LAND USE PETITION IN THE BOWIE PLANNING AREA
Md.-National Capital Park and Planning Commission ID: Specific Design Plan
#0308
Oak Creek Club, Phase 1
Bowie Advisory Planning Board # 03-22 Date: August 27, 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;
____(c) to subdivide property into building lots and obtain adequate public
facilities approval;
X (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: Specific Design Plan
2. Petitioner: Oak Creek Corporation
3. Represented by: Mr. William Knight of Knight, Manzi, Nussbaum and LaPlaca
4. Location of Petitioned Property: South of MD Route 214 and both east and
west sides of Church Road
South
5. Proposed use of Petitioned Property: 360 single-family detached and 219
single-family attached units
6. Size/Zone of Petitioned Property: 263.36 acres/zoned R-L (Residential-Low) & L-A-C
(Local-Activity
-Center
7. Date of hearing before BAPB: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 at 7:00 p.m.
8. Date of hearing before City Council: Tuesday, September 2, 2003 at 8:00
p.m.
9. Date of hearing before Prince George’s County Planning Board: Thursday,
Sept. 18, ’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: 8/5/03 22
Notice sent to Parties of Record 8/5/03 2
Date Signs Posted: 8/11/03 4
Date Legal Sent: 8/5/03
Date Legal Appeared: 8/14/03
RECOMMENDATIONS:
12. Department of Planning & Economic Development Recommendation: APPROVAL
of SDP #0308 for Oak Creek Club Phase 1 subject to the conditions found on
pages 9 and 10.
13. Bowie Advisory Planning Board Recommendation: The consensus of the Board was in support of the staff recommendation for approval with conditions, however, concerns were expressed for the impacts on public facilities (e.g. public safety, schools and transportation).
TO: Bowie City Council
FROM: Mr. Ron Skotz, Acting Chairman
Bowie Advisory Planning Board
RE: Specific Design Plan (SDP) #0308
Oak Creek Club Phase 1
DATE: 8/28/03
The Advisory Planning Board met on 8/26/03 to review Specific Design Plan (SDP) #0308 for Oak Creek Club. The proposal is for the review of eight of 17 residential blocks for 360 single-family detached and 219 single-family attached dwelling units on 236.36 acres. The site is located south of Md. Rte. 214 and on both the east and west side of Church Road South. The property is zoned R-L (Residential-Low Density) and L-A-C (Local-Activity-Center). The applicant is Oak Creek Club Corporation.
Presentations
Mr. Bill Knight, an attorney with Knight, Manzi, Nussbaum and LaPlaca was present to represent the applicant. Also present for the applicant were Ms. Evelyn Scalia, Project Manager with Montgomery Development and Ms. Sallie Stewart, a Land Planner with Charles P. Johnson & Associates, Inc. Mr. Knight explained the proposal and oriented the Board to the site’s location. He located the Bowieville Mansion at the site and named the seven builders that have been selected. He had a rendering of a tree-lined road in vicinity of an on-site lake that will be a part of the development. He explained the site’s two zoning classifications and where the subject application fit into the Comprehensive Design Plan review process. He said he read the staff report and recommendation for approval with conditions, however, he was not ready to go through each one. He said the applicant was still reviewing the conditions and would strive to address them. He noted two years ago, before the review of two Comprehensive Design Plans (CDPs) and a Preliminary Plan of subdivision, he met with the several homeowner association (HOA) boards, in proximity to the site, to discuss the proposal at that phase of the review process. He said these several HOAs (Kettering, Collington Station and Manor) were all in support of the proposal. He concluded his comments by saying St. Barnabas Church officials are also in support of their plan.
Next, Mrs. Lori Shirley of the Planning Department presented the staff report and recommendation for approval with conditions. She briefly discussed the site’s background (zoning history), including mention of the previous proposal associated with the site (the Greens of Dumbarton) and that the current applicant became involved in the site in the mid-1990’s. She explained the difference between the two proposals and that the subject proposal will be built around an 18-hole championship golf course. She said last month a separate SDP was reviewed and approved for the entire site streetscape, and that this review included details as to several traffic circles on Church Road South at main entrances to the site. She explained the review criteria from the County Zoning Ordinance for an SDP and that this review phase focused mostly on architecture and urban design aspects. She went through several areas of the staff report and noted deficiencies about the plan. She also discussed the City’s Development Review Guidelines and Wildlife Management Guidelines, and noted areas of deficiency in the Plan. She said very limited information about wildlife habitat protection had been submitted. However, in a meeting with staff the applicant indicated they were receptive to meeting the Guidelines at the grading phase. Mrs. Shirley concluded by saying staff recommends approval of SDP #0308 subject to 14 conditions.
Citizen Participation
Two residents were in attendance. Neither one signed the Speaker’s List to address the Board.
BAPB Discussion
§ Mr. Ron Skotz asked Mr. Knight to elaborate
on the extent of the support for the proposal coming from St. Barnabas
Church and was there a
land swap in the making? Mr. Knight said a parcel of land that will be south
of Oak Grove Road (relocated) would be dedicated to the Church so that an
existing cemetery will not be separated from the Church property by the existing
road. He said there has also been discussion about the Queen Anne School
(affiliated with the Church) using the golf course for golf classes.
§ Mr. Mitch Neitzey asked Mr. Knight about the timeframe for development?
Mr. Knight said the first phase would be for grading of the golf course and the
installation of water and sewer lines, later this year. They anticipate the
first houses will be under construction during mid-to-late 2004. He said
overall, the site would be developed over the next 10 years.
§
Mr. Neitzey asked Mr. Knight to explain the road improvements required to
Church Road South? Mr. Knight said two years ago during the Preliminary Plan
review phase they had a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared, after which
the finding of adequacy was made. He said they have extensive frontage along
both sides of the road and will be making upgraded improvements to the road
as a two-lane rural collector with paved shoulders. He mentioned the round-abouts
and that there would be in the range of one million dollars of road improvements
and select off-site intersection improvements, most of which will be overseen
by the County’s Department of Public Works and Transportation (DPW&T).
He said, in addition, a private bus system will be provided to take Metro
riders to the Largo facility. He said they are not looking to dualize Church
Road at this time because of its scenic road designation.
§ Mr. Neitzey asked Mr. Knight to explain how Lots 44-52 with frontage along
Church Road South will allow for motorists to safely get out of their driveways,
especially in relation the acceleration/deceleration lanes? Mr. Knight said
these lots are designed to have shared driveways with turn-arounds to minimize
the numbers of vehicles having to back out onto the road.
§
Mr. Neitzey asked, based on the builders’ profiles, what is the target
price mix? Mr. Knight said, for the townhouses, the starting sales prices
will be in the mid-$300,000, and the single-family detached units will be
in the mid-$400,000 price range. He said the developer anticipates after
the first year, these will increase.
§
Mr. Neitzey said he did not like the use of vinyl by the builders and that,
in his opinion, “Hardie” plank was a more desirable building
material instead of vinyl. Ms. Stewart said she was familiar with “Hardie” plank
and that some of the higher priced builders would offer that instead of vinyl.
Mr. Knight added they are not required by condition of the CDP to use that
material, as it has a slightly higher cost associated with it, compared to
vinyl.
§ Mr. Rogers asked Mr. Knight if Church Road would be adequate to handle
the increased traffic as a result of this development? He said about 3,000 new
vehicle trips will be generated by this proposal. Mr. Knight said, in their
opinion, yes, the road would be adequate after they make the necessary improvements.
He said that was the conclusion by M-NCPPC Transportation Planning staff
at the time the Traffic Study was reviewed.
BAPB Consensus
A quorum was not present. Therefore, among the three Board members who were present, a general consensus was reached on the proposal. Mr. Rogers expressed his concerns for the inadequacy of Church Road and that it is currently a very dangerous, unsafe road. He does not agree that it is an adequate road and this is his major concern about the proposal. He said he believed more could be done by the developer to mitigate the road’s situation. Mr. Neitzey said he agreed with Mr. Rogers about Church Road. He said the use of the word ‘adequate’ is a subjective term and this concerned him. The round-abouts will help as a traffic calming measure, but only in a minimal sense. He said, overall, this is a fine project and he was in general support of it. Mr. Skotz said he liked the project and has been involved in the review all along. However, he agreed with Mr. Rogers about Church Road. He said it was important for the Board to send a continuing message to Prince George’s County. He said, for him, this was a big issue and that he would reluctantly support the staff recommendation for approval with the 14 conditions with concerns from the Board as to the adequacy of roads, schools and public safety.
LJS
TO: City Council
FROM: David J. Deutsch, City Manager
RE: Specific Design Plan (SDP) #0308 DATE: 8/27/03
Oak Creek Club, Phase 1
______________________________________________________________________________
I. General Information
Applicant: Oak Creek Club Corporation (Montgomery Development)
Status of Applicant: owner/developer
Project Name: Oak Creek Club
Location: South of MD Rte. 214 and both sides of Church Road South (see Attachment 1)
Acreage: 236.36
Existing Zoning: Residential-Low (R-L) and Local-Activity-Center (L-A-C)
Existing Land Use: Bowieville Mansion historic site, scattered large lot
residential and
agriculture
Adjacent Land Uses
and Zoning: North – Cameron Grove
planned retirement community,
1,004 mixed and 166 single-family detached units, R-L (Residential-Low Density),
Woodmore at Oak Creek, 64 single-family detached units, R-A (Residential-Agriculture),
Collington Station (cluster), 528 single-family detached units R-R (Rural-Residential);
East –
Collington Center/Foreign Trade Zone (including Karington), E-I-A (Employment &
Institutional Area); South – St. Barnabas Church and Queen Anne School,
R-E (Residential
- Estate) and Perrywood, R-S (Residential-Suburban); West – Sierra Meadows
single-family
detached units, R-E (Residential-Estate) and Kettering, R-80 (One-Family Detached
Residential).
Master Plan: Community IX; Community Character: Permanent Low-Density areas
Water and Sewer Category: S-3 and W-4C for both zones
Library: Kettering Branch
II. Background/Proposal
Oak Creek Club is a planned, gated community totaling 922 acres. At build-out it will have a total of 1,148 lots, 877 lots for single-family detached (SFD) units and 219 lots for single-family attached (SFA) townhouses (see Attachment 2). The site has two Comprehensive Design Zones (CDZs) associated with it, R-L and L-A-C, both having been approved during the Sectional Map Amendment (SMA) phase in the adoption of the 1991 Bowie-Collington-Mitchellville Area Master Plan. Prior to 1991, the site was zoned Rural-Residential (R-R), Residential-Estate (R-E) and Rural-Agriculture (R-A) and had a development proposal pending referred to as ‘The Greens of Dumbarton.’ At that time, a total of 1,096 dwellings were proposed. In County Resolution (CR)-120-1991 (Draft 2), CDZ Amendment 3 was officially adopted by the District Council that implemented the zoning change. CR-120-1991 contains 50 site-specific conditions (and numerous sub-conditions) placed on the approval of Amendment 3. Some of these conditions were intended to be fulfilled at the time of the Comprehensive Design Plan (CDP) and Preliminary Plan approval. These conditions relate to adequate public facilities (APF) in the areas of transportation (and mandatory road improvements), fire response times (and provision for sprinkler systems), etc.
In the mid-to late 1990’s, the current developer became involved with the proposal. The project’s name was changed from The Greens of Dumbarton to Oak Creek Club. The subject site is modeled after another planned residential site developed by the applicant known as River Creek in Leesburg, Virginia. Subsequent revisions to the subject site’s original Basic Plan (BP) were necessary. The applicant submitted a revised BP for the purpose of including a planned 18-hole private golf course into the development’s design. The City Council reviewed and commented on the revised BP in a position letter dated 2/20/98. Primary differences in The Greens of Dumbarton compared to the current proposal find the latter contains a golf course, a reduction in lot sizes to create clusters of neighborhoods (rural hamlets and villages by design) and a redesign of internal traffic circulation patterns to allow for sewer lines to be placed under roads, instead of within the Black Branch stream valley. As a result of the revision to the BP in 1998, the proposal is for 1,148 dwelling units instead of 1,096.
In August 2001, the developer submitted two Comprehensive Design Plans (CDPs) and a corresponding Preliminary Plan of subdivision (CDP #9902 & #9903 and Pre. Plan #4-01032, respectively). The CDPs showed ‘pods’ or areas where the various land uses were proposed. The CDP text described the proposal as being “planned as an upscale residential community with a variety of recreational, cultural and community features with emphasis on low density (1.3 du/ac) development to retain the rural character of this area.” In addition to the golf course, the site will have a community swimming pool with clubhouse and tennis courts. The County Planning Board approved these three plans on 9/6/01. On 9/4/01, the City Council reviewed the plans and had a tie vote (3-3 and 1 abstention) and therefore, did not have an official position to the County Planning Board (see Attachment 3). There are conditions placed on the CDP approvals to be addressed at SDP review relating to architecture and urban design aspects. In July 2003, the applicant had the site’s streetscape reviewed and approved by the County Planning Board in SDP #0303. The streetscape included details as to monumental entrance features, community signage, grading and infrastructure and the location of utilities.
The scope of SDP #0308 is for the detailed site plan review of residential blocks A, B, C, F, G, H, I, & J (see the non-shaded blocks on Attachment 2). The land area in SDP #0308 totals 236.36 acres for 360 SFD and 219 SFA dwellings.
A. Architecture
A total of seven builders have submitted architectural elevations for approval in their respective portfolios (see Attachment 4). One builder, and in some instances, two builders will construct units in a block, in keeping with the concept of rural hamlets and villages constructed by a given builder.
Block Neighborhood Name Builder Unit Type
A Deer Run SFD
B Deer Run Estates SFD
C Deer Ridge SFD
D Deer Valley*
E Poplar Turn*
F Lake View** Mitchell & Best SFD
G Clubhouse Terrace NVHomes & Craftmark SFA
H Clubhouse Square “ “ SFA
I Pine Valley Ryan Homes and K&P SFD
J Oak Hill “ “ “ SFD
K Eagle Ridge*
L Cedar Hill*
M Queen Anne Turn*
N Players View*
O Fox Hill*
P Fox Den*
Q Fox Run
The asterisk* means the block/neighborhood is not within the scope of SDP
#0308. The double asterisk** means this block is designed as a neo-traditional
neighborhood with a grid street pattern.
All seven builders offer a variety of options and standard features to
models in their portfolios (see examples in Attachments 5, 6 and 7). All
of the single-family detached units have two-car garages as a standard and
are two stories in height. Several of the builders offer a side entry two
or three-car garage option. Some of the builders offer rear entry and/or
detached garages as options to townhouse units. Architectural features and
brick details range from full and partial brick fronts, a combination of
stone and stucco front elevations, false dormers, blocked dentil moulding,
brick jack arch with concrete keystone accents, brick rowlock, arched brick
soldier course with concrete keystone, urethane arched pediment, oval louver
with urethane surround and keystones, gable dentil blocks, paneled garage
doors, brick quoins, brick rowlock sills, brick soldier course watertables,
splayed brick arch with keystone, rake mould over rake trim, quarter-round
paneled shutters, bay windows, fiberglass box columns, reverse gable roofs,
partial front and wrap-around porches, elliptical pediment with transom,
sunburst with keystone over window head piece, rams head pediment over pilasters,
masonry fireplaces, standing metal seam roof, and elevations with alternate
extensions (a continuous connection between the house and the garage). Interior
options offered include English basements, sunrooms, enlarged dining rooms,
first floor master bedrooms, bonus rooms over garages, and loft areas. No
single-story models are proposed
B. Urban Design
The entire site has a total of 17 blocks for residential neighborhoods. In SDP #0308, there are eight blocks for review (see Attachment 4). Blocks A, B, C, F, G, and H are all on the east side of Church Road South. In Block B, Lots 44-52 (a total of nine) are designed to have direct frontage onto Church Road South. Two other blocks in this review are on the west side of Church Road South (I and J). All of these blocks, except for F and G, are designed around the 18-hole golf course. Several conditions placed on the approval of the two CDPs require these to be addressed in the SDP review. Block H has two parts to it (H and H1). Block H is planned for single-family attached units (townhouses) and it is located on the south side of Mary Bowie Parkway and east of Church Road South. Block H1 is west of Block H and also south of the aforementioned parkway. Block H1 has the historic Bowieville Mansion and Tobacco Barn located on it. This is a designated historic site with an established environmental setting.
Lots in Bocks A, B and C are the larger by design for single-family detached units. These range from 7,141 to 25,656 square feet. Lots in Blocks I and J and are smaller than those in Blocks A, B and C (and range in area from 8,999 to 17,875 square feet). Block F is designed in a neo-traditional style with grid street pattern. Blocks G and H are designed for single-family attached townhouse units.
C. Stormwater Management
Several methods of stormwater management are proposed for the site. These include Low Impact Development (LID) and bioretention to protect the Black Branch and other environmental characteristics found at the site. Also, the conventional, on-site stormwater management pond method is proposed on the east side of the site in relation to Blocks F, G, and H where the smallest lots are designed.
D. Landscape Plan
A set of landscape plans for each of the Blocks is included in this submittal. The plans include proposed landscaping around a stormwater management pond on the east side of the site. Specific details as to landscape treatments in the open space areas of each block were reviewed in SDP #0303.
E. Woodland Conservation/Tree Preservation
A Tree Conservation Plan (TCP) Type I was submitted and approved during the CDP and Preliminary Plan review in 2001. A TCP Type II has been submitted and is under review in the Environmental Planning Section of the M-NCPPC.
III. Stakeholders Meeting
A Stakeholders Meeting was held on Monday, August 18, 2003. One resident attended along with three representatives for the applicant and Planning staff. There was an informal discussion of the proposal. The resident was interested in learning several key points, such as the lot sizes, when the residential neighborhoods would be under construction and the names of the builders. There were no significant questions about other aspects of the site.
IV. Analysis
Criteria from the Prince George’s County Zoning Ordinance, Section 27-528 are used in the review of an SDP. These criteria are as follows:
“(a)
Prior to approving an SDP the County Planning Board shall find that:
(1) The plan conforms to the approved Comprehensive Design Plan, the applicable
standards of the Landscape Manual, and for Specific Design Plans for which
an application is filed after December 30, 1996, with the exception of the
V-L and V-M zones, the applicable design guidelines for townhouses set forth
in Section 27-274(a)(1)(B) and (a)(11), and the applicable regulations for
townhouses set forth in Section 27-433(d);
(2) The development will be adequately served within a reasonable period of
time with existing or programmed public facilities either shown in the appropriate
Capital Improvement Program or provided as part of the private development;
(3) Adequate provision has been made for draining surface water so that there
are no adverse effects on either the subject property or adjacent properties;
and
(4) The plan is in conformance with an approved Tree Conservation Plan.
(b) Prior to approving a Specific Design Plan for Infrastructure, the Planning
Board shall find that the plan conforms to the approved Comprehensive Design
Plan, prevents off-site property damage, and prevents environmental degradation
to safeguard the public’s health, safety, welfare, and economic well
being for grading, reforestation, woodland conservation, drainage, erosion,
and pollution discharge.
(c) The Planning Board may only deny the Specific Design Plan if it does not
meet the requirements of Section 27-528(a) and (b), above.
(d) Each staged unit (shown on the Comprehensive Design Plan) shall be approved.
Later stages shall be approved after initial stages. An SDP may encompass more
than one (1) stage.”
A. Architecture
One part of Condition #27 of CDP #9902 relates to architectural features and details to ensure an upscale residential community (see B. Urban Design section below). The use of architectural features and brick detail work is to provide for a visually “upscale” and “stately” finished product. Architectural features and details proposed by the seven builders satisfy this stipulation in Condition #27. All seven builders have been involved with the developer in other similar planned communities in the metropolitan Washington region.
It should be noted, at the time of the initial review of a water and sewer category change request, it was determined the minimum of the single-family detached units would be 2,200 square feet. Most of the proposed models in the seven builders’ portfolios meet or exceed this stipulation with the exception of the Perrywood 4 model proposed by K&P Builders and the Belvedere model proposed by Ryan Homes. Based on the square footage stipulation, those elevations below the 2,200 minimum are not supported for inclusion in the respective builder’s portfolio.
B. Urban Design
Conditions #20, 21 and 22 all relate to urban design aspects during the SDP review. These conditions stipulate:
“20.
For those lots with frontages along Church Road or Oak Grove Road, or with
an
intervening open space parcel between the road and the lot, the minimum lot
width shall
be 100 feet. A 50-foot building setback is required from the street line and
the property
line. Units built on these lots shall have side-entrance garages and may have
dualized
driveways.
21. Prior to SDP approval and to the extent practicable, existing fence
rows, isolated
trees, or existing agricultural structures occurring in the setback shall be
preserved and
maintained unless removing such elements can be justified on the grounds of
safety. The
quality of these features shall be determined by the Planning Board and/or
District
Council at the time of SDP review. In addition, groves, clusters, or rows of
native trees,
and shrubs typical of those indigenous to the vicinity of the proposed development
shall
be encouraged to be planted in the setback in order to enhance the rural character.
Furthermore, the applicant shall provide a photographic and plan inventory
of all
agricultural structures within a proposed plan area for submission and review
at the time
of SDP approval.
22. For lots with rear yards oriented toward Oak Grove Road or Church Road,
there shall
be a minimum 300-foot setback requirement for the rear lot lines. The 300-foot
buffer
may include the golf course, however, within the 300 feet minimum, a 50-foot
landscaped buffer shall be provided, to be planted with the amount of plant
materials
required for at least a collector roadway buffer in Section 4.6 of the Landscape
Manual.
If there is woodland area or hedgerows within the right-of-way, it may be combined
with
on-site woodland to contribute toward the 50-foot buffer requirement. Existing
woods
may be allowed to substitute for the landscaping, only if it can be demonstrated
that the
woodland is a minimum of 50 feet wide and is supplemented with evergreen material
to
provide a complete year-round screen. The landscaped buffer may be located
either along
the road or along the lots, but in no case shall it be split up into less than
25-foot widths.”
Condition #27 of CDP #9902 and 9903 contains several urban design aspects to be implemented at the time of SDP review. This condition reads:
“27.
The residential architecture shall be attractively and creatively designed
with
an emphasis on high quality and natural materials. Where siding is employed,
high quality vinyl and decorative trim shall be required. At least 60 percent
of all
units shall have brick fronts. All exterior fireplace chimmneys shall be brick
or
stone. A strong emphasis shall be placed on details such as dentil molding,
jack
arches, lintel, quoins, reverse gables, dormer windows, and varied rooflines.
Roofing material shall consist of standing seam metal, cedar shake shingles,
imitation slate, or high quality dimensional asphalt shingles.
All side and rear elevations visible from roads, parking areas, the golf
course, and
the existing two-acre pond shall have a high level of detail comparable to
that of
the fronts, and shall demonstrate a pattern of fenestration which is orderly
and
harmonious.
The minimum roof pitch for all dwelling units shall generally be 8/12.
A
minimum ceiling height for the first floor shall be nine feet.
Decks and porches on rears that face the golf course must be painted, stained,
etc.
They may not be left to weather naturally.
No private fences will be allowed in rear yards of single-family lots facing
the golf
course; a consistent private fence can be constructed in rear yards of attached
houses
facing the golf course.
Rear yard landscape plans facing the golf course shall be selected from
a limited
group of options to be installed by the developer.”
The finding has been made that these urban design aspects have been addressed in SDP #0303 and the subject #0308.
Several conditions in CDP #9903 require that as the site develops, Bowieville Mansion will be restored by the applicant for use as either a private residence or several other uses including a country inn, private school, low intensity office, reception hall/rental facility, antique shop or similar low intensity retail, art gallery, library or similar cultural use, eleemosynary or philanthropic use or a combination of these types of uses. A stipulation in Condition #13 of CDP #9903 states:
“Additional uses may be approved at the time of SDP for the Historic
Site’s
Environmental Setting subject to approval by the Historic Preservation
Commission.”
The City’s Development Review Guidelines (DRG) includes site design techniques
to be used in the Site Plan or Specific Design Plan review phases for new developments.
Seven of 35 residential design guidelines from the Site Design section of the
DRG relate to SDP #0308. Several aspects about the subject site’s design
should be revised to address site design techniques in relation to corner lots
(driveway placement and provision for the greatest amount of functional rear
yard), the siting of models (with the same elevation) side by side and directly
across the street, chimneys and prefabricated inserts, the placement of landscaping
on individual lots to create shade and reduce energy consumption, model units
should have full brick fronts with highly visible units having brick wrapped
around the prominent endwalls, and models in each of the builders’ portfolios
with first floor master bedrooms for the 55 and older population. These guidelines
have been included in the Recommendation section of this report.
C. Stormwater Management
Stormwater provisions have been addressed by the applicant and reviewed by Prince George’s County’s Department of Environmental Resources (DER). The applicant’s concept stormwater management plan has been approved by DER. The finding can be made that the draining surface water will not have an adverse effect on either the subject property or adjacent properties as required in the review criteria for an SDP.
D. Landscape Plan
A review of the plant schedule finds several non-native shade and ornamental trees are proposed. These should be substituted for native trees as found in a listing from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s BayScapes Program. From the City’s DRG, in a new residential development proposal, the plant schedule should contain a minimum of 80% of native trees and plants. The plant schedule also includes the use of a highly invasive, non-native shrub known as Winged Burning Bush (Euonymus alata). Information found in the Fish and Wildlife Service’s publication titled “Plant Invaders of Mid-Atlantic Natural Areas” Winged Burning Bush is listed as a plant to avoid. The publication offers several native plant alternatives including red chokeberry, silky dogwood, Virginia sweetspire, mapleleaf viburnum and highbush blueberry. The Winged Burning Bush should be substituted with one of these alternative native shrubs.
E. Woodland Conservation/Tree Preservation
The required TCP II is under review by the M-NCPPC Environmental Planning section. Initial review comments found additional information was to be submitted, and revisions would be necessary to the TCP II. The Environmental Planning staff noted that the Maryland Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program staff have confirmed there are no rare, threatened or endangered species found to occur in the vicinity of this site. The TCP II must be revised in compliance with the review comments prior to the County Planning Board’s review of the proposal next month. It is anticipated that with minor revisions to the TCP, it will be ready for approval by the Board.
F. Master Plan Considerations
1. A-44
The proposed
arterial road r-o-w for A-44 bisects the eastern portion of the site (see
Attachment 8). The A-44 r-o-w is on
the 1991 Bowie-Collington-Mitchellville
Area Master Plan. Although this site is impacted by the planned r-o-w, Park
and Planning staff did not require the area be put in reservation at Preliminary
Plan review in 2001. Prince George’s County does not have the funding
available to construct the highway and the A-44 r-o-w will most likely be
removed from the Bowie and Vicinity Master Plan that is in the early stages
of being updated. One east-west internal road (Mary Bowie Parkway) crosses
the A-44 r-o-w. However, the Preliminary Plan did not provide for future
residential lots within the r-o-w, in the event the highway was not built.
Once the final plats for the site have been recorded, the A-44 r-o-w will
be a permanent green space where the developer proposes afforestation to
meet woodland conservation requirements in the County’s WC/TPO.
2. School/Park site
The site contains a 26-acre school/park site along the north central portion. The site was identified for a public facility in the 199 Bowie-Collington-Mitchellville Area Master Plan. The land will be dedicated to the County Board of Education to coincide with the recordation of final plats. Based on the land area of the site, a future middle school will be constructed on it.
As a result of new County legislation this year, the Adequate Public Facilities (APF) Schools test has been eliminated. Also, the Schools Facilities Surcharge increased from $5,000 to $12,000 per unit. The Surcharge is collected at the time of the issuance of a building permit. The fees will be put into an account for new school construction funding and renovations to alleviate overcrowding conditions. Based on this finding, Criterion 2 of Section 27-528 as to the development will be adequately served within a reasonable period of time with existing or programmed public facilities, has been satisfied.
3. Trails
The site will have an interconnected hiker/biker trail system that was determined at the time of the Preliminary Plan of subdivision review in 2001. The trail system will implement the 1991 Bowie-Collington-Mitchellville Area Master Plan recommendations in relation to Church Road South and trail facilities needs. The developer will also provide an internal trail system to supplement the planned Master Plan trail along Church Road South.
G. Other Considerations
Several weeks ago, the applicant’s representatives met with Planning staff to discuss the proposal and how the City’s Wildlife Habitat Management Guidelines would be addressed. Environmental-based information beyond the Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) and Tree Conservation Plan (TCP) were requested especially given the overall size of the site. The City recognizes the Guidelines were not adopted until January 2002, several months after the CDPs and the Preliminary Plan were approved at the County level. The applicant’s representatives are receptive to including wildlife habitat protection methods into the grading phase. At this writing, no supplemental information has been made available to the City. In order to address several aspects of wildlife habitat protection methods at the time of grading, several standard conditions should be included in the City’s position. These conditions require the direction of grading to start for example, on the east side of the site, and progress from west to east. On the west side of the site, grading in Blocks I and J should progress from east to west. The respective blocks within SDP #0308 (Blocks A and B) where grading will take place in relation to Church Road South, plastic snow fencing should be installed along the entire roadway frontage as a deterrent to wildlife from crossing the road. Grading at the site should not take place between April through mid-August in the blocks where the existing environmental condition lends itself to meadow areas and agricultural uses. Prior to the next submittal of subsequent phases of an SDP for the remaining residential areas, wildlife habitat information should be submitted for a determination as to the existing situation. This submittal should include a floristic inventory, if available.
V. Recommendation
SDP #0308 has been found to be in compliance with most aspects of the County’s review criteria in Section 27-528 of the County Zoning Ordinance. Several revisions to the plan are necessary to satisfy all of the criteria. In addition, aspects of the plan in relation to Urban Design and City guidelines used in development review need to be addressed. Based on these findings, it is recommended that SDP #0308 for Oak Creek Club Phase 1 be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:
1. The areas of the Belvedere model proposed by Ryan Homes and the Perrywood
4
model by K&P Builder shall be increased to meet or exceed the minimum
of 2,200
square feet of above ground finished floor area.
2. On corner lots, or where the chimney faces the street, the chimney should
be
constructed entirely of brick. Where the chimney faces public space, brick
is
encouraged. All fireplace chimneys and prefabricated inserts should extend
to grade.
3. Units across the street from on next to each other should not have the
same front
elevation. A variety of different colors, material, and special features should
also be
used to ensure that units appear unique, even if adjacent to units with similar
front
elevations.
4. In site plan review, vehicular access to corner lots should be provided
from streets of
lower classification. Corner lots should be generally larger and wider to accommodate
the siting of dwelling units in a manner that preserves the greatest amount
of
functional rear yard as possible.
5. Units should be sited on lots to provide the greatest functional rear
yard possible. To
accomplish this, dwelling units should be sited at or close to the front building
restriction line so as to provide for the greatest amount of functional rear
yard.
6. Developers and builders should consider landscaping techniques and materials
to
shade dwelling units and reduce energy consumption.
7. Model units should be constructed of brick or other natural materials,
including stone
and stucco. On highly visible townhouse units and selected detached units,
the front
façade and (visible) endwall should be constructed of the same material.
8. To continue to provide a broad range of housing types and styles within
the Planning
Area, each builder within a new residential development is encouraged to provide
at
least one single-story unit type or a model which includes a first floor master
bedroom
in their architectural portfolio to address the needs of the 55-and-over population,
persons with disabilities, and empty nesters.
9. The Landscape Plan shall be revised to demonstrate that at least 80%
of the trees and
plants are native plants.
10. The Landscape Plan shall be revised to substitute the use of Winged
Burning Bush
with a native plant alternative such as red chokeberry, silky dogwood, Virginia
sweetspire, mapleleaf viburnum and highbush blueberry.
11. Prior to the next submittal of subsequent phases of an SDP for the
remaining
residential areas, wildlife habitat information should be submitted for a determination
as to the existing situation. This submittal should include a floristic inventory,
if
available.
12. Grading at the site will not take place during the months of April
through August in
those blocks where meadow areas pre-existed or agriculture uses were located.
13. Grading on the site should take place from west to east on the east
side of the
development and east to west on the west side (Blocks I and J) to allow for
wildlife
to migrate from these areas.
14. Temporary plastic snow fencing shall be installed before grading is
underway along
the roadway frontage of Blocks A and B along Church Road South. The snow
fencing shall be required for the duration of the grading work at the site.
attachments
DJD:LJS