LAND USE PETITION
IN THE BOWIE PLANNING AREA
Md.-National
Capital Park and Planning Commission ID: Preliminary Plan #4-03088
Glenn Dale Golf Course Cluster Subdivision
Bowie Advisory Planning Board # 03-30 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;
___X_ (c) to subdivide property into building lots and obtain adequate public
facilities approval;
__ (d) of a site plan for building and parking design, landscaping, architecture,
etc.
under the development regulations of Prince George’s County. The application has been referred to the City for our review and recommendation. The position of the Bowie Advisory Planning Board in this matter is advisory to the City Council. The City Council will also conduct a public hearing on this application and their vote will become the final City recommendation. Persons wishing to participate in these hearings must submit written testimony or sign up to speak at each public hearing. Each person wishing to speak at the City’s hearings will be given up to three (3) minutes. To participate in the County’s hearings, you must make a separate, written request to become a person of record.
GENERAL DATA:
1. Nature of Petition: Preliminary Plan
2. Petitioner: Toll Brothers, Inc.
3. Represented by: Mr. Tom Haller, Esq.
4. Location of Petitioned Property: West side of Hillmeade Road, approximately
3,200 feet south of Fletchertown Road
5. Proposed use of Petitioned Property: 227 single-family detached lots
6. Size/Zone of Petitioned Property: 124 acres/zoned R-R (Rural Residential)
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 County Planning Board: Thursday, November 13, 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: 10/13/03 124
Notice sent to Parties of Record n/a
Date Signs Posted: 11/6/03 2
Date Legal Sent: 10/3/03
Date Legal Appeared: 10/16/03
RECOMMENDATIONS:
12. Department of Planning & Economic Development Recommendation:
The Department of Planning & Economic Development staff recommends APPROVAL of Preliminary Plan #4-03088 with conditions as stated in the staff report.
13. Bowie Advisory Planning Board Recommendation:
The Bowie
Advisory Planning Board recommends DISAPPROVAL of Preliminary Plan #4-03088
based on concerns about adequate public facilities and traffic issues.
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Reverend
John S. Cooper, Sr., Chairman
Bowie Advisory Planning Board
SUBJECT: Preliminary Plan #4-03088
Glenn Dale Golf Course Subdivision
DATE: 10/30/03
The Bowie Advisory Planning Board conducted a public hearing on the above-referenced application on October 28, 2003. The development proposed for the Glenn Dale Golf Course property includes 227 single-family detached lots in a cluster subdivision in the R-R (Rural Residential) zone. The subject property is located on the west side of Hillmeade Road, approximately 3,200 feet south of Fletchertown Road.
Developer’s Presentation
Mr. Ken Dunn, of Loiederman Soltesz Associates provided an overview of the request. Mr. Tom Mateya, senior land development manager for Toll Brothers, Inc. described his company’s philosophy in developing communities that feel like “home”. He noted the company’s strong commitment to recreation packages and quality home building and passed around a binder showing some of the products his company has been involved with.
Mr. Ken Dunn discussed the cluster subdivision process and how it applies to this site. He noted that 31.88 acres of open space are proposed. The majority of lots front on open space. The plan includes seven acres of tree preservation (44% of existing forest will be retained). He described the plan and surrounding uses. Mr. Dunn noted that the plan had been revised based on initial comments from City staff regarding the potential for cut-through traffic. The plan now discourages cut-through traffic due to its circuitous internal road design. The project’s amenities include trails within a public easement, tennis courts, a play area and swimming pool. He added that the plan preserves the historic house on the property. Also, the stormwater management plan takes advantage of existing ponds on the property. Mr. Dunn stated that the design includes a trail that provides access throughout the entire site and, ultimately, will connect to the nearby Daisy Lane Community Park. Mr. Dunn then reviewed the staff conditions, expressing disagreement with Conditions 2, 5, 6, 9 and 11 as written. Mr. Dunn offered to address Conditions 5, 6 and 9 at the time of Detailed Site Plan review. The developer felt a 10-foot trail width is excessive and would reserve the right to agree with final any recreation facilities determined by MNCPPC.
Questions by BAPB Members:
Vice-Chairman Terry Nuriddin asked for clarification regarding the two lot size ranges proposed and the number of homes in each category. She inquired about the MNCPPC recommendation for a half-basketball court at Daisy Lane Community Park. Mr. Dunn indicated that the MNCPPC Parks Department observed that the existing park was in poor condition and could be improved. Toll Brothers agreed to participate in improving this facility and has begun working with the adjacent property owner to establish a trail connection from the proposed subdivision to the park. Mr. Dunn further clarified that there are no lots in the subdivision with 100-year floodplain on them and then described the environmental setting around the historic house known as Prospect Hill. Vice-Chairman Nuriddin asked if the clubhouse would be dedicated to the homeowner’s association; Mr. Dunn stated that it would be. Vice-Chairman Nuriddin asked about the lot area for the two proposed flag lots. Mr. Dunn indicated that one lot was 22,000 square feet; the other was 18,000 square feet. Both are well above the minimum 10,000 square feet for cluster lot size and these figures do not even include the area of the flag lot panhandle. Vice-Chairman Nuriddin asked if the improvements recommended in the traffic study would be installed to achieve a Level-of-Service “D” before the homes are occupied. Mr. Dunn replied that, in order to obtain a building permit, the improvements must be bonded and permitted with an agreed upon timetable.
Mr. Mitch Neitzey asked for additional explanation of the transportation proffers. Mr. Dunn stated that, in addition to the lane improvements identified in the traffic study, the developer would have to make standard improvements along the property’s frontage, including curbing, acceleration and deceleration lanes, street trees and street lights. Mr. Neitzey stated his concern that the proposed development will over burden the existing road network, especially considering the future AME Church on Prospect Hill Road and the Montessori School on Hillmeade Road. Mr. Neitzey asked what the home sizes and price range would be. Mr. Tom Mateya replied that the larger lot sizes would include homes starting around 3,500 square feet with a sale price of approximately $550,000. The smaller lot size homes would start at 3,200 square feet with a sale price of approximately $450,000 to $475,000. The pricing will be in the same range as its closest competitor, Mid-Atlantic Builders in Woodmore North. Home sales are anticipated to begin in early 2005.
Mr. Neitzey stated his opinion that a 10-foot wide pedestrian trail is better than what is proposed. Also, he feels the applicant should address staff’s conditions regarding lot layout at this time, rather than later. He asked about the pending discussions about public acquisition of the golf course. Mr. Tom Mateya explained that there was an October 24 deadline with the current owner; no one has contacted them regarding purchase of the property. His understanding is that the County is trying to work something out, but there may be an underwriting problem that could complicate the matter.
Mr. Terry Rogers asked about the advantages and disadvantages of annexation into the City and what the process is. Mr. Dunn observed that the advantages appeared to be significant. Mr. Rogers expressed his opinion that the City should aggressively pursue annexation of the proposed subdivision. Mr. Joe Meinert, Planning Director, explained that, when a new development is proposed, developers typically come to the City as a courtesy. At that time, staff discusses some of the benefits of annexation. Mr. Rogers asked about the developer’s past experience. Mr. Mateya pointed out that Toll Brothers has developed in Northern Virginia, in Annapolis and in Howard County. This project is one of their first in Prince George’s County.
Mr. Ty Troyer stated that the site appears to be hilly and many lots will be located on significant slopes. Mr. Dunn replied that the cluster regulations only allow ¼ of all steep slopes to be disturbed; ¾ of the steep slopes are required to be preserved. Mr. Rogers asked what use would be made of the historic house? Mr. Mateya responded by stating that there is a waiting list of residential buyers who are interested in purchasing the home.
Staff Presentation
Mr. Joe Meinert, Planning Director, presented the staff report to the Board. Mr. Meinert described the standards for preliminary plan approval and concluded that these standards, including Adequate Public Facilities, would be met. He explained that the City’s adopted Trails Plan identifies a minimum width of 10 feet for public trails. He agreed that Conditions 5, 6 and 9 could be addressed at the time of Detailed Site Plan, but emphasized that they should still be conditions of this approval, so that the items are not lost. Regarding the half-basketball court recommended by MNCPPC, Mr. Meinert stated that it was staff’s understanding this is what MNCPPC wanted the applicant to construct at Daisy Lane Community Park. City staff did not want to lose sight of the fact that the subdivision regulations require recreation obligations to be defined as part of the subdivision review process and the type of facility was not as critical at this juncture as the commitment to provide facilities as determined by MNCPPC. Mr. Meinert revised the wording of Condition #11 to include the phrase “or other facilities determined by MNCPPC”.
Public Hearing
Ms. Diane Hauf of 12115 Quick Fox Lane, President of the Evans Overlook Homeowner’s Association in Northridge addressed the Board. Her major concerns centered on the traffic impacts of the proposal on the area’s roads.
Mrs. Mary Vondrak of 10501 Forestgate Place in Glenn Dale, President of the Glenn Dale Citizens Association, stated that she was sorry to see the golf course go. She mentioned that the Reid Temple AME Church was not considered in the developer’s traffic study. That use will generate over 1,000 cars and will have an enormous impact on local roads. She added that a post office has been proposed on Prospect Hill that will also affect traffic conditions. She recommended a dedicated right-turn lane on Prospect Hill Road for 250 feet up to the proposed entrance to the AME Church. She recommended that the on-site pedestrian pathway be dedicated to public use and that trees be replaced in the Glenn Dale or Bowie area, rather than somewhere else in the County. She described the boundaries of the Glenn Dale zip code area and indicated there is a strong community presence. She said she was extremely surprised to hear the City was proposing annexation of the proposed subdivision, and she objected to it. She concluded by stating that she feels very strongly about the annexation issue and will oppose it.
BAPB Discussion
Vice-Chairman Terry Nuriddin stated her concern about APF issues and that the City needs to continue sending signals to the County, especially regarding school overcrowding. She added that the major intersections serving this area operate at a Level-of-Service “F” now and something should be done. She also indicated her displeasure with MNCPPC’s recommendation for a half basketball court as the only off-site recreational amenity.
Mr. Mitch Neitzey stated that he would vote “No” because of the project’s impact on two major roads traveled by City residents. His feeling is that the roads cannot handle the traffic now and additional traffic, including that generated by this project and the Reid Temple AME Church, will be a nightmare.
BAPB MOTION:
Vice-Chairman Terry Nuriddin moved for DISAPPROVAL of Preliminary Plan #4-03088 for the reasons stated tonight. Mr. Mitch Neitzey seconded the motion, which passed by a vote of 4-1 (Rogers opposed).
TO: City Council
FROM: David
J. Deutsch
City Manager
SUBJECT: Preliminary Plan #4-03088 DATE: 10/30/03
Glenn Dale Golf Course Cluster
I. General Information
Applicant/Status: Toll Brothers, Inc.
Proposal: 227 lots for single-family detached dwellings in a cluster design
Location: West side of Hillmeade Road, approximately 3,200 feet south of Fletchertown Road (see Attachment #1)
Existing Zoning/Acreage: R-R (Rural-Residential)/124 acres
Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning: East - Hillmeade Manor subdivision and scattered single-family dwellings, zoned R-R; North – Single-family detached dwellings on Prospect Hill Court and vacant land, zoned R-R; West – Prospect Hill Road, single-family detached dwellings and a church along Old Prospect Hill Road, zoned R-R; South – single-family detached dwellings along Fachina Place and vacant land, zoned R-R.
Master Plan Community Character/Living Area: Glenn Dale (Planning Area 70) Master Plan identifies the property as private open space (golf course) and low suburban residential land use. A floating park symbol is located in the northwestern corner of the site. A trail is proposed along Prospect Hill Road and Hillmeade Road.
Sectional Map Amendment: Property was upzoned from R-E (Residential Estate) to R-R in 1993
Water and Sewer Category: S-4, W-4 planned public provisions by WSSC
Police Facilities – District II Bowie Substation: Existing service is adequate.
Fire and Rescue Facilities - Station #18 (Glenn Dale): Engine Service travel time of 3.43 minutes is within the 5.25 minute response time standard; Ambulance Service travel time of 3.43 minutes is within the 6.25 minute response time standard; Medic service travel time of 3.43 minutes is within the 7.25 minute response time standard.
School Facilities – Elementary Cluster 2 (100.80% of capacity), Middle Cluster 2 (115.89% of capacity) and High School Cluster 2 (121.07% of capacity).
II. Background/Proposal
Toll Brothers has submitted a Preliminary Plan of subdivision for the Glenn Dale Golf Course (see Attachments #2-#4). The proposed plan is a cluster subdivision plan and includes a total of 227 lots, including one 67,067 square foot lot encompassing the historic site known as “Prospect Hill”. The development plan includes a community recreation feature including a clubhouse, swimming pool, play area and tennis courts adjacent to Prospect Hill. A public trail system is proposed within the open space, the majority of which is centrally located within the development. A trail is also proposed within homeowner’s association open space along the southern end of the property.
The overall plan includes two lot size ranges: smaller lots having a minimum of 75 feet of street frontage and larger lots having a minimum of 100 feet of street frontage. Generally the smaller lots are found in the northern, central and eastern portions of the site, while larger lots predominate the southern half of the tract. Five lots with 100 feet of street frontage (each) have been included along the northern property line, east of the stormwater management pond on Parcel F. Two flag lots are proposed at the end of Street K in the southeast corner of the property.
The site will be served by two new entrance roads, one on the west side of Hillmeade Road, approximately 3,200 feet south of Fletchertown Road and one on the western edge of the property, just north of Prospect Hill Road/Old Prospect Hill Road intersection. Monumental entrance features are proposed at each entrance. All internal roads will be designed to meet the County’s Department of Public Works and Transportation (DPW & T) standards. Sidewalks will be provided along both sides of all through streets and on one side of all cul-de-sacs. Additional turn lanes and geometric improvements are proposed at the intersections of MD 193/MD564 and MD 193/Propect Hill Road, in accordance with the recommendations of the applicant’s traffic consultant.
On-site stormwater management is proposed in the form of several facilities, including a dry pond on Parcel B adjacent to Hillmeade Road, a dry pond on Parcel F along the northern property line, a wet pond on Parcel D and a combination of dry and wet ponds on Parcel C. Woodland on the site is scarce, due to the present use of the golf course. Approximately 17 acres of the site (about 14%) are wooded. A small area of wetlands is located in the north central portion of the site. Isolated wetlands, 100-year floodplain and several streams and their buffers comprise the Patuxent River Primary Management Area (PMA) located along the site’s southern boundary.
Discussions are currently being held at the County level regarding a possible purchase of the Glenn Dale Golf Course (see Attachment #5). However, funding constraints and a high asking price for the property have become obstacles to acquisition by MNCPPC or Prince George’s County. These discussions are continuing as of the writing of this report.
The subject site is located outside of the Bowie-Collington-Mitchellville and Vicinity planning area but is within a mile of the City limits (less than 400 feet from Northridge). City public hearings were scheduled because of the large magnitude of the project and its possible impacts on residents of the City. Many residents of this portion of the City use Hillmeade Road, Fletchertown Road and Prospect Hill Road every day. At staff’s suggestion, Toll Brothers met with the Glenn Dale Citizens Association and the Northridge Homeowners Association to inform them of the proposal. The City’s public hearings were advertised by two signs posted on the property and by mailing of notices to over 100 properties in the area.
III. Analysis
A Preliminary Plan of subdivision may be approved if the County Planning Board finds, among other requirements, that: adequate public facilities exist or are proposed for the area within which the subdivision is located; a stormwater management concept plan has been approved; and, the subdivision is designed in accordance with the provisions for woodland conservation and tree preservation.
Preliminary Plan #4-03088 has also been reviewed for compliance with Prince George’s County’s Subtitle 24 Subdivision regulations, Division 6, Requirements for Optional Approaches. Section 24-137 (g) provides 13 criteria for approval and the applicant has supplied a narrative responding to these special design criteria for cluster subdivisions (see Attachment #6). The main emphasis of the criteria is on the design and situating of open space areas with the natural features at a site for purposes of recreational use, access and/or conservation. Under the cluster option, the conventional minimum lot size in the R-R zone (20,000 square feet) may be reduced to a minimum of 10,000 square feet, provided that the remaining 10,000 per lot is put back into common open space contained within the plan.
A. Adequate Public Facilities
1. Schools
On 6/17/03, the Prince George’s County Council passed CB-30-2003 and CB-31-2003 regarding adequate school facilities. The County Council fulfilled a commitment made to the building industry during the 2003 Maryland General Assembly session that the County would eliminate the School APF test and wait period in favor of an increased School Facilities Surcharge. Based on the 226 new dwelling units proposed, the School Facilities Surcharge for this site would be $2,712,000 (226 x $12,000). Because of the City Council’s concern that school enrollments currently exceed capacities at elementary, middle and high school levels (see first page of this report), it is recommended that the City’s position letter on this application specifically identify this issue and urge the County to continue to explore ways to resolve the problem. In addition a separate letter should also be sent to the Prince George’s County Council requesting their assistance and action on this issue.
2. Fire/Rescue, Ambulance and Medic
The Historic Preservation and Public Facilities Planning Section staff found that response times for fire/rescue, ambulance and medic service meet the County’s standards (see first page of this report).
3. Police
The Historic Preservation and Public Facilities Planning Section staff found that the existing District II police facility will be adequate to serve the proposed development.
4. Transportation
The Traffic Group, Inc. prepared a traffic study for the proposed subdivision on 8/8/03. The findings of the traffic report are included as Attachment #7. The consultant recognized that the intersections of MD 193/MD 564 and MD 193/Prospect Hill Road will operate at a Level-of-Service (LOS) “F” with or without the proposed development.
In order to meet the APF Transportation test, the applicant is required to achieve a minimum Level-of-Service (LOS) standard of LOS “D” (defined as a maximum critical lane volume—or CLV—of 1,405 vehicles in the peak hour). Improvements have been proposed which will provide additional capacity for the transportation system, such that all intersections studied will function at LOS “D” or better after the subject property is developed. Based on the findings of the traffic consultant’s report, and with appropriate conditions that require the improvements cited therein, staff finds that the APF test for transportation will be met.
In conclusion, based on the above information related to adequate public facilities, staff finds that adequate facilities will exist to serve the development proposed in Preliminary Plan #4-03088.
B. Stormwater Management
Prince George’s County Department of Environmental Resources (DER) has jurisdiction over stormwater management, since the site is outside of the City limits. DER has approved a stormwater management concept plan for this subdivision. This approval is valid for a period of three years. Staff finds this criterion is met.
C. Woodland Conservation
Revisions to the original Tree Conservation Plan (TCP) have been submitted and are currently under review by MNCPPC Environmental Planning staff. Currently, 17.81 acres of woodland exist on the site. The applicant proposes to clear 9.97 acres, or 56% of this resource. 7.01 acres of woodland are being preserved on site as part of this subdivision, primarily on Parcel D and around the periphery of the development. The applicant is proposing 27.60 acres of off-site credits, for a total of 34.61 acres of woodland conservation provided (7.01 acres of on-site retention and 27.60 acres of off-site credits). This exactly meets the amount necessary to comply with the minimum woodland conservation requirements (34.61 acres). Off-site credits will be met by the applicant planting 27.60 acres of new forest (afforestation) or protecting twice this acreage of existing forest land (conservation). A site for the off-site credits has not been determined at this time. Typically, the above information is all that is required for approval of a TCP at this stage. Sites for off-site credits must be identified and all required woodland conservation approved and guaranteed prior to the issuance of grading permits. Based on the information provided, which has been determined acceptable by MNCPPC’s Environmental Planning Section, staff finds that the proposed development has been designed in accordance with the County’s Woodland Conservation requirements.
MNCPPC has expressed a preference for conservation of large tracts of woodland located in environmentally sensitive areas within the County, rather than the creation of isolated areas of new planting or tree preservation. For example, developers can purchase woodland conservation easements on existing woodland in the southern portion of the County. The City’s forest mitigation program was instituted in 2000. Under this program, numerous City properties are available to developers for forest mitigation. Staff has discussed the City’s program with Toll Brothers, who agreed to investigate the use of City sites to meet all or part of the off-site credits required for the proposed TCP.
D. Cluster Requirements
The amount of open space area to be put back into the site as a result of individual lot reduction (from 20,000 square feet per lot to as low as 10,000 square feet) has been satisfied. Natural areas and environmental features will be preserved in the open space parcels. Staff has reviewed the statement provided by the applicant and concurs with the majority of the points therein.
Subject to the following modifications and conditions, staff finds the proposed plan will comply with cluster design criteria contained in Section 24-137 of the Subdivision regulations:
1. Regarding Criterion #2, the proposed segment of the pedestrian pathway, which will be publicly accessible, should be paved to at least 10 feet in width, in accordance with the recommendations of the Citywide Trails Plan for public trails. The pathway should be placed within an easement dedicated to public use, which should be shown on the record plat. The Preliminary Plan should be revised to provide a minimum open space parcel width on Parcel D of 30 feet where the trail runs between (behind) Lots 26-28 and Lots 32-33 in Block A.
2. Regarding Criterion #4, a sidewalk should be provided along the parking lot driveway serving the community center to provide continuous off-road access from the public sidewalk system to the play area.
3. Regarding Criterion #6, many of the corner lots within the development do not provide much flexibility for home siting. In some instances, the siting of the building pads illustrated on the Conceptual Site Plan (Attachment #3) results in either an awkward orientation to the street or a minimal, non-functional rear yard. At a minimum, the following 10 lots should be examined at the time of Detailed Site Plan review and, if necessary, reconfigured to provide improved lot layout and building relationships:
Block B –
Lot 3
Block C – Lots 1, 6, and 10
Block D – Lots 1, 3, and 6
Block E – Lots 17, 18, and 36
In addition, corner lots should not have the same dimensions on both sides, as this would negate a determination of required side and rear yards. The final lot dimensions should be determined at the time of Detailed Site Plan review.
4. Regarding Criterion #11, the orientation of the building pads on Lots 32-35 should be revised such that fronts of all of the homes relate to each other. Additional architectural and landscaping treatment should be provided to accentuate this relationship at the time of Detailed Site Plan review.
E. City Development Review Guidelines
The previous section addresses the City’s guideline that corner lots provide the greatest amount of functional rear yard possible. Staff found the cluster lot sizes in the proposed plan are comparable to the prevailing character of the neighborhood, considering the lot size range of adjoining subdivisions. The use of cluster open space to achieve an appearance of standard R-R development at the entrances and along the project’s street frontage further addresses these City guidelines. The City generally discourages flag lots, especially in smaller-sized lot subdivisions. However, the comparatively larger size of the two flag lots proposed (Lot 33 is 21,818 square feet and Lot 34 is 18,252 square feet) and the fact that they back onto common open space allows for some flexibility in siting the building pads. Staff believes, with the condition of approval recommended above that requires an examination of building orientation of these units along with the building pads on Lots 32 and 35 during Detailed Site Plan review, the negative impacts often associated with flag lot design can be avoided.
It is recommended that the developer use Bayscaping landscape techniques at the two project entrance features, consistent with the City’s guidelines. In order to emphasize this standard and to better reflect compliance with cluster criteria, it should be made a condition of approval of this Preliminary Plan.
Staff finds the street design is based on a hierarchy of street types and the stormwater management facilities are being designed as amenities to the project, thus satisfying the City’s guidelines. Alternate paving (e.g. concrete pavers or stamped decorative concrete or asphalt) is encouraged at pedestrian crossings to create a cohesive street design and to highlight areas of pedestrian activity for enhanced safety and circulation. This is especially important given the emphasis on pedestrian facilities in the cluster criteria. In addition, the City’s development review policies encourage historic viewsheds to be preserved and complemented by new development. Therefore, staff recommends that decorative crosswalks be identified on the Detailed Site Plan on streets located in the vicinity of the clubhouse and Prospect Hill historic site. Also, since the trail system will provide for public access, it is recommended that the trail on Parcel F be realigned to connect to Street A at the entrance to the development from Prospect Hill Road. Since this trail addresses pedestrian access for residents of Lots 1-4 in Block A, the public sidewalk should be deleted in front of those lots.
Regarding the City’s Wildlife Habitat Management Guidelines, the applicant noted that the site is currently in a developed condition (golf course) and the level of human activity and maintenance functions have had an influence on the state of wildlife on the property. Amphibians and birds have adapted to the site conditions and their habitat will remain essentially intact as a result of site development. The proposed subdivision appears to comply with the remainder of the City’s Development Review Guidelines.
F. Other Subdivision Regulations
Section 24-134 requires mandatory dedication of parkland in new subdivisions where such dedications are recommended by the Master Plan. As noted on the first page of this report, a floating park symbol is shown on a portion of the subject property. However, the MNCPPC Parks Department has determined that the inclusion of a public trail system within the development and construction of a half basketball court at the nearby Daisy Lane Community Park (to which the trail system will connect) will satisfy the recreation obligations for this subdivision and additional land dedication is not required. Construction of the basketball court should be a condition of approval of this plan.
Section 24-135.01 encourages preservation of historic structures. The County’s Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) met and recommended several revisions to the original subdivision plan to further protect Prospect Hill. The lot size for the historic home has been increased to approximately 67,000 square feet and additional open space has been provided within the environmental setting. Also, the clubhouse and tennis courts were moved northeast of Prospect Hill to create a greater setback between those uses and the historic structure.
IV. Recommendation
Because Preliminary Plan #4-03088 has been found to satisfy the basic requirements for Preliminary Plan and cluster subdivision approval, staff recommends APPROVAL with numerous conditions, which are intended to bring the project into complete conformance with the subdivision regulations and the City’s Development Review Guidelines:
1. The applicant shall make all recommended improvements identified in the traffic study dated August 8, 2003, including the following:
a. At MD
193/MD 564
i. Provide a third through lane along eastbound and westbound MD 193 through
MD 564.
ii. Provide a second left turn lane along westbound MD 193 onto southbound
MD 564.
b. At MD
193/Prospect Hill Road
i. Construct a double left turn lane from eastbound MD 193 onto northbound
Prospect Hill Road.
ii. Provide a free right turn lane or a signalized right turn overlap from
southbound Prospect Hill Road onto westbound MD 193.
iii. Modify the northbound approach of Prospect Hill Road to one left turn
lane and one shared through/right turn lane.
2. The publicly accessible portion of the proposed trail system on Parcels C, D and F shall be paved to at least 10 feet of width. The pathway shall be placed within an easement dedicated to public use and shown on the record plat.
3. The width of Open Space Parcel D shall be increased to a minimum of 30 feet between Lots 26-28 and Lots 32-33 in Block A.
4. A sidewalk shall be provided along the parking lot driveway serving the community center to provide continuous off-road access from the public sidewalk system to the play area.
5. At the time of Detailed Site Plan review, the lot lines on the following lots shall be reexamined and, if necessary, reconfigured to provide improved lot layout and building relationships:
Block B
– Lot 3
Block C – Lots 1, 6, and 10
Block D – Lots 1, 3, and 6
Block E – Lots 17, 18, and 36
6. Corner lot lines shall be revised to provide differing dimensions along the abutting streets for each lot. The final lot dimensions shall be determined at the time of Detailed Site Plan review.
7. The orientation of building pads on Lots 32-35 shall be revised such that the fronts of all homes will relate to each other. Additional architectural and landscaping treatment should be provided to accentuate this relationship at the time of Detailed Site Plan review.
8. The landscape plans for the monumental entrances shall include native plants (i.e. Bayscaping) in their plant schedules.
9. Decorative crosswalks shall be identified on the Detailed Site Plan on streets located in the vicinity of the clubhouse and Prospect Hill historic site.
10. The public trail on Parcel F shall be realigned to connect to Street A at the entrance to the development from Prospect Hill Road, and the public sidewalk in front of Lots 1-4, Block A shall be eliminated.
11. The applicant shall provide one (1) half basketball court, or other facilities determined by MNCPPC, at the Daisy Lane Community Park.
It is additionally
recommended that the City’s position letter to the Planning Board reference
the unacceptable school capacity situation, as described in this staff report.
A separate letter should also be sent to the Prince George’s County
Council requesting their assistance and action on this issue.