LAND USE PETITION IN THE BOWIE PLANNING AREA
Md.-National
Capital Park and Planning Commission ID: Specific Design Plan (SDP) #0310
Maryland Science and Technology Center, Pod 1
Bowie Advisory Planning Board # 03-26 Date: October 1, 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: MIE Properties, Inc.
3. Represented by: Mr. Ramon Benitez
4. Location of Petitioned Property: Northeast quadrant of US 50/301 and MD
3
5. Proposed use of Petitioned Property: 300,980 sq.ft. of office space
6. Size/Zone of Petitioned Property: 24.78 acres/zoned E-I-A (Employment and
Institutional Area)
7. Date of hearing before BAPB: September 23, 2003 at 7:00 p.m.
8. Date of hearing before City Council: Tuesday, October 7, 2003 at 8:00 p.m.
9. Date of hearing before County Planning Board: Thursday, November 6, 2003
at 9:00 a.m.
10. Date of hearing before Hearing Examiner: N/A
11. Date of hearing before District Council: ---
NOTICES/LEGALS
DATE Number of Mailing/Signs
Notice sent to Adj. Properties: 8/26/03 178
Notice sent to Parties of Record n/a
Date Signs Posted: 9/9/03 5
Date Legal Sent: 9/4/03
Date Legal Appeared: 9/11/03
RECOMMENDATIONS:
12. Department of Planning & Economic Development Recommendation:
The Department of Planning & Economic Development staff recommends DISAPPROVAL of SDP #0310.
13. Bowie Advisory Planning Board Recommendation:
The Bowie
Advisory Planning Board recommends DISAPPROVAL of SDP #0310.
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM:
Reverend John S. Cooper, Sr., Chairman
Bowie Advisory Planning Board
SUBJECT: Specific Design Plan #0310
Maryland Science and Technology Center, Pod 1
DATE: 10/1/03
The Bowie Advisory Planning Board conducted a public hearing on the above-referenced application on September 23, 2003. The development proposed for Pod 1 of the Maryland Science and Technology Center includes 300,980 square feet of office space on approximately 25 acres of land zoned E-I-A (Employment and Institutional Area) within the central Core Area of the MSTC.
Developer’s Presentation
Ms. Tanya Bensinger of the firm of Matis Warfield Consulting Engineers introduced herself. Mr. Devon Leary of Human & Rohde, Inc., Landscape Architects, introduced himself. Mr. Ramon Benitez of MIE Properties presented a brief Powerpoint video showing the proposed development on Pod 1. He explained that the video simulation was used to plan the development proposed for the property in relation to the Comprehensive Design Plan (CDP). Their analysis emphasized the visual prominence of the Melford House. Mr. Benitez made one clarification involving the video simulation regarding the absence of the treed knoll occupied by the cemetery. The woodland was not shown because it would have obscured views into the Core Area.
Ms. Bensinger provided an overview of the development proposed in the SDP for Pod 1 and described the types of buildings intended for the site. She characterized the proposal as a project containing over 300,000 square feet of mixed-use, “spec” buildings. She then commented on some of the findings of the City staff report. She stated that an Architectural Review Committee will be formed and a lighting plan provided prior to SDP approval. Addressing conformance with the CDP’s recommendations for the Core Area, Ms. Bensinger referred to page 40 of the CDP text, which provides a list of uses envisioned for this pod. She pointed out that all of these uses are available to go on this site, except a hotel, which the developer intends to put on Block 2, Lot 1. She pointed out that the layout of the CDP is conceptual and is based on market information from the 1980s. Regarding compatibility with the Melford House, Ms. Bensinger stressed that the concept was to preserve the viewshed through use of single-story architecture surrounding the historic structure. She displayed Sections A-G, which address views through Pod 1, and noted that the CDP shows a 12-story hotel at this location. Regarding the Floor Area Ratio being lower than the CDP total, she explained that the approved CDP was based on marketing studies which are now out of date. If the future need arises, they could provide structured parking on the site to support additional development; nothing in the proposed SDP precludes the developer from providing this additional square footage. Regarding the number of parking spaces proposed, Ms. Bensinger stated that they provide parking at a rate of 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet, which is based on their experience. She added that many other jurisdictions, such as Howard County, use this rate in their ordinances. She reiterated that cross sectional views were done and would be submitted for staff’s review. Regarding restoration of the Melford House, Ms. Bensinger explained that a Maintenance and Preservation Plan has been completed. An adaptive re-use plan has not been submitted, as it is not economically feasible at this time. The developer does not want to gut the house when a tenant has not yet been identified. Regarding the cemetery, she stated that MIE Properties does not own the parcel and can’t comply with this portion of the prior approval conditions. She also pointed out that the proposed SDP does show sidewalks that follow the recommended pedestrian axis through Pod 1, as recommended by the CDP, and clarified that the developer intends to provide special treatment and amenities along this route, including special crosswalks.
Questions by BAPB Members:
Vice-Chairman Terry Nuriddin asked if market studies had been done for this project? Mr. Benitez replied that market analyses are ongoing and their studies do not reflect the information presented in the original CDP, which is 25 years old.
Mr. Terry Rogers observed that the proposed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) does not conform to the approved CDP. He asked how the developer can make interpretive changes to the approved plan and if it was conceptual only. He wondered if the developer was contemplating a revision to the CDP as part of this process. Ms. Bensinger replied that the approved CDP is only a concept and that they followed it as closely as they could. Mr. Benitez reiterated that the CDP is conceptual and not an engineered drawing. In his view, the CDP concepts are represented in this SDP and they are complying with the CDP as much as possible. The Board briefly discussed the difference between comprehensive and conceptual design plans. Regarding the CDP’s level of specificity, Mr. Benitez responded that the CDP contained some concepts that were not well thought through. Mr. Meinert read the definition of a CDP to the Board, describing it as a plan that sets the conceptual development pattern for the site. The approval establishes the general location, distribution and size of dwelling units or other buildings and a staging schedule for the development of the property. He stated that the CDP is intended to be a guideline for preparation of future site plans.
Vice-Chairman Terry Nuriddin asked about the relationship of the office buildings to the Melford House and the grade changes discussed on page 81 of the CDP. Mr. Benitez explained how the elevation of the Melford House is higher than all other portions of Pod 1; persons coming from adjacent buildings would have to climb stairs to get to it. The approach MIE is taking is that the entire setting should be used as a transitional area. Mr. Devon Leary described the buffering around Melford. The plan includes canopy trees, evergreen trees and shrubs arranged in a naturalistic pattern. He further discussed pedestrian access to the Melford House.
Mr. Mitch Neitzey asked the developer if he met the conditions for adaptive reuse, which was a requirement of Preliminary Plan approval. Mr. Benitez replied that they are choosing not to comply with it at this time. Their plan does contemplate restoration and adaptive re-use in the future. Mr. Meinert confirmed that the City has not received plans for an adaptive re-use.
Chairman John S. Cooper, Sr. asked who owns the cemetery. Mr. Benitez responded that the cemetery is in foreclosure for tax sale. MIE Properties, or one of its affiliates, owns the remainder of Pod 1. The overall park is owned and managed by MIE or one of its entities. The Chairman was worried that if MIE is not the owner, how will commitments made during the hearing process be enforced? He added that the CDP presumes a village center will be created; this plan does not show this design. Chairman Cooper again asked about ownership. City Attorney Elissa Levan replied that the County’s tax records show ownership information, but the real issue is what is MIE’s relationship to the limited liability corporations (LLCs) that have been created in this project. She stated that this is currently a matter of litigation and there is some question about MIE’s ability to bind the other entities by their decisions.
Staff Presentation
Mr. Joe Meinert, Planning Director, presented the staff report to the Board. Mr. Meinert described the purpose of a Comprehensive Design Plan (CDP) and gave some of the background of the approved CDP. He noted that the SDP appears to meet three of the four criteria for approval. The remaining criterion relates to conformance with the CDP, and it is staff’s opinion that the SDP does not meet this requirement. He stated that the approved CDP established Pod 1 as the Core Area for the project, which was intended to have a high level of amenities, a mixture of uses, and an integrated environment, including retail uses and a hotel. Development was to be centered around the historic Melford Estate and cemetery, with buildings surrounding these features being held to a high degree of architectural compatibility. Mr. Meinert also referenced the emphasis in the CDP for a well-designed pedestrian axis through Pod 1, connecting Melford to the stormwater management lake. He concluded by stating that the biggest disagreement with the developer’s proposal is regarding treatment of Melford. Mr. Meinert indicated that, according to the CDP, Melford was to be the centerpiece for the development that would be well integrated into the adjacent building sites. The proposed SDP does just the opposite.
Mr. Meinert commented that the County’s Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) met recently on this plan and had many of the same concerns that City staff had regarding the proposed SDP. He said that the plan might be looked at as a starting point to work with, but needed more refinement before it could be considered in compliance with the approved CDP. The other alternative would be to amend the current CDP and specify a different development concept for Pod 1.
Mr. Ty Troyer asked about the status of development on Pod 3 and if hotel uses were included in Pod 3. Mr. Meinert replied that Pod 3 was cleared and graded about two years ago. There is an approved SDP for two, 4-story office buildings. The buildings are the same type of office product submitted in this application for the area west of the Melford House. Mr. Meinert replied that the applicant stated they are now proposing a hotel use on Block 2, Lot 1. The approved CDP does not allow a hotel in Pod 2 and would have to be amended to provide for this. He also observed that the hotel use is specifically designated for Pod 1 in the approved CDP, and the large building was intended to be built outside of the Impact Review Area, on the downhill side of the property adjacent to the lake, using the same design technique as MIE Properties is using for their 4-story office building in this SDP.
Public Hearing
Mr. Bruce Pletsch of 16520 Abbey Drive, President of the Sherwood Manor Civic Association, stated that his association wants the development to conform to the approved concept. He read a written statement into the record concerning the historic Melford House and concluded by stating that he would like to see Melford and its viewshed protected. The community does not want to lose it to economic infeasibility.
BAPB Discussion
Mr. Mitch Neitzey stated that the CDP is a 25-year old plan that might not be relevant to today’s economics of office park development. However, he believes the writers of the CDP were very forward thinking, as mixed-use development improves the value of properties; the Urban Land Institute has done studies to prove this. He concluded that the subject proposal for Pod 1 results in a “sea of asphalt” and utilitarian buildings that do not conform to the CDP. He believes that the CDP should be adhered to in terms of both the spirit and the letter. He felt that these aspects should be addressed now, even though Melford and the cemetery appeared to be in the developer’s way.
Mr. Terry Rogers stated that the developer would not be doing the citizens of Bowie a service by deviating from what was proposed to them in the CDP. Residents of the City have had different expectations from those being presented now.
Mr. Ty Troyer noted that, despite the fact that CDPs and long-range plans have come under attack over the years, some projects with approved concept plans, such as Bowie Town Center, prevailed. He agreed with the staff’s analysis and conclusions regarding the proposed SDP for Pod 1.
Vice-Chairman Terry Nuriddin agreed with other Board members. Chairman John S. Cooper, Sr. also concurred, adding that he was concerned with the ownership issue. He also stated that the view and intent of the CDP and the CDP text regarding development in the Core Area were very clear.
BAPB MOTION:
Mr. Ty Troyer moved to accept the staff recommendation of DISAPPROVAL for Specific Design Plan #0310. The motion was seconded by Mr. Mitch Neitzey and passed unanimously.
MEMORANDUM
To: City Council
From:
David J. Deutsch, City Manager
Subject : Specific Design Plan #0310
Maryland Science and Technology Center, Pod 1
Date: October 1, 2003
______________________________________________________________________________
I. General Information
Owner: MIE Properties, Inc.
Proposal:
300,980 square feet of office space, including:
Lot 1: 150,000 square foot, four-story office building;
Lot 2: 18,000 square foot one-story office building;
Lot 3: 60,000 square foot, two-story office building;
Lot 4: 50,000 square foot, two-story office building; and
Lot 5: 22,980 square foot, one-story office building.
Location: Melford Boulevard in the northeast quadrant of US Routes 50/301 and Maryland Route 3 (see Attachment #1)
Acreage:
466 acres (overall site)
Lot 1 - 7.98 acres
Lot 2 - 3.01acres
Lot 3 - 4.82 acres
Lot 4 - 5.97 acres
Lot 5 – 3.00 acres
TOTAL - 24.78 acres in current proposal
Existing Zoning: E-I-A (Employment and Institutional Area)
Existing Land Use: Vacant
Surrounding
Land Uses and Zoning:
North: Stormwater management pond, a 30,450 square foot office building and
va-cant land in Pod 2 in the E-I-A Zone. Sherwood Manor single-family de-tached
subdivision, zoned R-A (Residential Agriculture)
South: Pod 4 – US Census Bureau building, vacant land and 205,800 square
feet of flex space, zoned E-I-A. US 50/301 and vacant land, zoned O-S (Open
Space) and V-L (Village Low Density)
East: Pod 5, undeveloped land in the E-I-A Zone. Patuxent River/Anne Arundel
County
West: Pod 3 vacant cleared land in the E-I-A Zone. MD 3/Belair Drive interchange
and vacant land, zoned R-R (Rural Residential)
Master Plan Land Use Category: Employment
Master Plan Living Area: Employment Area 3
Sectional Map Amendment: Retained in E-I-A Zone
Water and Sewer Categories: W-3 and S-3 (Public service available to the site)
Police: District II, Bowie Substation
Fire Engine and Ambulance Service: Station #39 (Bowie, MD Route 450)
Ladder Truck Service: Station #18 (Glenn Dale Boulevard)
Medic Service: Station #43 (Pointer Ridge, US Route 301)
II. Background Information
The Comprehensive Design Plan (CDP 8601) for this project was approved by the Dis-trict Council on July 7, 1986, setting the land uses and development intensities for the site, in-cluding a maximum of 1.95 million square feet of development in Phase 1 and a total of up to 6.4 million square feet of high tech office and employment uses on the overall 466 acres (see At-tachment #2). A significant amount of site infrastructure, including a sewage pumping station, streets and storm drainage improvements was provided by the public sector, anticipating devel-opment by the private sector.
A summary of development activity is provided below:
Plan Approvals:
Rezoning to E-I-A zone approved, 1982. Comprehensive Design Plan approved,
1986. Preliminary Subdivision Plan for 1.95 million sq. ft. re-approved, 1999.
2002 - Specific Design Plans for: 300,000 sq. ft. in two (2) four-story office
buildings, 30,450 sq. ft. in a single-story office building, four (4) single-story
of-fice-flex buildings approved; 83,000 sq. ft. of office-flex space in three
(3) single-story buildings; and, Phase II grading and storm water management
improvements approved.
Preliminary Plan to create three (3) parcels in Phase II and Spe-cific Design
Plan for Infrastructure involving Lots 2-3, Block 2 and Lot 4, Block 4 approved
by County Planning Board on Feb-ruary 6, 2003.
Completed:
117,000 sq. ft. Supercomputing Research Center
130,000 sq. ft. U.S. Census Bureau Computing Facility
30,450 sq. ft. one-story office building
122,800 sq. ft. in four (4) single-story office-flex buildings
Under Construction: 83,000 square feet in three (3) single-story office-flex
buildings
III. Stakeholders Meeting
A Stakeholders Meeting was held for this project on September 4th. A summary of this meeting is included as Attachment #3.
IV. Architectural Review Committee
Condition #22 of the CDP approval stipulates that an architectural committee shall be established prior to SDP approval and shall include one (1) designee by the City of Bowie. The Architectural Review Committee (ARC) has not met on the proposed application.
V. Criteria for Specific Design Plan Approval
The Zoning Ordinance, in Section 27-480, states that the dimensions for yards, building lines, lot area, lot frontage, lot coverage, and building height shown on an approved Specific De-sign Plan shall constitute the development regulations applicable to the development of the land area addressed by that particular Specific Design Plan. Regulations for development in the E-I-A Zone are found in Section 27-501 of the Zoning Ordinance.
According to Section 27-528 of the Prince George’s County Zoning Ordinance, the Plan-ning Board must make the following findings prior to approval of a SDP:
(1) the plan conforms to the approved CDP and applicable standards of the Land-scape Manual;
(2) the development will be adequately served within a reasonable time period by existing or programmed public facilities;
(3) adequate provisions have been made for draining surface water so there are no adverse effects on the subject property or adjacent properties; and,
(4) the SDP is in conformance with an approved Tree Conservation Plan (TCP).
VI. Proposal Overview
The proposed SDP includes over 300,000 square feet of office space in five (5) buildings located throughout Pod 1 (see Attachment #4). Neither the historic Melford House or the private cemetery adjacent to the existing stormwater management lake are included in this application. Each office building is surrounded by parking spaces. A total of 1,473 standard size parking spaces (9.5’ x 19’) are proposed, including 40 handicap parking spaces. An interior street, run-ning roughly north-south, connects to the public roads bordering Pod 1 on the south and east. Two additional driveway access points are proposed along Melford Boulevard; one additional driveway is proposed on Curie Drive. The proposed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) ranges from 0.10 FAR on Lot 4 to 0.29 FAR on Lot 3.
Building elevations have been provided for all sides of each building type. The design and architectural theme includes elements found elsewhere in the MIE Properties’ concept plan for Phase I of the overall MSTC development. The 4-story office building (Building A), located on Lot 1 west of the Melford House, is situated on an angle to afford views to the stormwater management lake and to take advantage of the visibility from traffic entering the development on Melford Boulevard. This building is the same architecture previously approved for two buildings on Pod 3. Building E on Lot 5 is similar in size and scale to the existing one-story office build-ing located across the pond on Parcel 2F. A similar, but smaller, building (Building B) is pro-posed on Lot 2 between the Melford House and Melford Boulevard. The City approved this building type in previous applications. A new product, a two-level office building, architectur-ally similar to the one-story building, but designed to follow the contours of the land, is proposed at two locations immediately north and east of the Melford House.
The site will be heavily landscaped, with a wide variety of native trees and shrubs (see Attachment #5). The plan uses approximately 99% native plant species. Landscape Manual re-quirements for Parking Lot Landscape Strip, Interior Planting and Perimeter Landscaping will be met or exceeded by the Landscape Plan (see Attachment #6). The open space on Pod 1 has been designed to provide visual connectivity between the Melford House and the cemetery by using green space and bioretention areas between Buildings A and D. The design scheme also pro-poses viewshed preservation by siting the largest building at a much lower grade than the Mel-ford historic site and further addressing building mass compatibility by construction of one-story building elevations north, south and east of Melford.
VII. Analysis of Request
A. General Items
1. Landscape Plan
COMMENT: Based on the landscaping calculations submitted, staff concurs that the pro-posed SDP will conform to the provisions of the County’s Landscape Manual. In addition, the proposal satisfies the City’s minimum requirement of at least 50% native plant species in new commercial developments.
Street trees have not been provided along Melford Boulevard or Curie Drive. As the City’s standard for commercial/industrial collector streets includes street trees, it is recom-mended that these trees be provided as a condition of the City’s issuance of driveway per-mits.
The CDP text discusses landscaping treatment of principal roadways and frontages with the goal of ensuring visual continuity throughout the project (pages 58-62). To maintain this character, median plantings are recommended along principal roadways, with trees set back at parcel entrances. (This planting is also illustrated on the Landscape Concept Plan which is part of the CDP.) Native trees acceptable to the City’s Department of Public Works should be planted in the median in accordance with City specifications.
2. Lighting
General Note #16 states that the parking lot lighting shall be designed so as not to cause glare onto adjacent residential properties or public streets and will include the use of full cut off fixtures and timing devices to turn off unneeded lighting.
COMMENT: The location, fixture details and pole height of the proposed lighting must be included in the SDP. Staff believes that the existing CDP standard for pole height is not consistent with the type of site lighting typically found in office parks. For example, a height of 25’ was used in Bowie Gateway Center. The same height has been used elsewhere in the MSTC. The required information should be provided prior to SDP approval.
3. Signage
The City previously approved an SDP for signage. That application is awaiting review and approval by the County Planning Board.
B. Specific Design Plan Approval Criteria
1. Conformance with Approved CDP and Landscape Manual
A finding regarding conformance with the Landscape Manual was made in Section A above. Staff has numerous concerns, however, regarding the SDP’s conformance with the ap-proved CDP.
Pod 1 is established as the Core Area of the project in the approved CDP (see CDP narra-tive description – Attachment 7). The proposed plan does not create the type of environment envisioned for the Core Area in the CDP. There is no mixture of uses, the building types and design do not reflect a compatibility with the historic Melford House, and the plan contains less than half the floor area anticipated by the CDP for Pod 1. (The proposed Floor Area Ratio, or FAR, is 0.27; the approved CDP Floor Area Ratio ranges from 0.56 FAR to 0.83 FAR.) The high level of amenities described in the CDP for Pod 1 has not been shown on the SDP or other-wise described. In addition, the plan contains an overabundance of parking spaces, 83% more than what is required by the Zoning Ordinance.
Condition #18 of the CDP approval required the establishment of an Impact Review Area around the Melford House to ensure that a high level of compatible design is achieved. Condi-tion #19 of the CDP specifically addressed development in Pod 1 and its relationship to the Mel-ford historic site:
To ensure that the design concepts, scale and setbacks are consistent with protecting Melford and its environmental setting, Specific Design Plan (Phase III) submissions should include detailed elevation drawings and cross-sectional views of the surrounding development.
While elevations have been provided, cross-sectional views have not been submitted. The appli-cant did submit a bird’s eye simulation of Pod 1 development, however.
Several conditions of the approved subdivision plan for Pod 1, Preliminary Plan #4-98076, also addressed the preservation of Melford and its incorporation into the overall plan for development. Three of the relevant conditions are noted below:
14. To ensure that the design concepts, scale and setbacks of development are consistent with protecting views between Melford and the cemetery, Specific Design Plan submis-sions in the impact review area shall include detailed elevation drawings and cross-sectional views between these historic features.
15. Coincident with the submission of the first Specific Design Plan application for devel-opment within Parcels 1B through F, a Restoration and Adaptive Reuse Plan for the Melford House Historic Site shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Board or its designee with advice from the Historic Preservation Commission.
16. Coincident with the submission of the first Specific Design Plan application for devel-opment within Parcels 1B through F, a plan for the overall protection and maintenance of the cemetery shall be submitted, in accordance with the Subdivision Regulations for cemeteries (Section 24-135.2).
The purpose of these conditions is to ascertain information that would be necessary in making an informed judgment regarding future SDP proposals and their compatibility with the historic resources present on the property. MIE Properties prepared a study and plan for the con-tinued preservation of the Melford structure. There is no specific adaptive reuse proposed, how-ever. Mr. Benitez stated at the Stakeholders Meeting on September 4th that there are currently no plans to re-use the Melford House. Without integrating the Melford historic site and cemetery into the development proposal for Pod 1, staff cannot find that SDP #0310 conforms with the CDP.
The approved CDP also includes an Open Space Plan that shows a major pedestrian axis through Pod 1 connecting Melford Boulevard to the lake via the Melford historic site. The pro-posed SDP does not illustrate a connection to the lake or any special treatment of this important pedestrian axis. Special treatment, such as demarcation of crosswalks, was used in the SDP for the office development on Pod 3. In addition, the SDP does not make provisions for drop-off and visitor parking zones near building entrances, as recommended by the CDP. Also, loading spaces for the office buildings have not been indicated on the plan, as required by the Zoning Ordinance and CDP.
2. Public Facilities
Criterion #2 for SDP approval involves the timing of public facilities. Water and sewer service is currently available from the City for up to 200,000 gallons per day of water and 170,000 gallons per day of sewer without any major improvements to the City’s treatment plants or delivery systems. The City’s engineers have further determined that there is sufficient plant capacity at both the water and sewer treatment plants to accommodate all of the development approved in the CDP for Phase 1. In accordance with an agreement with the WSSC and per the terms of the Annexation Agreement, the City will provide ultimate water service to the property, while WSSC will ultimately be responsible for sewer service. Several projects planned to serve the MSTC are currently programmed in the WSSC CIP.
Pursuant to the County’s re-approval of the Preliminary Plan of subdivision for Phase 1, the road network has been determined adequate to support up to 1.95 million square feet of de-velopment. Substantial road improvements have already been made to serve the MSTC project, including on-site roads and new interchanges at Routes 50/301 and Route 3/Belair Drive. Per the Preliminary Plan approval, County police facilities will be adequate to serve Phase 1 of the MSTC.
During subdivision review, MNCPPC found that engine, ladder truck and ambulance services to the site were beyond the response time guidelines. The Bowie New Town Fire Sta-tion, programmed in Year 5 of the County’s approved Capital Improvement Program, will re-solve any deficiencies related to fire and rescue facilities. In addition, automatic fire suppression sprinklers are required for each building per the County Code.
Based on the above, staff finds that the development will be adequately served within a reasonable time period by existing or programmed public facilities.
3. Drainage
A Stormwater Management Concept Plan was reapproved for Phase 1 in November, 1998. All of properties involved in this application are served by the regional stormwater man-agement system consisting of the Upper and Lower Ponds. These ponds provide water quantity control and, to some extent, water quality control. Several conditions of CDP relate to drainage requirements.
Condition 11 requires on-site infiltration of the first one-inch of runoff. Condition 12 requires the applicant to ensure that stormwater management will be constructed concurrent with development. The City Engineer has issued letters giving conceptual approval for water quality for each site in the MIE Properties proposal. Approval of the Detailed Stormwater Management Plan by the City will be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Therefore, the City will ensure that stormwater management will be provided concurrent with development. Based on these factors, staff finds that adequate provisions have been made for draining surface water so that there are no adverse effects on the subject property or adjacent property.
4. Woodland Conservation Plan
A Tree Conservation Plan (TCP) (Type II) was approved for the overall site on 10/30/00. However, the plan contains notes which require the limits of clearing to be reexamined upon re-view of each SDP. Pursuant to the Woodland Conservation Ordinance, 52.54 acres of woodland conservation are required for the 466 acre property. The TCP indicates that, at this time, 140.28 acres of existing woodlands on-site are being preserved, well above their obligation. While some of this woodland will likely be cleared during construction in Phase 2, the developer is still pro-viding over 168 acres of covenanted open space within the overall project, with an additional 74 acres to be dedicated to MNCPPC and 16 acres to be dedicated to the City. A total of 68 acres are restricted on development sites.
The policy goals of the County’s Woodland Conservation law include arresting the unnecessary destruction of woodlands and specimen trees and reducing the loss of irreplaceable woodland habitat and the wildlife communities occupying these areas. Through the approval of the Tree Conservation Plan by the County Planning Board, the County seeks to conserve and pro-tect trees, woodlands and wildlife habitat by requiring site planning techniques and construction practices which prevent adverse effects on land, trees and forests. MNCPPC uses Conservation Evaluation Areas illustrating greenway corridors of contiguous forested areas to determine pres-ervation priorities.
Similarly, the Development Review Guidelines promote wildlife habitat conservation in site planning. The Forest Stand Delineation and Tree Conservation Plan prepared for the prop-erty document the natural conditions of the site, location of specimen trees and other information recommended by the Guidelines. Preservation of the Open Space network illustrated on the CDP, including a large amount of acreage adjacent to the Patuxent River, will accomplish many of the City’s environmental objectives.
The applicant has been working with staff to find ways to enhance wildlife habitat on the overall site. The applicant has conducted an environmental inventory assessment and is in the process of preparing a proposal for wildlife enhancement at the UMSTC. One of the concepts currently under discussion involves creation of a habitat enhancement area using the site’s stormwater management ponds.
Because the location of development in Pod 1 is consistent with the CDP’s Building, Parking and Open Space Envelopes, staff concludes that the clearing proposed in this SDP is in conformance with an approved Tree Conservation Plan. This satisfies SDP Criterion #4.
C. Compliance with the E-I-A Zone and City Covenants/Annexation Agreement
Staff finds the proposed SDP application complies with the purposes and regulations of the E-I-A zone. Section 27-515 (b) Table of Uses permits “General Offices”. The proposal for office uses complies with the City’s Annexation Agreement and Covenants.
VIII. Recommendation
Because staff finds the SDP application for Pod 1 meets several, but not all, of the crite-ria for SDP approval contained in Section 27-528 of the Zoning Ordinance, staff recommends DISAPPROVAL of SDP #0310.