Staff Report Blank

LAND USE PETITION IN THE BOWIE PLANNING AREA
Md.-National Capital Park and Planning Commission ID:
Specific Design Plan #SDP-0313
Bowie Advisory Planning Board # 03-29 Date: October 30, 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: Buchanan Acquisitions, LLC
3. Represented by: Bill Shipp, Fossett and Brugger
4. Location of Petitioned Property: Parcels J and K, Bowie Town Center
5. Proposed use of Petitioned Property: 2 office buildings & a bank
6. Size/Zone of Petitioned Property: 8.2 acres/zoned M-A-C (Major Activity Center)
7. Date of hearing before BAPB: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 at 7:00 p.m.
8. Date of hearing before City Council: Monday, November 3, 2003 at 8:00 p.m.
9. Date of hearing before M-NCPPC: N/A
10. Date of hearing before Hearing Examiner: N/A
11. Date of hearing before District Council: N/A

NOTICES/LEGALS DATE Number of Mailings/Signs
Notice sent to Adj. Properties: 10/03/03 201
Notice sent to Parties of Record n/a
Date Signs Posted: 10/02/03 1
Date Legal Sent: 10/02/03
Date Legal Appeared: 10/09/03

RECOMMENDATIONS:
12. Department of Planning & Economic Development Recommendation:
The Department of Planning & Economic Development staff recommends APPROVAL with conditions as stated in the attached report.

13. Bowie Advisory Planning Board Recommendation:
The Bowie Advisory Planning Board recommends APPROVAL with conditions as stated in the attached report.

MEMORANDUM

TO: City Council

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

SUBJECT: Specific Design Plan #SDP-0313
Buchanan Acquisitions, LLC
Parcels J and K, Bowie Town Center
MD Route 197

DATE: October 30, 2003
___________________________________________________________________________

The Bowie Advisory Planning Board (BAPB) met on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 to review an application for a Specific Design Plan #0313 for the purpose of constructing: a 5-story/132,250 sq. ft. office building; a 1-story/7,200± sq. ft. office building; and, a 3,200± sq. ft. bank on Parcels J and K in the Bowie Town Center. The applicant in this case is Buchanan Acquisitions, LLC. The subject site, which is located on the north side of MD Route 197 directly opposite the retail area of the Town Center developed by The Simon Property Group, contains 8.15 acres and is zoned M-A-C (Major Activity Center), where the proposed uses are permitted by right under the Prince George’s County Zoning Ordinance.

Presentations
Mr. Bill Shipp, an attorney with Fossett and Brugger, and several representatives of applicant/developer were in attendance. Mr. Shipp oriented the Board to the location of the site, noting that it is one of the last office parcels designated in the Bowie Town Center (BTC) Comprehensive Design Plan (CDP) to be developed. The subject application is for a Specific Design Plan (SDP), which is the last phase in the review of a project in a Comprehensive Design Zone (CDZ).

Mr. Shipp introduced Mr. Steve Hubert, a principal in the Buchanan Partners firm. Mr. Hubert noted that the site contains approximately 8.1 acres and described the topographic conditions and challenges in developing the property. Mr. Hubert turned to reviewing the SDP with the Board, stating that three buildings are proposed on the property. Building #1, proposed in the center of the site, is a multi-story office building containing approximately 132,000 sq. ft. that appears as a 5-story structure when entering the site from MD Route 197, and a 4-story building when looking at it from the rear (north). Up to 25% of the building is envisioned for medical office uses. Exterior building finishes include type colors of brick, a stone base, glass, and an exterior finishing system (EIFS). Four building-mounted signs are proposed on the front (southern) elevation of Building #1. Building #2 is located in the southwestern area of the property, and is proposed as a 1-story office building, which is envisioned to be constructed with similar materials, color tones and cornice feature proposed on Building #1. No elevations have been submitted for the bank (Building #3); they will be provided when a limited SDP for that structure is submitted. Mr. Hubert concluded his remarks by noting that the two retaining walls at the site entrance off MD Route 197 will be constructed of the same stone material used on the base of the office building.

The applicant’s presentation returned to Mr. Shipp, who stated that the site is being developed with the intent of compatible uses sited on the subject property, and uses that are consistent with the BTC CDP. He noted that the developer is in the process of seeking major tenants for the main office building. Mr. Shipp mentioned that the developer had approached the City to swap small portions of Parcel J and Parcel I (City-owned), and that the City Council had given its concurrence to the concept of a land exchange. The land swap would permit an improved site design for the area where Building #3 is proposed, while increasing the MD Route 197 frontage of Parcel I. Lastly, Mr. Shipp reviewed the land uses on adjacent parcels, and noted that landscaping is proposed along the boundaries with the residential uses to the north (Ensleigh) and east (The Vistas).

Mr. Shipp turned to the staff report, mentioned that he and the development team met with City staff earlier in the day, and agreed on amended conditions to the staff report. (The amended conditions are included below in this report.)

In concluding his presentation, Mr. Shipp noted that a Departure from Parking Space Standards (BD-05-03) has been submitted, and is scheduled to be heard as the next case on the Board’s agenda.

Mr. Frank Stevens of the City Planning staff addressed the Board, stating that Mr. Shipp had accurately and succinctly reviewed the amended conditions to the staff report, and that the applicant and City were in agreement with the conditions as amended. He then opened the discussion up for questions from the Board.

Questions by BAPB Members
Questions by BAPB members centered on the following:

· Please clarify site access and vehicular circulation. (Mr. Shipp responded by stating that one vehicular entrance is proposed into the site from MD Route 197. There is no second entrance; however, an emergency vehicle access is proposed in the western portion of the site. Mr. Shipp described how on-site vehicle circulation is proposed.)

· Is the large office building a full spec building? (Mr. Hubert noted that the building is a 100% spec office building. The developer is talking to banks to locate in the building, and hopes to have some leases prior to the start of construction.)

· Please describe the proposed stormwater drainage system. (Mr. Hubert noted that stormwater is collected in pipes and is conveyed to the southern portion of the property, where enters existing storm drain pipes under MD Route 197 and is transported to the Bowie Town Center regional stormwater management pond. Mr. Shipp also stated that the Stormwater Management Concept Plan has been approved by the City.)

· Please clarify the signage proposed on the entry retaining walls. (Mr. Shipp stated that the concept for signage on these walls is to identify the name of the project {Bowie Corporate Center}, and will not include the names of individual tenants in the development.)

· Are any Stop signs or traffic calming techniques proposed on the site? (Mr. Shipp indicated that Stop signs and other internal traffic control signage, that is architecturally compatible with the buildings, could be added to the project. Mr. Hubert noted that signage and pavement markings indicating a one-way traffic flow are proposed along the eastern side of Building #1.)

· How are APF (Adequate Public Facilities) issues addressed with this project? (Mr. Shipp responded that no additional traffic studies are required to be provided at the SDP stage of the project. Traffic issues were reviewed at the time the Bowie Town Center preliminary subdivision plan was reviewed. However, since the existing traffic signal at the site entrance will have to be improved and adjusted, the State Highway Administration will want to review site exit movements. Mr. Stevens stated that paramedic response time is met, while ambulance service response time is not met, under County regulations. Since the Town Center emergency facility is in Year 4 of the County Capital Improvement Program {CIP}, adequacy can be determined in applying the APF test. With respect to fire services, all buildings will be required to be sprinklered.)

· Where is the cemetery located? (Mr. Stevens stated that the grave of Major Lansdale is located on Parcel I, the City-owned property to the east of the subject site.)

· Why is no off-site tree mitigation proposed for Parcel I? (Mr. Stevens responded that the proposed development requires more than three acres of off-site tree mitigation and that the developer has agreed to work the City staff to find a City-owned property, if feasible, to install entire requirement in one location. Parcel I is only two acres in area and the City has plans to construct a passive park and trails, which will involve site clearing and grading. After the City project is completed, there is not much area remaining for tree mitigation on Parcel I.)

Citizen Participation
Mr. Ron Peake, of 15742 Ensleigh Lane, spoke during the public hearing, raising the following points:

1. While he was pleased that the developer was willing to work with the adjacent residential communities for any additional landscaping that may be necessary, he was concerned that, should there be disagreement between the developer and residents regarding this landscape scheme, the City would be the final arbiter. (This issue is addressed in a Memorandum of Understanding {MOU} that is being prepared between the City and the developer.)

2. Necessary steps should be taken so the slopes on the sides of the property abutting the residential uses do not erode. (Condition 6.D. addresses this issue.)

3. While there is concern with taller light poles in the northern parking lot, the intent that there is no light spillage along the residential property lines is acceptable. (Condition 7.B. addresses this issue.)

In summary, Mr. Peake stated that he is pleased that office buildings are being located on the site, and that the total building square footage of the buildings proposed is less than what is permitted on the Town Center CDP, resulting in a less intense development.

Applicant’s Rebuttal
Mr. Shipp noted the following points:

1. Less drainage will be going to the northeastern area of the site after development, since the applicant is proposing to direct all stormwater toward MD Route 197.

2. Mr. Peake’s suggestion regarding including the City as an arbiter in the landscaping issue will be included in the MOU.

3. The idea of a land swap was initiated by the developer. Issues related to this are being addressed in the MOU.

4. The developer is agreeable to work to install additional landscaping on the adjacent residential properties, although he will not get any off-site tree mitigation credits for any planted areas.

5. The developer is working with the County to have the fee-in-lieu for recreational amenities applied toward the construction of trails in the vicinity of the subject property.

BAPB Discussion
Vice Chairman Terry Nuriddin noted that she is concerned about the emergency access, the EMS facility being in Year 4 of the County’s CIP and on-site traffic circulation.

BAPB Motion
Vice Chairman Terry Nuriddin moved for APPROVAL of Specific Design Plan #0313 for the construction of: a 5-story/132,250 sq. ft. office building; a 1-story/7,200± sq. ft. office building; and, a 3,200± sq. ft. bank on Parcels J and K in the Bowie Town Center, in accordance with the amended staff conditions (see below). Her motion was seconded by Mr. Terry Rogers and passed unanimously, 5-0.
______________________________________________________________________________

Amended Conditions
Specific Design Plan #SDP-0313

1. If the office building use proposed for Building 2 is changed to a bank, the Lot and building shall be subject to the review and approval of a Limited SDP for signage, landscaping, lighting, and building architecture. If the building location and/or footprint substantially change, they shall be also be shown on the Limited SDP, along with the parking and vehicular circulation layout.

2. The bank proposed as Building 3 shall be subject to a Limited SDP submission, review, and approval for signage, landscaping, lighting, and building architecture. If the building location and/or footprint substantially change, they shall be also be shown on the Limited SDP.

3. Parking.
A. Four additional handicap parking spaces, for a total of nine, shall be provided for the building on Lot 1. These nine spaces shall be more evenly distributed between the front and rear building entrances.

B. The handicap parking spaces on Lot 2 shall be relocated to be centrally located in front of the building.

C. The two handicap parking spaces proposed on Lot 3 shall be aligned directly opposite the building entrance. To call attention to the crossing area between these spaces and the bank entrance, a pavement-painted crosswalk shall be provided in the travel aisle.

D. The square footage in Building 1 devoted to medical office space shall be limited to a maximum of 32,250 sq. ft. If medical office space is contemplated for Building 2, it shall be limited to a maximum of 2,600 sq. ft.

4. Loading Areas.
A. One additional loading space shall be provided on the site to serve the building proposed on Lot 2 and shall be located in the area where a group of four parking spaces is proposed on the western side of the building. This loading space shall be screened with native landscaping in accordance with the provisions of the Landscape Manual.

B. Native landscaping shall be provided along outside of the rear and side of the loading area on the western side of the building on Lot 1 and shown on the Landscape Plan. A detail of the retaining wall for this area shall be provided on the plans. If any portion of this wall is exposed to public view, it shall be finished of the color and style of brick used on the Lot 1 office building.

5. Circulation and Access.
A. Directional signage and pavement identification shall be provided on the site plan.

B. Four-foot wide sidewalk extensions shall be constructed in the following locations:

i. Through the island located in the southwestern corner of Building 1, heading to the south and through the island in the adjacent parking field.

ii. Through the island in the northwestern corner of Building 2, heading to the west.

iii. Through the island in the southwestern corner of Building 2, heading to the west and south.

iv. Through the island in the southeastern corner of Building 2, heading to the south and east.

C. A sidewalk extension and pedestrian crosswalk shall be provided to the northwestern corner of the bank building proposed on Lot 3. The crosswalk shall be identified by either brick pavers or stamped colored asphalt.

D. A pedestrian crossing shall be provided at the throat of the site access, connecting the two sidewalks proposed parallel to the site main driveway. This crossing shall be either brick pavers or stamped colored asphalt.

E. The on-site pedestrian crosswalks shall be identified by either brick pavers or stamped colored asphalt in the following locations: south of Building 1 (through the abutting parking lot), and north of Building 1 (through the abutting driveway aisle).

F. The width of the sidewalk along each side of the main vehicular driveway into and out of the site and the sidewalk leading to the west shall be increased to six feet. Native species shade trees shall also be planted along these sidewalks along each side of the main vehicular driveway to create a tree-lined vehicular entry/exit.

G. Depressed ramps shall be provided in all locations where the sidewalks meet driveway aisles in the parking lot.

6. Landscaping.
A. Approximately 80% of the plant species shall be native material.

B. Berberis thunbergii atropurpurea and Spiraea x bumalda shall be deleted from the Landscape Plan and replaced with native plant species, which may include: Itea virginica ‘Henrys Garnet’ and Ilex verticillata winterberry holly.

C. A minimum of four Red Maple trees or an equitable substitute, each a minimum of three inches in caliper at the time of planting, shall be installed along the retaining walls on each side of the main access driveway. A minimum of three native species of ornamental tree, each a minimum of three inches in caliper at the time of planting, as well as a native ground cover and/or native ornamental grasses, shall installed in the median in the site access driveway. The applicant shall work with the City to determine mutually agreeable natives for the plantings in this area.

D. A native ground cover or native ornamental grasses shall be planted in the area between the edge of the northeastern parking lot and the site property line with Parcel C (The Vistas) to serve as a vegetative slope stabilization mechanism. The applicant shall work with the City to determine mutually agreeable native species to plant in this area.

E. Leyland Cypress, American Holly, or another type of native landscape screening material shall be planted between the eastern side of the parking area and Parcel C, and between the northeastern side of the parking area and Parcel A (Ensleigh).

7. Lighting.
A. A Lighting Plan shall be submitted for review two weeks prior to the County Planning Board hearing.

B. The total height of parking lot light poles and bases north of the building proposed on Lot 1 shall not exceed a maximum height of 16 feet, or the applicant shall demonstrate that a lighting level of zero foot-candles will exist along all residential property lines. The combined height of the parking lot light poles and bases shall not exceed 25 feet throughout the remainder of the subject property. A detail of the parking lot lighting poles, fixtures,, and intensity and areas of illumination shall be provided on the SDP plans. A note shall be placed on the SDP indicating the following: “All parking lot lighting shall consist of cut-off fixtures so as to minimize off-site glare, shall include timing devices to turn off unneeded lighting during times the parking lots are not in use and shall be down lit so as to not cast glare off-site.”

C. Pedestrian scale decorative lighting shall be provided adjacent to the northern and southern elevations of the office building proposed on Lot 1. A detail of the style and fixture shall be provided on the SDP plans.

D. Building-mounted, ornamental lighting shall be encouraged to be provided on all elevations. If provided, the lighting fixtures shall be architecturally compatible with the design of each building. The architectural elevations shall be revised to show the locations and styles of the light fixtures. All building-mounted ornamental lighting shall of a low wattage to reduce the potential for light dispersion and off-site glare.

8. Signage.
A. Details of all signage (building-mounted, wall-mounted and ground-mounted) shall be provided on the SDP plans and building elevation plans.

B. The pinned-on lettering proposed on the two retaining walls at the site entrance shall be illuminated to minimize light dispersion and off-site glare.

C. A maximum of four building-mounted signs shall be permitted on Building 1, which shall be located on the southern elevation. No signs shall be permitted in any of the windows in Building 1. No building-mounted signage shall be permitted on any other elevation of Building 1.

D. Building-mounted signage on Building 2 shall be confined to an envelope centered above the space each tenant is leasing. Building-mounted signage on Building 2 shall be restricted to only the southern (front) building elevation. No signage, including logos, shall be permitted on the awnings proposed on Building 2 or on the rear (northern) elevation.

E. No pylon or freestanding signs shall be permitted anywhere on the site. This shall not preclude ground-mounted signs.

F. No flags or banners shall be mounted, suspended or otherwise displayed from any building or be permitted on the site, except a standard size American flag. A note shall be provided on the SDP reflecting this condition.

G. The applicant shall not install any signage prior to the issuance of City sign permits.

9. Building Architecture.
A. The colors and textures of the stone masonry base, the red brick on the walls and the EIFS and equipment screen used on Buildings 1 and 2 shall match.

B. The color of all rear entry doors on Building 2 (if they are to remain) shall be painted match the color of the brick used on this elevation. Regardless of whether the rear doors remain or are deleted, a feature, such as lattice with vines, shall be installed along the entire northern elevation to break up an otherwise blank wall.

C. Utility meters on Building 2 shall be screened from view by lattice or mesh material, or another suitable material.

10. Trash Areas.
A. The exposed walls of the trash/loading area serving Building 1 shall be constructed of brick the same color and texture used on that particular building. The combined height of the screen walls shall be such that the tops of all delivery and trash vehicles are concealed.

B. The trash area serving Building 2 shall be increased in width to allow multiple trash bins for all building users and to provide room in the adjacent parking space to allow easy access in and out of a parked vehicle. The walls of this trash area shall be increased to a height of eight feet and shall be constructed of the same hard surface material used on Building 2. Gates to this area shall be wooden board-on-board, painted to match the color of the material used to construct the walls. A detail shall be provided on the SDP plan.

11. Woodland Conservation.
The applicant shall work with the City staff to determine a City-owned property as a receiving site for off-site tree mitigation, if feasible. This site shall be determined prior to the issuance of the first building permit.

12. Wildlife Guidelines.
A. The site shall be cleared in phases, beginning with the open areas in the western and southern portions of the property, and working in west-to-east/south-to-north directions.

B. Fencing, similar to silt fencing, shall be installed across the entire frontage of the subject parcels.

C. The applicant shall attempt to schedule site-clearing operations before March and after May.

MEMORANDUM

To: City Council

From: David J. Deutsch, City Manager

Subject: Specific Design Plan #SDP-0313
Buchanan Acquisitions, LLC
Parcels J and K, Bowie Town Center
MD Route 197

Date: October 30, 2003
____________________________________________________________________________

I. General Information

Applicant: Buchanan Acquisitions, LLC

Status of Ownership: Contract Purchaser

Subject: Specific Design Plan # SDP-0313

Project Name: Bowie Corporate Center

Location: MD Route 197 (Attachment 1)

Acreage: 8.15 acres (existing)
8.21 acres (proposed)

Existing Zoning: M-A-C (Major Activity Center)

Existing Land Use: Vacant

Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning:
North: Residential (Ensleigh); Zoned R-S (Residential Suburban)
South: Retail Commercial (Bowie Town Center); Zoned M-A-C
East: Residential (Vistas & Essington), & Vacant (Parcel I); Zoned M-A-C
West: Office; Zoned M-A-C

Master Plan Land Use Category: Office Commercial

Master Plan Living Area: Community I

Sectional Map Amendment: M-A-C (retained in 1975 Sectional Map Amendment)

Water and Sewer Categories: W-3 and S-3 (Public service available to the site)

Police: District II (Bowie Substation) – Service is adequate.

Fire Engine Service: Pointer Ridge Fire Station (Company #43)-- Minimum required response time of 3.25 minutes is inadequate, given a provided response time of 4.55 minutes.

Fire Truck Ladder Service: Annapolis Road Fire Station (Company #39) – Minimum required response time of 4.25 minutes is inadequate, given a provided response time of 5.25 minutes.

Medic Service: Pointer Ridge Fire Station (Company #43) – Minimum response time of 7.25 minutes is adequate, with a provided response time of 4.55 minutes.

Ambulance Service: Pointer Ridge Fire Station (Company #43) – Minimum required response time of 4.25 minutes is inadequate, given a provided response time of 4.55 minutes. The Bowie Town Center Station, which is programmed for construction in Year 4 of the County CIP and has been identified to house an ambulance, will resolve this inadequacy.

II. Background Information
To date, 150,000 sq. ft. of office space have been constructed in the entire Town Center development and 1,420 dwelling units have been completed. Approximately 681,100 sq. ft. of retail space have been opened; another 171,280 sq. ft. of commercial and hotel space are currently under construction, and 3,116 sq. ft. have been approved. Furthermore, 127 dwelling units are also under construction.

The City Council recommended approval of Specific Design Plans (SDPs) in the Bowie Town Center for: a non-fast food restaurant (Chipotle’s) in July 2003; a free-standing bank (Bank of America) in June 2003; a 4-story extended stay hotel (Marriott TownePlace Suites) in September 2002; a non-fast food restaurant (DuClaw) in August 2002; a retail/commercial development (The Shoppes at Bowie Town Center) in January 2002; a non-fast food restaurant (Longhorn Steakhouse) in August 2001; a retail/commercial electronics store (Best Buy) in June 2001, and two non-fast food restaurants (Pizzeria Uno, The Olive Garden) in February 2001.

The City Council recommended approval of a revision to the Town Center Comprehensive Design Plan (CDP) and a SDP for the main retail core area on Parcel 9 in November 1999. One month later, the County Planning Board approved these applications. The City approved a Departure from Design Standards (#BD-4-99) for smaller parking spaces and a lower parking ratio for the entire site.

The development under review is proposed on an 8.2-acre site that is the last undeveloped property in the Bowie Town Center (BTC) on the north side of MD Route 197 designated by the Town Center Comprehensive Design Plan (CDP) for an office use. Since the proposed use conforms to the BTC CDP, the proposal is only subject to SDP review and approval.

The proposed SDP is for a total of 142,650± sq. ft. of office space in three separate buildings. Lot areas and building square footages are broken down in Section VI. below. This report reviews the buildings proposed on Lots 1 and 2 the site; the bank proposed on Lot 3 will be subject to a Limited SDP submission, review and approval for signage, landscaping, lighting, and building architecture. If the building location and/or footprint substantially change, they shall also be shown on the Limited SDP. (If the office building use proposed on Lot 2 is changed to a bank, that Lot and building shall become the subject to the review and approval of a Limited SDP for signage, landscaping, lighting, parking and circulation and building architecture. If the building location and/or footprint substantially change, they shall also be shown on the Limited SDP.)

The applicant is proposing a minor lot line adjustment, which would reconfigure a portion of the common property line between Parcels J and K, and between Parcel J and I (owned by the City). The concept of the minor lot line adjustment between Parcels I and J, which has been approved by the City Council, would result in additional lot frontage for Parcel I, and increased area to accommodate the improvements proposed on Lot 3.

III. Stakeholders Meeting
Two Stakeholders Meetings for the Specific Design Plan for this project were held. The first was on September 4, 2003; the second was on October 2, 2003. A summary of each meeting is provided at the end of this report, as Attachments 2 and 3.

IV. Bowie New Town Center Architectural Review Committee
The Bowie New Town Center Architectural Review Committee (ARC) was established in June 1986. The purpose of the ARC is “to review, approve, disapprove, or approve with modification all development of and upon the property . . . . known as the ‘Bowie New Town Center’, which is being developed by Mark R. Vogel Companies.” At this time, the ARC is composed of representatives of MLS Properties (successors to the New Town Center original master developer), City staff, and a resident of the Heather Hills community.

The ARC met on October 21, 2003 to review the subject proposal. After a presentation by the applicant and a review of the Specific Design Plan package, it was the consensus of the ARC to recommend approval of the SDP for this proposal, with the following revisions:

1. The pinned-on letters composing the signage proposed on the two retaining walls at the site entrance should be illuminated by either back lighting or down lighting. Ground-mounted up lighting is discouraged.

2. A maximum of four building-mounted signs shall be permitted on Building 1, and shall be located on the southern elevation. No signs shall be permitted in any of the windows in Building 1. No building-mounted signage shall be permitted on any other elevation of Building 1.

3. Building-mounted signage on Building 2 shall be confined to an envelope centered above the space each tenant is leasing. Building-mounted signage on Building 2 shall be restricted to only the southern (front) building elevation.

4. No signage, including logos, shall be permitted on the awnings proposed on Building 2.

5. A native ground cover or native ornamental grasses shall be planted in the area between the edge of the northeastern parking lot and the property line with Parcel C (The Vistas).

6. Existing gaps in the landscaping proposed between the eastern side of the parking area and Parcel C, and between the northeastern side of the parking area and Parcel A (Ensleigh), shall be eliminated by planting Arborvitae, American Holly, or another type of native landscape screening material.

7. Directional signage and pavement identification shall be provided on the site plan to enhance on-site traffic circulation.

8. The total height of the parking lot light poles and bases north of Building 1 shall not exceed 16 feet in height. The total height of the parking lot light poles and bases shall not exceed 25 feet throughout the remainder of the site.

9. The on-site pedestrian crosswalks shall be identified by either brick pavers or stamped colored asphalt in the following locations: south of Building 1 (through the abutting parking lot), and north of Building 1 (through the abutting parking lot).

10. The width of the sidewalk along each side of the main vehicular driveway into and out of the site shall be increased to six feet. Native shade trees shall also be planted along these sidewalks to create a tree-lined vehicular entry/exit.

11. Foundation plantings shall be provided along the entire base of each retaining wall proposed on each side of the main vehicular driveway.

12. Utility meters on Building 2 shall be screened from view by lattice or mesh material, or another suitable means determined by staff.

13. If the building on Lot 2 changes from an office building to a bank, Lot 2 shall be the subject of another full SDP review and approval that shall address parking, vehicular circulation, landscaping, lighting, signage and building architecture.

14. If the building footprint for the bank on Lot 3 changes, it shall be subject to a full SDP review and approval that shall address parking, vehicular circulation, landscaping, lighting, signage and building architecture.

15. The retaining wall proposed along the northern property line (the line between the subject site and the Ensleigh community) may be constructed of wood. All of the other retaining walls proposed on the site shall be constructed of a masonry material, such as interlocking masonry units.

16. Four more handicap parking spaces shall be provided for the office building proposed on Lot 1, for a total of nine spaces. These handicap spaces shall be evenly distributed between the front and rear of the building.

17. The two handicap parking spaces proposed for the building on Lot 2 shall be relocated to be centrally located in front of the building.

V. Requirements for Approval of a Specific Design Plan
According to Section 27-528 of the Prince George’s County Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Board must make the following findings prior to approving an SDP:

1. The plan conforms to the approved CDP and applicable standards of the Landscape 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. Analysis of Specific Design Plan (Attachment 4)

A. Site and Building Data
Site and building data for this project are as follows:

Area of Entire Site: 8.21 acres (total, proposed)
Lot 1 (multi-story office): 6.82 acres
Lot 2 (1-story office): 0.65 acres
Lot 3 (bank): 0.74 acres

Building Area (gross floor area, all bldgs.): 142,650± sq. ft. (total)
Lot 1: 132,250 sq. ft.
Lot 2: 7,200± sq. ft.
Lot 3: 3,200± sq. ft.

Building Height:
Lot 1: 77 ft. (5 stories)
Lot 2: 20 ft. (1 story)
Lot 3: (1 story) (Exact height to be determined at the time of SDP for this building)

Building Setbacks:
Required: Set via the SDP review and approval process

Proposed: 74 ft. (Bldg. on Lot 1, to western site property line);
35 ft. (Bldg. on Lot 1, to eastern site property line);
89 ft. (Bldg. on Lot 1, to northwestern site property line);
93 ft. (Bldg. on Lot 2, to MD Rt. 197 r-o-w);
89 ft. (Bldg. on Lot 2, to western site property line);
71 ft. (Bldg. on Lot 3, to MD Rt. 197 r-o-w);
19 ft. (Bldg. on Lot 3, to new eastern site property line)

COMMENT: The building setbacks proposed are compatible with those that exist for current office buildings in the Town Center.

B. Parking and Loading Spaces
1. Parking
Required Provided
Lot 1: 415 spaces (including 420 spaces (including
9 handicap spaces) 5 handicap spaces)

Lot 2: 21 spaces (including 35 spaces (including
1 handicap space) 2 handicap spaces)

Lot 3: 12 spaces (including 26 spaces (including
1 handicap space) 2 handicap spaces)

COMMENT: Four additional handicap parking spaces, for a total of nine, should be provided for the building on Lot 1, to be in compliance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. These nine spaces should be more evenly distributed between the front and rear building entrances.

The handicap parking spaces to serve the building on Lot 2 are proposed at the eastern end of the building. To provide for more efficient and equitable access, the handicap parking spaces on Lot 2 should be relocated to be centrally located in front of the building.

The two handicap parking spaces proposed on Lot 3 are proposed along the parcel’s northern property line. To reduce the distance users of the handicap spaces would have to travel and to provide a safer route, the two handicap parking spaces should be aligned directly opposite the building entrance. To accentuate the crossing area between these spaces and the bank entrance, a pavement-painted crosswalk should be provided in the travel aisle.

Because the parking ratio for medical office space is greater than for other business office uses, the square footage in Building 1 devoted to medical office space should be limited to a maximum of 32,250 sq. ft. (This square footage cap was included in the above parking calculation for spaces provided for Building 1.) Similarly, if medical office space is contemplated for Building 2, it should be limited to a maximum of 2,600 sq. ft., based on parking designed on Lot 2.

In conjunction with this SDP application, the applicant has applied for a Departure from Parking Design Standards (#BD-05-03) to allow the use of 9-ft. by 18-ft. (universal size), non-handicap parking spaces on the entire site, and to eliminate the use of compact size parking spaces. Departures for the use of universal size spaces have been granted for several sites in the City, including the retail portion of the Bowie Town Center, TownePlace Suites by Marriott and Carrabba’s Italian restaurant. Since the Departure application meets the criteria for approval of a request of this nature, staff is recommending approval of #BD-05-03.

In accordance with adopted City policy, and in addition to the standard pavement-painted symbol and signage at the head of the stalls, all handicap parking spaces should be painted blue in their entirety, as has been done on other sites throughout the City. A note to this effect should be placed on the SDP.

2. Loading Spaces
Required: 2 loading spaces (each 12 ft. in width, 33 ft. in length)

Provided: 1 loading space (12 ft. in width, 65 ft. in length)

COMMENT: In compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, one additional loading space should be provided on the site to serve the building proposed on Lot 2 and should be located in the area where a group of four parking spaces is proposed on the western side of the building. The loading space should be screened with native landscaping in accordance with the provisions of the Landscape Manual.

The loading area on Lot 1 is proposed on the western side of the building, and will be shared with the trash removal operation. Although this area is recessed and sunken, resulting in some screening of this area, native species should be planted along the rear and side of this area and should be shown on the Landscape Plan. A detail of the retaining wall for this area should also be provided on the plans. If any portion of this wall is exposed to public view, it should be finished with the color and style of brick used on the Lot 1 office building.

3. Circulation and Access
Primary vehicular access to the property is achieved from the existing curb cut that has been partially installed from MD Route 197. The entrance will be bifurcated by a median. To provide secondary emergency access, the applicant is proposing an area of grass pavers on the western side of the property. (This technique was used on Everst Drive to provide emergency vehicle access to the extended-stay hotel approved on Parcel Y.)

Driveway and parking aisles on the site will be two-way, with the exception of the aisle along the eastern side of the building on Lot 1, which is proposed to be one-way (south to north).

An on-site pedestrian sidewalk system is proposed to link access to all three buildings and the site to MD Route 197 The developer is also proposing to construct an 8-foot wide concrete sidewalk from the subject property to Parcel I, owned by the City, which will connect to a future trail on Parcel I.

COMMENT: To enhance on-site traffic circulation, directional signage and pavement identification should be provided on the site plan.

To provide safer pedestrian access through and within the parking areas and to improve linkages to the buildings, four-foot wide sidewalk extensions should be constructed in the following locations:

· Through the island located in the southwestern corner of Building 1, heading to the south and through the island in the adjacent parking field;

· Through the island in the northwestern corner of Building 2, heading to the west;

· Through the island in the southwestern corner of Building 2, heading to the west and south;

· Through the island in the southeastern corner of Building 2, heading to the south and east.

To provide pedestrian access where none is proposed, a sidewalk extension and pedestrian crosswalk should be provided at the northwestern corner of the bank building proposed on Lot 3. The crosswalk should be identified by either brick pavers or stamped colored asphalt.

A pedestrian crossing should be provided at the throat of the site access, connecting the two sidewalks proposed parallel to the site main driveway. This crossing should be either brick pavers or stamped colored asphalt.

For greater visibility, the on-site pedestrian crosswalks should be identified by either brick pavers or stamped colored asphalt in the following locations: south of Building 1 (through the abutting parking lot), and north of Building 1 (through the abutting driveway aisle).

In accordance with adopted City policy, the width of the sidewalk along each side of the main vehicular driveway into and out of the site and the sidewalk leading to the west should be increased to six feet. Native species shade trees should also be planted along these sidewalks along each side of the main driveway to create a tree-lined vehicular entry/exit.

Depressed ramps should be provided in all locations where sidewalks meet driveway aisles in the parking lot.

4. Landscape Plan (Attachment 5)
A Landscape Plan, which proposes 12 varieties of deciduous and ornamental trees and shrubs to be planted throughout the site, has been submitted in conjunction with the SDP.

COMMENT: The Landscape Plan proposes six plants that are non-native. In accordance with adopted City policy, for commercial projects, approximately 80% of the plant species should be native material. Two of the non-native plants (Berberis thunbergii atropurpurea and Spiraea x bumalda) are invasive species. These two invasive, non-native species should be deleted from the Landscape Plan and replaced with native plant species, which could include: Itea virginica ‘Henrys Garnet’ and Ilex verticillata winterberry holly.

To enhance the visual quality of the site entryway, a minimum of four Red Maple trees or an equitable substitute, each a minimum of three inches in caliper at the time of planting, should be installed along the retaining walls on each side of the main access driveway. A minimum of three native species of ornamental tree, each a minimum of three inches in caliper at the time of planting, as well as a native ground cover and/or native ornamental grasses, should installed in the median of the site access driveway. The applicant should work with the City to determine mutually agreeable native material for this area.

A native ground cover or native ornamental grasses should be planted in the area between the edge of the northeastern parking lot and the site property line with Parcel C (The Vistas) to serve as a vegetative slope stabilization mechanism. The applicant should work with the City to determine mutually agreeable native species to plant in this area.

To eliminate existing gaps in the landscaping proposed between the eastern side of the parking area and Parcel C, and between the northeastern side of the parking area and Parcel A (Ensleigh), Leyland Cypress, American Holly, or another type of native landscape screening material should be planted.

To provide any additional off-site landscaping that may be deemed necessary to provide a more complete screen between the subject site and adjacent residential properties, the applicant should work with residents of those residential communities to enhance the respective buffer areas.

5. Lighting
No details have been provided on the SDP regarding the type, style, height, wattage, areas of illumination, etc. of lighting for the site or buildings.

COMMENT: A Lighting Plan should be submitted for review two weeks prior to the County Planning Board hearing.

To be sensitive to the adjacent residential units, the total height of parking lot light poles and bases north of the building proposed on Lot 1 should not exceed a maximum height of 16 feet, or the applicant should demonstrate that a lighting level of zero foot-candles will exist along all residential property lines. Consistent with the City’s adopted Design Guidelines, the combined height of the parking lot light poles and bases should not exceed 25 feet throughout the remainder of the subject property. A detail of the parking lot lighting poles, fixtures, and intensity and areas of illumination should be provided on the SDP plans. Furthermore, a note should be placed on the SDP indicating the following: “All parking lot lighting shall consist of cut-off fixtures to minimize off-site glare, and shall include timing devices for those times when the parking lots are not in use, and shall be down lit so as to not cast glare off-site.”

To enhance the aesthetics of the site design and pedestrian safety, pedestrian scale decorative lighting should be provided adjacent to the northern and southern elevations of the office building proposed on Lot 1. A detail of the style and fixture should be provided on the SDP plans.

To enhance the architectural integrity of all the buildings proposed on the subject site, building-mounted, ornamental lighting is encouraged to be provided on all elevations. The lighting fixtures should be architecturally compatible with the design of each building. The architectural elevations should be revised to show the locations and styles of the light fixtures. Additionally, in compliance with the City’s adopted Development Review Guidelines, all building-mounted ornamental lighting should be of a low wattage to reduce the potential for light dispersion and off-site glare.

6. Signage
According to Section 27-618 (e) of the County Zoning Ordinance, “the Design Standards for advertising, directional, and permanent real estate signs shall be determined by the Planning Board for each individual development at the time of Specific Design Plan review.” Also, “In approving these signs, the Planning Board shall find that the proposed signs are appropriate in size, type, and design, given the proposed location and the uses to be served, and are in keeping with the remainder of the development. As a guide, the Planning Board shall consider how these signs are regulated in the Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Zones.”

While the signage package proposed for this site includes site/project identification signage and building-mounted signage, no details have been provided on the SDP plans.

COMMENT: Details of all signage (building-mounted, wall-mounted and ground-mounted) should be provided on the SDP plans and building elevation plans.

The pinned-on lettering proposed on the two retaining walls at the site entrance should be illuminated. Illumination should be such at light dispersion and off-site glare are minimized.

To prevent proliferation of signage and achieve architectural balance, a maximum of four building-mounted signs should be permitted on Building 1, which should be located on the southern (front) elevation. No signs should be permitted in any of the windows in Building 1. No building-mounted signage should be permitted on any other elevation of Building 1.

To keep signage to a minimum and to enhance the architectural appearance of the building, building-mounted signage on Building 2 should be confined to an envelope centered above the space each tenant is leasing. Building-mounted signage on Building 2 should be restricted to only the southern (front) building elevation. No signage, including logos, should be permitted on the awnings proposed on Building 2 or on the rear (northern) elevation.

To maintain the character of a corporate office environment, no pylon or freestanding signs should be permitted anywhere on the site. Ground-mounted signs, however, may be permitted.

In keeping with the City’s Development Review Guidelines relating to commercial developments, no flags or banners should be mounted, suspended or otherwise displayed from any building or be permitted on the site, except a standard size American flag. A note should be provided on the SDP reflecting this condition.

City sign permits must be issued prior to the installation of all signage.

7. Architecture and Building Materials (Attachments 6A, 6B, 6C and 7)
The materials proposed for Building 1 (multi-story office bldg.) include: two colors of brick veneer; pre-cast concrete panels; and exterior finishing system (EIFS); aluminum framing and column covers and, aluminum framing around tinted windows.

Materials proposed on Building 2 (one-story office building) include: a stone/masonry base; masonry exterior walls on all sides; an EIFS parapet and, a roof top mounted metal screen to conceal equipment. Windows are proposed along the front and wrap around a portion of each side of the building.

COMMENT: According to the elevation plan submitted, the color of the pre-cast concrete and EIFS materials appear to be compatible with the color of the brick on the adjacent multi-story office building to the west. The extensive use of tinted glass proposed on Building 1 also adds to a common feature between the two office buildings. Red brick, which compliments the color of the pre-cast concrete and EIFS, provides accent to the middle floors of the building on all four elevations.

To further tie the two office buildings together, the colors and textures of the stone masonry base, the red brick on the walls and the EIFS and equipment screen on Building 2 should match those used on Building 1.

For enhanced compatibility, the color of all rear entry doors on Building 2 (if they are to remain) should be painted match the color of the brick used on this elevation. Regardless of whether the rear doors remain or are deleted, a feature, such as lattice with vines, should be installed along the entire northern elevation to break up an otherwise blank wall.

Utility meters on Building 2 should also be screened from view by lattice or mesh material, or another suitable material.

8. Trash Areas
A combined trash area/loading area is proposed along the western (side) elevation of Building 1 and is proposed to be enclosed on two sides by a retaining/screen wall.

A trash area to serve Building 2 is proposed at the end of a row of parking spaces, away from and northwest of the building.

COMMENT: The trash/loading area for Building 1 is partially concealed by the proposed topography and also a screen wall. To be compatible with the materials used on the building, the exposed walls of the trash/loading area should be constructed of brick, the same color and texture used on Building 1. Recent developments throughout the City have used this technique for screening solid waste areas. The combined height of the screen wall and topographic conditions should be such that the top of all delivery and trash vehicles are concealed.

The trash area proposed to serve Building 2 is located at the end of a row of parking spaces and is proposed to be constructed of PVC panels, six feet in height. This is unacceptable. The trash area should be increased in width to allow multiple trash bins for all building users and to provide room in the adjacent parking space to allow easy access in and out of a parked vehicle. Further, throughout the City, freestanding trash areas are screened by eight-foot high walls constructed of the same hard surface material used on the building they serve. Gates on these areas should be wooden board-on-board, painted to match the color of the material used to construct the walls. Therefore, this trash area should be revised to comply with City guidelines. A detail should be provided on the SDP plan.

9. Conformance with CDP
The uses proposed on Parcels J and K conform to the approved Bowie Town Center CDP in the following respects:

· The proposed uses are office uses.

· Pedestrian connections have been provided within the site, to Parcel I to the east and to the Town Center retail area on the south side of MD Route 197.

· The total area of all proposed office buildings (142, 650± sq. ft.) is within the maximum permitted by the CDP for Parcels J and K (214,500 sq. ft.).

· The number of stories of the tallest building (5-stories) is under the maximum allowed by the CDP (9-stories).

10. Public Facility Availability
COMMENT: The subject lot is in Water Category 3 and Sewer Category 3, meaning that public water and sewer are available to the site.

With respect to the availability of public safety-related facilities:

-Paramedic service is within the required response time.

-Ambulance service is beyond the required response time. However, the site will be served by the planned Bowie Town Center Station, which is programmed for construction in Year 4 of the County CIP and has been identified to house an ambulance. Therefore, this inadequacy will be resolved.

-Fire and ladder response times are beyond the required response times. However, since commercial buildings are proposed, the County Fire Department has required that they must be sprinklered.

-With respect to police facilities, the existing County police facilities for District II will be adequate to serve the proposed development.

Staff concludes that the development will be adequately served by existing or programmed public facilities, and by facilities required by the County Fire Department.

11. Stormwater Management Concept Plan
Stormwater from the site is proposed to be picked-up and carried via an on-site series of pipes and inlets and conveyed to two existing pipes under MD Route 197. These two pipes will transport the stormwater through the existing pipes that traverse through the retail portion of the Town Center, and eventually connect to the pre-treatment basin and Town Center regional stormwater management pond. An underground on-site stormwater facility is proposed in the southwestern portion of the property to provide water quality control.

COMMENT: A Stormwater Management Concept Plan has been reviewed by the City’s consultants and has been approved with conditions. The detailed engineering to effectuate the Concept Plan will evolve as the site design is refined. This criterion is met.

12. Woodland Conservation Plan
According to the Tree Conservation Plan (TCP-II) submitted, 5.73 acres of woodlands exist on the site. Approximately 3.38 acres of woodland conservation are required to be provided, in accordance with the County’s Woodland Conservation Ordinance. A total of 0.21 acres of woodlands are proposed to be provided on-site in the form of preservation. The remaining 3.17-acre obligation needed to satisfy the Woodland Conservation Ordinance is proposed to be provided via off-site mitigation.

COMMENT: Since 3.17 acres of additional land are needed to provide off-site tree mitigation, and for the project to meet the intent and purpose of the City’s adopted Forest Mitigation Policies, it is recommended that the applicant work with the City staff to determine a City-owned property as a receiving site for this off-site mitigation, if feasible. The site should be determined prior to the issuance of the first building permit.

13. Wildlife Guidelines
Sites of more than 10 acres in area are subject to the Wildlife Habitat Management Guidelines adopted by the Council. The subject property is 8.2 acres in area and therefore is exempt. Nevertheless, a wildlife management plan should be implemented which addresses the City’s Wildlife Guidelines.

COMMENT: Even though the site exempt, to provide an opportunity for any wildlife that may exist on the property to leave, clearing should be phased, beginning with the open areas in the western and southern portions of the property, and working in west-to-east/south-to-north directions. This would allow wildlife the opportunity to exit the property to existing wooded areas north and east of the subject site. To enhance the exit opportunity of wildlife on the site, fencing, similar to silt fencing, should be installed across the entire frontage of the subject parcels. According to the City’s Wildlife Guidelines, site clearing and grading causing minimal disruption to wildlife should take place between September and March. The applicant should be cognizant of this time frame when scheduling site-clearing operations. Attention should also be given to minimizing disturbance during the spring and fall bird migration periods. Since only approximately 5.7 acres of wooded area will be cleared, this phase should be able to be accomplished within a period of a few weeks, within the window recommended in the Wildlife Guidelines.

14. Recreational Facilities Agreement
One recorded Recreational Facilities Agreement (RFA) exists on each of the subject parcels. Both RFAs are between the Park and Planning Commission and the property owner. Each RFA requires the developer to either construct a public recreational amenity in the Northview Neighborhood Park or pay a fee-in-lieu of the recreational facility. (The Northview Neighborhood Park has been replaced by the City’s Senior Center and Gymnasium.) The recreational amenity in the Park was to have been one tennis court; or, as an alternative, the developer is permitted to pay a fee-in-lieu of the tennis court, multiplied by a factor of 1.28. According to the County Department of Parks and Recreation, the value of an installed tennis court is approximately $55,000. (However, the actual value of one tennis court will be established by the Department of Parks and Recreation prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the site.)

Additionally, when the Town Center CDP was amended in 1992, the Planning Board required that the developer of Parcels J and K provide sitting areas on the site.

COMMENT: In a letter dated September 23, 2003, the Department of Parks and Recreation has recommended that the applicant pay a fee-in-lieu of a recreational amenity, with the fee to be “placed in an account for expenditure in the community surrounding the New Town Center.”

In terms of on-site recreational improvements, the developer is proposing to construct one large sitting area in front of Building 1, and to construct a sidewalk extension to Parcel I, where it will eventually be connected to a trail on that City-owned property.

VII. Recommendation
Based on our review, staff finds that the proposed plan meets the requirements for approval of a Specific Design Plan. Therefore, it is recommended that Specific Design Plan #SDP-0313 for Parcels J and K in the Bowie Town Center be APPROVED with the following conditions, which are intended to: maintain the consistency of features for this plan with other existing and approved projects in the City; comply with the Zoning Ordinance and Bowie Town Center Comprehensive Design Plan; improve pedestrian access to, from and within the site; improve building and site aesthetics; and, to conform with adopted City policies: