyond the median
and into the development, the r-o-w tapers down to 60 feet as a primary residential
street. The primary entrance street ends in a cul-de-sac in the northwest portion
of the site. Before this street terminates, it crosses Waters of the United
States. There are three secondary residential cul-de-sac streets that stem
from the primary residential street. A fourth cul-de-sac street stems off of
the second of the three secondary streets. Each of the secondary streets has
a 50-foot r-o-w.
A ten-foot wide hiker/biker trail is proposed in the southern portion of the site. It will make a connection to the WB&A trail that bisects the southern portion of the site (see Attachment 2). From the WB&A, the trail meanders north through tree conservation areas. One segment of the trail continues north between Lots 49 and 50 to terminate at the end of a cul-de-sac. The second, longer segment meanders through an area identified as Waters of the United States. This segment terminates between Lots 39 and 40 at a secondary street r-o-w.
There are numerous environmental features associated with the site. There are areas of steep slopes, 100-year floodplain, Waters of the United States, non-tidal wetlands and woodland. The Horsepen Branch bisects the southern portion of the site (see Attachment 2). The Horsepen Branch is a tributary to the Patuxent River. The plan provides for 12.23 acres of open space. One-third of the open space is within the 100-year floodplain area.
III. Stakeholders Meeting
On 5/28/03, a Stakeholders Meeting was held. Sixteen residents attended. Major questions and comments from the Stakeholders included the following:
§ Residents of Patuxent Riding have a difficult
time making a left turn out of their neighborhood given the current traffic
on Race Track Road.
One Stakeholder suggested the developer should consider a traffic control
device to alleviate the situation. The additional traffic generated from
this site will only make matters worse.
§
Prince George’s County’s Department of Environmental Resources
(DER) has approved the stormwater management concept plan. Several residents
expressed concern for current flooding conditions of the Horsepen Branch,
the tributary of the Patuxent River to which the site drains. Several on-site
ponds are proposed to slowly discharge stormwater runoff into the Horsepen
Branch. There are also drainage problems on Race Track Road in the vicinity
of Jericho Park Road and further south at the bridge over Horsepen Branch.
(The applicant said he would discuss these with the appropriate County staff
person to correct these concerns).
§
Several residents expressed concern for overcrowding of Bowie area public
schools. The Adequate Public Facilities (APF) schools test was explained,
including the recent bill just signed by the Governor that increases the
School Facilities Surcharge from $5,000 to $12,000, to be paid at the issuance
of each building permit. Staff explained how these surcharges go into the
Board of Education’s General Fund for construction and that the surcharges
paid from this site do not necessarily go toward improvement of school facilities
in the Bowie area. Staff explained the Council’s position on APF schools,
including what the capacity is of neighborhood schools in relation to the
County’s use of 105% capacity as the cap. Staff encouraged the Stakeholders
to attend the County Planning Board Public Forum on June 5th for the Bowie
Area Master Plan update. It was explained that the topic of APF and the County’s
ability to provide these services has been a long-standing concern of the
City Council.
§
There was general discussion about road improvements to be made by the developer
and how one resident characterized Race Track Road as “the Crofton
cut-through.” The planned arterial road A-58 on the adopted 1991 Area
Master Plan impacts the site. Staff made the Stakeholders aware of this planned
road and also of A-44, and the possibility that both roads may be removed
from the Master Plan in the update process.
IV. Analysis
The Prince George’s County Subdivision regulations apply to this submittal, specifically Subtitle 24 - Subdivisions - Division 3. Requirements: Planning, Design, and Public Facilities Sec. 24-121. through Sec. 24-122.02. A Preliminary Plan of subdivision may be approved if the County Planning Board finds: adequate public facilities exist or are proposed for the area within which the subdivision is located; a stormwater management concept plan has been approved; and, the subdivision is designed in accordance with the provisions for woodland conservation and tree preservation. Preliminary Plan #4-03025 has also been reviewed for compliance in relation to Prince George’s County’s Subtitle 24 Subdivision regulations, Division 6. Requirements for Optional Approaches, Sec. 24-137. Cluster subdivision that reads as follows:
“(a) Purpose. The purpose of cluster
development is to permit a procedure for development which will result
in improved living environments, promote
more economic subdivision layout; encourage a variety of designs of dwellings;
encourage ingenuity and originality in total subdivision layout and individual
site and building design; encourage compatibility with historic resources;
preserve open space to serve recreational, scenic, and public service purposes;
and other purposes related thereto, within the densities established for
the cluster net tract area.”
Section 24-137 (g) provides the 13 criteria for approval in the review
of a cluster development (see Attachment 4). The main emphasis of the criteria
is on the design and situating of open space areas with the natural features
at a site for purposes of recreational use, access and/or conservation.
A. Adequate Public Facilities
1. Schools
In the 2003 General Assembly, the Maryland Legislature passed a bill to allow for the increased School Facilities Surcharge. As of 7/1/03, the Surcharge increased from $5,000 to $12,000 per unit. On 6/17/03, the County Council passed CB-30-2003 and CB-31-2003 and one resolution (CR-23-2003) regarding adequate school facilities. The County legislation fulfilled a commitment made to the building industry during the General Assembly session that the County would eliminate the current APF test and wait period in favor of an increased School Facilities Surcharge. Based on the 85 dwelling units proposed, the School Facilities Surcharge for this site would be $1,020,000 (85 x $12,000).
In a referral memo dated 4/23/03 from the M-NCPPC Historic Preservation and Public Facilities Planning Section, the following findings were made. (This information is now only used for school facility planning purposes.)
“Finding
Impact on Affected Public School Clusters
Affected School Elementary School Middle School High School
Clusters # Cluster 3 Cluster 2 Cluster 2
Dwelling Units 85 sfd 85 sfd 85 sfd
Pupil Yield Factor 0.24 0.05 0.12
Subdivision Enrollment 20.40 5.10 10.20
Actual Enrollment 5,619 4,896 9,660
Completion Enrollment 276 197 393
Wait Enrollment 202 225 451
Cumulative Enrollment 7.92 7.50 15.00
Total Enrollment 6,125.32 5,330.60 10,529.20
State Rated Capacity 5,094 4,638 8,770
Percent Capacity 120.25% 114.93% 120.06%
Funded School Bowie* & Whitehall N/A Frederick Douglass Addn.
SOURCE: Prince George’s County Planning Department, M-NCPPC, January
2003
Planning staff asked whether monies collected in the Surcharge are targeted exclusively for the Bowie cluster schools to advance capacity in the directly affected schools cluster. According to staff from the County’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB), there is no County law or mechanism in place that requires the increased surcharge monies to be spent in a specific cluster schools that are directly impacted as a result of a pending Preliminary Plan of subdivision. Based on current City policy, Planning staff cannot support the proposal because the school clusters are all over 100% capacity.
2. Fire/Rescue, Ambulance and Medic
In another referral memo also dated 4/23/03, Historic Preservation and Public Facilities Planning Section staff made the following findings for this proposal as to emergency services:
“The existing fire engine service at Bowie Fire Station, Company 19 located at 13008 9th Street has a service travel time of 3.96-minutes, which is within the 5.25-minutes travel time guidelines.
The existing ambulance service at Bowie Fire Station, Company 19 located at 13008 9th Street has a service travel time of 3.96-minutes, which is within the 6.25-minutes travel time guideline.
The existing paramedic service at Glenn Dale Fire Station, Company 18 is located at 11900 Glenn Dale Boulevard has a service travel time of 10.68-minutes, which is beyond the 7.25-minutes travel time guideline.
The above findings are in conformance with the Adopted and Approved Public Safety Master Plan 1990 and the Guidelines for the Analysis of Development Impact on Fire and Rescue Facilities.
The existing paramedic service located at Glenn Dale Fire Station, Company 18, is beyond the recommended travel time guideline. The nearest fire station Bowie, Company 19 is located at 13008 9th Street, which is 3.96 minutes from the development. This facility would be within the recommended travel time for paramedic service.”
According to Park and Planning staff fire, ambulance and paramedic services are within acceptable response times, based on the latter service being provided by Company 19 (Huntington) instead of the Glenn Dale Fire Station. It should be noted that Company 19 does not have paramedic staff. Planning staff does not agree with the finding of adequacy in this area of public facilities. It is customary for the County Planning Board to make the finding that public facilities will be adequate even when a proposal is outside of the acceptable response time guideline.
3. Police
In a separate referral memo from the same division also dated 4/23/03, the following findings were made:
“The proposed development is within the service area for Police District II-Bowie. In accordance with Section 24-122.01 (c) (A) and (B) of the Subdivision Regulations of Prince George’s County, the staff concludes that the existing County’s police facilities will be adequate to serve the proposed Race Track Road Cluster development. This police facility will adequately serve the population generated by the proposed subdivision.
The Planning Board’s current test for police adequacy is based on a standard for square footage in police stations relative to the number of sworn duty staff assigned. The standard is 115 square feet per officer. As of 6/30/2002, the County had 874 sworn staff and a total of 101,303 square feet of station space. Based on available space, there is capacity for additional 69 sworn personnel.”
4. Transportation
The M-NCPPC Transportation Planning and Growth Policy Section required a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) of the applicant. MCV Associates, Inc., of Arlington, Virginia, prepared the TIA dated 5/20/03. Three intersections were identified in the scope of the study area. These include:
1. Race Track Road and Patuxent Riding Lane
2. Race Track Road and Old Chapel Road
3. MD 197 and Race Track Road/MD564
Traffic counts were taken on 5/6/03 and 5/7/03. Projected vehicle trips to be generated in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours by this development (based on the original submittal for 85 single-family detached dwelling units) are as follows:
7:00 – 9:00 AM 4:00 – 6:00 PM
Morning Peak Hour Evening Peak Hour
IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL DAILY
13 51 64 50 26 77 765
TIA Conclusions
“A detailed analysis of the traffic impact of the proposed development of the Race Track Road Subdivision was conducted following Prince George’s County Guidelines. The existing conditions, background conditions and total site conditions were analyzed using critical lane analysis method for signalized intersection and the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) for the unsignalized intersections. The analysis results are summarized in Exhibit 9 (see Attachment 5). Results show that all movements at the existing unsignalized intersection of Race Track Road and Old Chapel Road are currently operating at LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours and continue to operate at LOS C or better in the background conditions and with the proposed development. All movements at the unsignalized intersection of Race Track Road and Patuxent Riding Lane are currently operating at LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours and continue to operate at LOS C or better in the background conditions. The site will be accessed from Race Track Road at Patuxent Riding Lane, forming the fourth leg of the intersection. All movements at the unsignalized intersection of Race Track Road and Patuxent Riding Lane/site driveway are projected to operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours with the proposed development.
The signalized intersection of MD 197 (Laurel Bowie Road) and Race Track Road / MD 564 is currently operating at LOS A and LOS B during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. It is projected to operate at LOS B during the AM and PM peak hours in the background conditions and with the proposed development.
Therefore, all intersections analyzed will operate within acceptable guidelines with the proposed development.”
Race Track Road is a County-maintained road. Segments of the road are currently in substandard condition. The improved segments function as a rural collector. Race Track Road was constructed as a two-lane rural road. The 1991 Bowie-Collington-Mitchellville Area Master Plan Map identifies the road to be improved to rural collector standards (two-lanes with paved shoulders). In the late 1980’s, when the Saddlebrook site underwent development review (Preliminary Plan of subdivision #4-89086), numerous off-site improvements to Race Track Road were required as conditions of approval. In the mid-to late 1990’s, when the east side of Saddlebrook was developing, the developer made most of the off-site road improvements including installation of a new culvert in vicinity of the race track facility, widening and repaving where there was r-o-w. The long-standing issue with road improvements has been the inadequate amount of r-o-w to provide for paved shoulders. The developer of the Saddlebrook West site is required to make additional off-site road improvements prior to bond release by the County’s Department of Public Works and Transportation (DPW&T). Remaining improvements will be made to the Race Track/Old Chapel Road intersection in front of the commercial properties (gas station and convenience store), widening in vicinity of the horse stables and at the bridge over the Horsepen Branch. It is anticipated the remaining off-site improvements will be made by the Fall, 2003 or the Spring, 2004. The Race Track Road Cluster developer will be required to make road improvements along their entire roadway frontage. The County’s current CIP also contains a project to reconstruct the Race Track Road bridge over the Horsepen Branch this fiscal year.
As was brought out at the Stakeholders Meeting, staff has concerns for the possibility of a sight-distance problem in relation to the curve in the road and the proposed primary entrance into the site. Area residents who attended the Stakeholders Meeting also made mention of the excessive rates of speed traveled, especially by southbound motorists. The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph).
In the TIA it is stated: “There are no major state funded roadway improvements programmed in the current State Consolidated Transportation Program (CTP) or the current County Capital Improvement Program (CIP) in the study area, that would affect the intersections under study.” Staff notes the segment of Md. Rte. 197 north of Md. Rte. 450 to Rockledge Drive has been studied for minor improvements in the form of converting the existing continuous fifth lane for various turning movements to a series of landscaped medians as a measure to slow traffic. Ultimately, the landscaped median project would have a similar streetscape appearance to Rowe Boulevard in Annapolis. The funding source of the project is within the State Highway Administration’s (SHA) Neighborhood Conservation Program. Unfortunately, projects in this program have been placed on hold due to funding constraints. It should be noted that the minor improvements do not include road widening or adding capacity to this existing arterial road. In the City’s review of the County’s draft CIP, the City Council recommended that Old Chapel Road be funded for rehabilitation work including paved shoulders and an asphalt bike trail on one side.
Staff has discussed with the Prince George’s County DPW&T’s District Engineer as to whether a sight-distance problem exists at the curve in the road. Staff has also discussed possible traffic control devices to slow southbound motorists on Race Track Road (including rumble strips similar to those installed at the Saddlebrook/Saddlebrook West main entrances). The District Engineer’s referral comments will require the developer to address a possible sight-distance problem and the appropriate traffic safety measures, including the possible installation of rumble strips in the southbound lane at the approach of the proposed site entrance on Race Track Road. The TIA indicates that residents in Patuxent Riding and Kimberwick have a difficult time to make a left turn to southbound Race Track Road in the peak hours. Staff believes these traffic safety issues should be addressed by both the applicant and DPW&T prior to approval of this subdivision plan. This situation will be given further consideration as the Master Plan update focuses on transportation planning needs.
B. Stormwater Management
The site drains predominantly from north to south toward the Horsepen Branch. Prince George’s County Department of Environmental Resources (DER) has jurisdiction of the stormwater management method, since the site is outside of the City limits. Six parcels for stormwater management controls are shown on the plan. One is located at the north end of the site at Race Track Road. Two parcels are internal to the site. The other three are in the southern portion of the site along the perimeter. On 1/8/03, DER approved a stormwater management concept plan for this subdivision. This approval is valid for a period of three years.
C. Environmental
On 6/18/03, the applicant submitted two separate reports to respond to the City’s Wildlife Habitat Management Guidelines. These include a Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) and a Wetlands Delineation. Both reports were prepared in October, 2002 by McCarthy and Associates, Inc.
1. Woodland Conservation/Tree Preservation
An FSD has been prepared for the site consistent with the County’s Woodland Conservation/Tree Preservation Ordinance (WC/TPO). Approximately 38.70 acres of the total 53.06 consists of woodland and forest areas. Based on available data (soil maps, aerial photos and other documents related to the environmental condition) and fieldwork during which 10 sample points were surveyed, two forest stands have been identified. These have been located on an FSD map and are labeled as Forest Stands A and B.
The woodland area in Stand A consists of 32.72 acres and Stand B 5.98 acres. A total of 10 specimen trees were located. A specimen tree is defined as having a diameter at breast height (DBH) as 30-inches or greater. A majority of these trees are located outside of the forest stands and are in close proximity to buildings in the northern portion of the site. Stand A contains four specimen trees and Stand B contains none. One specimen tree is located at Race Track Road along the existing driveway to the site. Stand A consists of a mixed hardwood forests with some pines in upland and bottomland configurations. Hardwoods are dominated by species of Red Oak, with Virginia Pine being the dominant species among the conifers. Stand B is in a floodplain area in the southern portion of the site. This stand consists of a mix of bottomland hardwood trees and no pines. Steep slopes are found in this stand, in relation to the floodplain. The stand is in the middle stages of climax growth, yet ever changing with the forces of water in vicinity of the floodplain. Both stands were given a Forest Structure Analysis rating in the upper end of the Good range. A “Good” forest structure rating means the stands or portions of stands have good structure diversity, and contiguous forested areas approximately 20 acres or more in size connect the largest or most vegetated tracts of land within and adjacent to the site. Results of the FSD show that Stand A is generally in good condition. Stand B has hydric soil and, based on its overall structure, it is considered to be a Priority One (high priority) forest retention area.
Two aspects of the Tree Conservation Plan (TCP) relate to several lots having conservation easements on them to protect existing woodland. These are Lots 52-58 and 60-64. The County’s WC/TPO allows for conservation easements on individual lots when the lots are at least 20,000 square feet or larger. All lots with conservation easements are at least 20,000 square feet in size. The second aspect relates to reforestation areas proposed on private lots. Lots 1-6 and Lots 64-80 have reforestation areas on them. The WC/TPO does not encourage reforestation areas on private lots as this creates a problematic situation as to long-term maintenance. According to M-NCPPC Environmental Planning staff, the TCP will have to be revised to provide for the reforestation areas at locations other than on private lots. Proposed impacts to existing woodland in vicinity of the northwest portion of the site have been minimized in the revised plan.
2. Wetlands
The Wetlands Delineation Report includes several findings and conclusions. The methodology used in determining whether wetlands are present at the site was from the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. From the Manual, wetlands are present when three indicators have been located. These include hydric soils, identifiable wetland hydrology and a dominance of hydrophytic vegetation. The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps were reviewed along with aerial photography. The NWI map (Laurel quadrangle) for this area of the County indicates the presence of two wetland classifications on the site. A palustrine-forested wetland (having temporarily flooded characteristics) and a palustrine-emergent (temporarily flooded) wetland are both present. United States Geological Survey Topographic Maps were also reviewed in relation to the site. On these maps, the Horsepen Branch stream is found along the southern border of the site. This stream is classified as a perennial stream. The Horsepen Branch is a tributary to the Patuxent River. The latter water body is approximately 2,200 feet east of the site. Based on an on-site assessment, the entire site is located at the headwaters of an unnamed tributary to the Horsepen Branch.
The Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Non-tidal Wetland Guidance Maps were also reviewed to determine the presence of “Wetlands of Special State Concern.” In the event this wetlands type is located on a site, the wetlands are given special protection during site plan review/planning preparation. The finding of the applicant’s consultant was that Wetlands of Special State Concern are not designated at the site and these wetlands types are not identified on the map or within one mile of it.
The Prince George’s County Soil Survey was also reviewed. Thirteen soil types are found at the site. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service classifies two of the soil types as hydric (these are Bibb sandy loam and Othello silt loam). By definition, hydric soils mean these have wetland characteristics.
McCarthy and Associates, Inc., mapped out the limits of jurisdictional Waters of the United States including wetlands. The two wetland/stream systems on the property originate in the central portion of the site and drain to the western property line. These two intermittent streams drain into the Horsepen Branch to the south of the site. Two isolated wetland areas were flagged in the central portion of the site (see Attachment 2). The applicant’s consultant came to the following conclusion:
“Complete avoidance of all jurisdictional areas and their associated buffers will preclude the need to obtain wetland permits. However, any impacts to these areas will require the appropriate permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Maryland Department of the Environment, and other regulatory agencies. It is our professional opinion that all regulated waters of the United States, including wetlands, have been flagged in the study area. Nevertheless, this determination should be confirmed by the appropriate agencies and cannot be considered complete until written confirmation is obtained.”
3. Wildlife Habitat Management Guidelines
The two aforementioned reports partly address the City’s Guidelines. On 7/10/03 the applicant submitted additional information to respond to the City’s Guidelines. Mr. Douglas C. Wood, Project Engineer with CDT BIO-SOIL SYSTEMS INC., of Clinton, Maryland, completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report on 11/19/02 for the applicant. In summary, the report included site assessment observations, regulatory records review, and Freedom of Information Act requests associated with the site. Conclusions and recommendations in the report include no evidence was gathered suggesting the existence of significant environmental impairment of the site.
The additional information includes the revised Preliminary Plan that shows proposed grading. However, information has not been submitted as to written verification from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Wildlife and Heritage Division about the presence or lack thereof, of rare, threatened and endangered species. The Wetland Delineation Report and FSD are both very complete documents. However, not all of the required information has been submitted, including an indication of wildlife that was observed during the FSD. The applicant has not proffered to provide for wildlife protection devices to be installed in relation to Race Track Road when the grading work is underway. Also, there has been no effort to be sensitive to grading the site to allow for the natural migration of wildlife to move to the west of the site and away from the road. Therefore, the overall submittal is incomplete.
D. Cluster Requirements
The amount of open space area to be put back into the site as a result of individual lot reduction (from 20,000 square feet per lot to as low as 10,000 square feet) has been satisfied. Natural areas and environmental features will be preserved in the open space parcels. Staff finds the proposed plan complies with cluster design criteria contained in Sec. 24-137 of the Subdivision regulations.
E. Master Plan Considerations
1. Planned Public Right-of-Way
The site is impacted by a planned arterial road (A-58) on the 1991 Area Master Plan (see Attachment 6). On the Master Plan, eight acres of the site is impacted by the planned A-58 Secondary Alignment, including a small portion of the A-58 Preferred Alignment in the southeast portion of the site. A referral was received by the City from the M-NCPPC Transportation Planning Section in relation to reservation of r-o-w for the planned A-58 road alignment. On 5/22/03, Planning staff relayed written comments about A-58, including language from County Resolution (CR) -10-2003 that stipulates the County decisions about planned arterial roads on (from the 1991 Plan) were to be further tested in the Bowie Master Plan’s update (see Attachment 7). The City’s comments support the preferred A-58 alignment being put in reservation to allow the Master Plan update process to address the transportation needs of the community. The applicant is not proposing to put the area in reservation and M-NCPPC Transportation Planning staff is not requiring the reservation, because A-58 is not likely to be constructed in the next six years.
2. Trails
Race Track Road is planned for road improvements to include a Master Plan Trail. Road improvements along the site’s roadway frontage will include a bike trail in the paved shoulder, to implement the Master Plan’s recommendation. This trail is also consistent with the recommendations of the City-wide Trails Plan approved by the City Council last year.
3. Floating Park Site Symbol
A floating park symbol is shown on the 1991 Area Master Plan in the southwest portion of the site (see Attachment 6). Most of this portion of the site will remain undeveloped within open space for passive recreation. An internal 10-foot wide hiker/biker trail is proposed in this portion of the site. The trail will connect to the WB&A trail further to the south. No other recreational facilities are proposed for this subdivision.
F. Other Considerations
1. Development Review Guidelines
Several aspects of this proposal are in conflict with City’s Development Review Guidelines and Policies (in particular, Section C. Adequate Public Facilities Policies). This proposal is in conflict with the following policies:
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 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 us used, money collected
should be 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 in 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. When performing traffic studies, developers shall be required
to analyze accident data and safety relationships, in addition
to traffic capacity issues. Safe access should be an integral
part of determining whether or not a project should be
approved.
Of particular concern is that the School Facilities Surcharge will go into the County’s General Fund and will not be used specifically to alleviate the over capacity situation at the cluster schools most directly impacted as a result of this development. Paramedic service is outside of the acceptable response time guideline from the Glenn Dale Station. Traffic safety concerns were brought out at the Stakeholders Meeting. These include southbound motorists on Race Track Road who exceed the posted speed limit, the possible sight-distance problem at the curve in the road in relation to the planned main entrance into the development, and the inability of Patuxent Riding and Kimberwick residents to make the southbound left-turn out of their neighborhoods during the peak hours. The applicant has not submitted additional information to address these concerns.
V. Recommendation
Aspects of Preliminary Plan #4-03025 for the Race Track Road Cluster are in conflict with City guidelines and policies. Of particular concern are adequate public facilities and the cluster schools, all three of which are over capacity. The School Facilities Surcharge is not used by the County to specifically alleviate the over capacity situation at the impacted schools as a result of this development. Paramedic service for this site is inadequate. The projected additional traffic as a result of the development will overburden Race Track Road. There are traffic safety issues that have not been addressed that were brought out at the Stakeholders Meeting. The additional information for the City’s Wildlife Habitat Management Guidelines has been reviewed and it is incomplete. Based on these findings, it is recommended Preliminary Plan #4-03025 for the Race Track Road Cluster be DISAPPROVED.
DJD:LJS