MEMORANDUM

TO: City Council

FROM: David J. Deutsch, City Manager

SUBJECT:

County Legislation –
CB-61-2003 (Consolidated Storage in the E-I-A Zone);
CB-68-2003 (Use of School Facilities Surcharge Funding for Air Conditioning Public Schools);
CB-71-2003 (Repeal of Cluster Subdivision Requirements);
CB-72-2003 (Repeal of Traffic Mitigation Provisions); CB-73-2003 (Amending Requirements for Transportation APF Test – Funding for Public Road Facilities)

DATE: 10/2/03

Several County legislative bills of interest to the City have been presented to the County Council. Development-related bills are typically sent to the Planning, Zoning and Economic Development (PZED) Committee within several weeks of first appearing on the County Council’s agenda. The PZED Committee will review most of these bills at their meeting of October 8, 2003. Members of the Committee include David Harrington (Chair), Thomas Dernoga (Vice-Chair), Camille Exum, Tony Knotts and Samuel Dean.

1. CB-61-2003 (Consolidated Storage in the E-I-A Zone)

This legislation amends the Comprehensive Design Zones use table to allow consolidated storage in the Employment and Institutional Area (E-I-A) Zone. Currently, the Zoning Ordinance permits this use in the I-1, I-2 and I-4 Zones, and by special permit in the U-L-I Zone. The bill is proposed by Council Member Hendershot to address a need in the Ammendale Business Park. As currently written, the legislation would affect the Maryland Science and Technology Center (MSTC), once 80% of the site is developed. The term “consolidated storage” is more commonly understood to mean mini-warehouses. The bill was voted out of the PZED Committee favorably with no amendments on 9/24/03.

Staff finds the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to be an undesirable broadening of the E-I-A Zone’s list of uses. The type of use proposed in CB-61-2003 is typically found in industrial zones and the C-M (Commercial Miscellaneous) Zone. The allowance for consolidated storage in the existing zones is a reflection of the geographic characteristics of these zones. Most have good access to major roadways and are located on the periphery of communities in order not to be disruptive. Allowing consolidated storage at the MSTC would be inconsistent with longstanding efforts to make this site a premier business park in Prince George’s County. A primary purpose of the E-I-A Zone is to provide for a mixture of employment, institutional, retail and office uses in a manner that will retain the dominant employment and institutional character of the area and improve the overall quality of employment and institutional centers in the County. Since mini-warehouses do not typically generate jobs, are land-consumptive and are often unattractive, staff concludes that the proposed text amendment is not in keeping with the purpose of the E-I-A Zone. Therefore, staff recommends Council OPPOSE CB-61-2003 at the public hearing.

2. CB-68-2003 (Use of School Facilities Surcharge Funding for Air Conditioning Public Schools)

The County Executive has proposed an amendment to the County Capital Budget to create a new capital project, Room Air-Conditioners. This bill will provide for the purchase and installment of approximately 1,330 room air-conditioners in over 50 public schools. The cost is $10 million with half to be funded in FY ’04 and the remainder in FY ’05. The source of funds is the School Facilities Surcharge.

While the attempt to provide air conditioning in all County schools is well-intentioned, staff finds CB-68-2003 to be inconsistent with the purpose of the School Facilities Surcharge, which has always been intended to address school capacity shortfalls. Although the Surcharge requirements were amended by the General Assembly last year to include use of this funding for renovations, staff finds the original intent of providing funding to increase school capacity must be maintained, as so many schools in the County are overcrowded. Because the use of the School Facilities Surcharge funds for air conditioners does not increase school capacity, staff recommends Council send an UNFAVORABLE recommendation to the Public Safety and Fiscal Management (PS & FM) Committee regarding CB-68-2003.

3. CB-71-2003 (Repeal of Cluster Subdivision Requirements)
CB-72-2003 (Repeal of Traffic Mitigation Provisions)

These two bills have the same issue as their genesis. Council Member Dernoga has proposed repealing both the cluster subdivision provisions and traffic mitigation provisions from the Subdivision Regulations (Subtitle 24 of the Prince George’s County Code) in reaction to a Court decision several years ago that established that the District Council may only act as an appellate body when reviewing decisions of the Planning Board. Because of the ruling, the District Council cannot now make their own decisions or modify the decisions of the Planning Board. Since the State’s laws have not been changed in the ensuing sessions of the Maryland General Assembly to provide a greater role for the District Council, Council Member Dernoga proposes to completely eliminate these options from the Subdivision Regulations. (The development industry actively opposed efforts in last year’s General Assembly to give the District Council this authority.)

Staff feels strongly that the cluster subdivision regulations should not be eliminated from the Subdivision Ordinance. This development design technique is essential for protection of scenic and natural resources, especially on sites that are severely constrained by these features. Many properties are recommended for cluster development in the approved Bowie-Collington-Mitchellville and Vicinity Area Master Plan. Without the cluster option, many of these features would have to be disturbed. The resulting development pattern would be more sprawling, since all lots would have to meet conventional standards. For example, in the R-R (Rural Residential) Zone, streets and utility lines might have to be more extensive since lots would have to meet the minimum 20,000 square feet instead of the 10,000 square feet minimum permitted under the cluster option. Because of the need to have a development technique that helps to preserve sensitive areas and minimize excessive impacts of subdivision, staff recommends the City recommend an UNFAVORABLE vote by the PZED Committee.

Regarding traffic mitigation, the City Council’s longstanding policy is that traffic mitigation should not be permitted in the Developing Tier or Rural Tier. Development must adhere to the County’s Level of Service standards for those tiers. Allowance for mitigation in the Developed Tier makes sense because, in many cases, the road network is already fully developed. Not having mitigation in the Developed Tier would thwart the County’s emphasis on attracting redevelopment and revitalization there as a Countywide priority. Consistent with the City’s past policy, reiterated in comments on the update of the County General Plan and at the Master Plan of Transportation Public Forum, staff recommends a FAVORABLE vote on CB-72-2003, provided that amendments are made to permit traffic mitigation only within the Developed Tier.

4. CB-73-2003 (Amending Requirements for Transportation APF Test – Funding for Public Road Facilities)

The existing provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance allow planned, but not constructed, transportation facilities to be used to support a finding of adequate public transportation facilities. Unless planned facilities are actually constructed as planned, levels of service continue to remain inadequate and decline whenever additional subdivisions are approved and constructed. The proposed legislation will require planned facilities to proceed to construction in a timely manner in order to be used to find adequacy. CB-73-2003 states that if construction of such improvements has not commenced within six years after first being included in an adopted County Capital Improvements Program, the proposed roads may not be considered by the Planning Board and the Planning Board may not approve any subdivision based upon future construction until such roads are actually constructed.

The best current example of this situation is with the Karington development at MD 214/US 301. In their review of the Conceptual Site Plan, the County Planning Board found that the project met the transportation facilities test because of a project to upgrade US 301 was included in the out years of the CIP. Only funding in the first year of the CIP is “authorized” funding; there is no construction timetable established for projects included in the out years. In the Karington case, the same project was repeated in the CIP for 13 years, allowing many developments in the US 301 corridor to be approved. This situation has repeated itself throughout the County over and over during the subdivision review process. In the Bowie area, many projects were approved on the basis of MD 450 and MD 214 being included in the out years of the State’s Consolidated Transportation Program, well before road construction ever occurred. The City Council’s current APF policy states that funds for improvements necessary to satisfy APF should be contained in the first year of a capital improvement document, not the first six years. This policy addresses the timeliness of road improvements. CB-73-2003 will level the playing field by allowing only those construction projects that are truly moving forward to be relied upon by developers in building their projects. The bill may have the effect of slowing growth, but will help to address a need identified most recently in the Bowie Master Plan update’s Informational Brochure; that is, providing public facilities to keep pace with development approvals. Staff does note, however, that provisions of the Zoning Ordinance should be correspondingly amended to include this requirement. (Note that the Karington Conceptual Site Plan is governed by the Zoning Ordinance, not the Subdivision Regulations, at the current stage.) For the above reasons, staff recommends a FAVORABLE vote on CB-73-2003.

Recommendation: It is recommended that City position letters be sent to the County Council in accordance with the above recommendations.