LAND USE PETITION IN THE BOWIE PLANNING AREA
Md.-National Capital Park and Planning Commission ID: Preliminary Plan #4-03065
Peach Preserve
Bowie Advisory Planning Board # 03-25 Date: October 30, 2003
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTRODUCTORY NOTE: The proposed application is a request for approval:
___x_ (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;
(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 #4-03065
2. Petitioner: K & P Builders
3. Represented by: same
4. Location of Petitioned Property: west side of Mitchellville Road, south
of Mt. Oak Road
5. Proposed use of Petitioned Property: 14 single-family detached lots
6. Size/Zone of Petitioned Property: 5.7 acres/ R-80 zone
7. Date of hearing before BAPB: September 23, 2003
8. Date of hearing before City Council: November 3, 2003
9. Date of hearing before MNCPPC:
10. Date of hearing before Hearing Examiner:
11. Date of hearing before District Council:
NOTICES/ LEGALS DATE Number of Mailing/Signs
Notice sent to Adj. Properties: 10/16/03 297
Notice sent to Parties of Record
Date Signs Posted: 10/16/03 2
Date Legal Sent: 10/16/03
Date Legal Appeared: 10/23/03
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 DISAPPROVAL for reasons stated
in the attached report.
TO: City Council
FROM:
Reverend John S. Cooper Sr., Chairman
Bowie Advisory Planning Board
SUBJECT:
Preliminary Plan #4-03065 DATE: 9/30/03
Peach Preserve
The Bowie Advisory Planning Board (BAPB) met on Tuesday, September 23, 2003 to review Preliminary Plan #4-03065 for Peach Preserve. The applicant, K & P Builders, is proposing a 14 lot subdivision. The site is located on the west side of Mitchellville Road, south of Mt. Oak Road.
Presentation
Mr. Roy Kilby of K & P Builders provided a brief history of the site, indicating the property is the Peach homesite, and that Mr. and Mrs. Peach wish to retire. Mr. Kilby oriented the Board to the site and the surrounding land uses. He then summarized the proposal, explaining that MNCPPC required him to combine two 50 ft. rights-of-way from Mitchellville Road into one. This resulted in two lots requiring private drives in addition to the access road. Water and sewer is available to the site, and stormwater management is provided on-site. Mr. Kilby indicated he had comments regarding the staff conditions. He objects to staff condition #1, regarding combining lots to eliminate the private drives, as he is only doing what the County told him to do. Condition #3 refers to Wildlife Management. Because the site is basically a lawn and contains no wildlife or endangered species that condition is okay. Regarding Condition #5, he recommends amending to read that the additional architectural features be provided on the visible side (of the unit) only. He has no other problems with the conditions.
Ms. Cynthia Fenton presented the staff report. Ms. Fenton gave a brief summary of the Stakeholders Meeting, which one resident, in addition to the Peaches, attended. Ms. Fenton described the criteria for Preliminary Plan approval and stated that the applicant had met them, but explained the Council policy regarding school enrollment and capacity that resulted in a recommendation of disapproval. Ms. Fenton continued by indicating APF for water and sewer, police, and fire and rescue were all met. She indicated that the applicant complies with County law for school APF as they will be required to pay the $12,000 per unit Surcharge. Ms. Fenton explained that transportation facilities were also adequate, although the driveways and irregularly shaped lots were a concern. Ms. Fenton went on to state that stormwater management approval was forthcoming, and woodland conservation requirements were met. Ms. Fenton described the architecture for the proposed models. In conclusion, Ms. Fenton indicated that she is recommending disapproval of the Preliminary Plan, but if the Council policy is rescinded, the recommendation would change to approval with conditions.
Questions by BAPB Members
Questions by BAPB members focused on the following:
Are the issues regarding the trail and traffic counts resolved?? Mr. Kilby indicated that they were. They will have sufficient right-of way for the trail, and there will be no discernable impact to the Mitchellville Road/Mt. Oak Road intersection.
Has a location been determined for the off-site mitigation requirement? Who follows up on this? Staff responded that a location had not yet been determined. While the Environmental Section of MNCPPPC prefers that the location is determined at the time the TCP II is approved, it is not required until a permit is applied for. The Environmental Planning Section of MNCPPC ensures that the easement is obtained at the permit phase.
How do we know whether the trees will actually screen the fireplace insert? Staff answered that a condition can be added to designate the caliper (size) of the tree or the species of tree or shrub to ensure adequate screening.
Is the English basement being provided because of flooding? What is an English basement? Mr. Kilby indicated they are offered in locations where there is a high water table. He added that they will be an option but not standard feature. Staff described an English basement as an above-ground basement with a visible level below the first floor that has windows (common in Georgetown).
The Board also expressed concern about not having all the off-site mitigation information available (from MNCPPC) by the time the staff report is written and in time for the BAPB hearing. The issue of excessive driveway cuts was raised as a concern, as well as the school APF issue. The Board also amended Condition #7 to include specific species of plant material.
Citizen Participation
There were no residents signed up to speak.
BAPB Motion
Vice Chairman Terry Nuriddin made a motion to accept the staff report for disapproval with the potential conditions as amended. Mr. Terry Rogers seconded the motion, which passed 5-0. The amended conditions are included below:
5. For highly visible units, such as those on all corner lots, a minimum of four architectural features (including decorative trim and shutters) on the visible side should be provided. The affected lots are Lots 2, 12, and 13.
7. All fireplace chimneys, regardless of location
on the dwelling unit, should extend to
finished grade. Prefabricated inserts on the first floor shall either extend
to finished
grade or be well screened with a spreading yew or an euonymus; prefabricated
inserts on
the second or third floors shall be limited to locations not visible from
the street.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bowie City Council
FROM: David J. Deutsch, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Peach Preserve
DATE: 10/30/03
Preliminary Plan #4-03065
________________________________________________________________________
I. General Information
Applicant: K & P Builders, contract purchaser
Project Name: Peach Preserve
Location: West side of Mitchellville Road, south of Mt. Oak Road (see Attachment 1)
Acreage/Existing Zoning: 5.74 acres/R-80
Existing Land Use: One existing single-family dwelling
Proposed Land Use: 14 single-family detached units
Adjacent Land Uses/Zoning: North: R-80/ Special
Exception (daycare)
South: R-T/ Lake Village Manor townhouses
East: R-R/ single-family detached homes
West: R-80/ Eliz. Reig Special Ed School
Master Plan Living Area: Community I
Water and Sewer Category: S-3 and W-3
Police: Bowie, District II
Fire and Ambulance: Station #43, Pointer Ridge
Medic: Station #43, Pointer Ridge
Schools: Elementary School Cluster #3
Middle School Cluster #2
High School Cluster #2
II. Background/Proposal
The applicant is proposing a conventional 14 lot subdivision located on the west side of Mitchellville Road, south of Mt. Oak Road (see Attachment 2). The applicant is proposing to construct 13 new homes. The existing Peach family home is proposed to be moved to one of the rear lots. Detailed Site Plan approval is not required for this proposal, therefore all architectural, lighting and similarly-related recommendations are attached to this application.
III. Stakeholders Meeting
A Stakeholders Meeting was held on Wednesday, September 10, 2003. A member of the Citizens Association of South Bowie attended the meeting. Also present were Mr. and Mrs. Herndon Peach, who own the existing home on the subject site, the applicant and his engineer, and staff. The applicant explained the changes to a previous site plan. The current site plan shows one access road into the site from Mitchellville Road. This was revised from an earlier plan which showed two 50 ft. rights-of-way from Mitchellville Road. Two lots which front on Mitchellville Road will have independent driveways. The applicant indicated the proposed street will be named in accordance with the City’s street naming system. He is not sure the County will accept another street name with “Peach” incorporated into it. The applicant indicated the existing home will be lifted from its present location and moved to one of the rear lots. The Peaches will remain in their home. The engineer explained why the stormwater management pond is the size it is (an adjacent system off-site is already over-taxed). The applicant indicated the proposed homes will be two-story units with two-car garages. They will incorporate standard siding with optional brick facades. The base price will range from $250,000 to $300,000. Staff requested elevations so they could be attached to the staff report. There were no objections to the proposed plan.
IV. Analysis
The proposed Preliminary Plan has been reviewed for compliance with Subtitle 24 of the County Code (the County Subdivision regulations). A Preliminary Plan of Subdivision may be approved if the County Planning Board finds: 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.
A. Adequate Public Facilities (APF)
1. Water and Sewer
The subject site is currently in Water Category W-3 and Sewer Category S-3. This designation indicates that service is available to the site.
COMMENT: The site will be adequately served by public water and sewer. WSSC will review and approve design plans for connecting into their system. This criterion has been met.
2. Police
According to MNCPPC’s Growth Policy and Public Facilities Section, the
existing County police facilities for District II will be adequate to serve
the proposed development.
COMMENT: This criterion has been met.
3. Fire and Rescue
According to M-NCPPC Growth Policy and Public Facilities Planning Section, the response time for Fire and Ambulance service from the Pointer Ridge Station is 3.11 minutes, which is adequate. The response time for Paramedic service is 3.11 minutes, which is also within an adequate response time.
COMMENT: This criterion has been met.
4. Schools
On June 17, 2003, the County Council approved legislation that eliminated the County APF test with respect to schools and replaced it with an increased School Facilities Surcharge. The Surcharge is $12,000 per unit. The Surcharge funds are not restricted to the impacted cluster, rather, the funds may be used anywhere within the County to improve school facilities. The total school revenue raised by the new Schools Surcharge for this development is $168,000 ($12,000 x 14). Because of the City Council’s concern that school enrollments currently exceed capacities at elementary, middle and high school levels, 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.
COMMENT: This criterion has been met.
B. Traffic Impacts and Access
Because the size of the subdivision will generate less than 50 new peak hour trips, MNCPPC did not required a full traffic study. Traffic counts, however, were to be provided 30 days in advance of the County hearing date of October 16. At the time this report was written, the traffic counts had not yet been analyzed . Staff notes that based on trip generation rates from comparable subdivisions, the traffic generated by the subject proposal would be approximately 11 AM peak hour trips and 13 PM peak hour trips. The intersection which would be most impacted is the Michellville Road/Mt. Oak Road intersection. The intersection is signalized and currently operates at “A” level-of-service.
The proposed plan shows access to 12 lots via a 50 ft. right-of-way from Mitchellville Road. The road ends in two cul-de-sacs. Two lots which front on Mitchellville Road will have independent driveways directly from Mitchellville Road.
COMMENT: Staff finds the existing transportation facilities are adequate to accommodate the traffic generated from the proposed development. In addition, the single entrance into the subdivision is preferable to a previous plan that showed two 50 ft. wide access roads from Mitchellville Road. However, it is City policy to minimize drive cuts on collectors as well as arterials. Staff further notes that several of the lots are odd-shaped or particularly shallow, creating the potential for variances in the future. Staff therefore recommends that Lots 1 and 14, having the independent driveways, be absorbed into the remaining lots and the lots lines adjusted to provide for maximum use of all the lots.
C. Stormwater Management Concept Plan
The applicant submitted a Stormwater Management Concept Plan on July 25, 2003. The City’s consultant indicated all calculations appeared accurate, however, minor revisions to the plan are required prior to concept approval. Revisions were not yet submitted at the time this report was written, however, it is anticipated that the applicant will obtain concept approval prior to the City Council hearing date.
COMMENT: Staff finds that this criterion will be able to be met once minor revisions are approved.
D. Woodland Conservation and Tree Preservation
MNCPPC finds that wetlands and possibly a stream occur on the property. There are no areas of steep slopes or severe slopes, or 100-year floodplain. No rare, threatened, or endangered species were found to occur in the vicinity of the subject property. The Environmental Planning Section of MNCPPC has requested several minor revisions to the Tree Conservation Plan. The revisions were submitted to the Environmental Section on September 16, but were not yet reviewed at the time this report was written. In a conversation with Environmental Planning staff, it was indicated that they anticipate TCP approval. The revised TCP shows 1.30 acres of existing woodland. The applicant is proposing to clear .78 acres, which will require a total of 1.81 acres of woodland conservation. The applicant is proposing that .78 of the required conservation be provided off-site.
COMMENT: It appears that the applicant can satisfy the amount of woodland conservation required for this subdivision, although a portion will have to be met off-site. While the TCP has not yet been recommended for approval, staff finds the proposal will be able to comply with Woodland Conservation requirements.
E. Trails
The Bowie-Collington-Mitchellville and Vicinity Master Plan shows an off-road trail along the entirety of Mitchellville Road, from MD 197 to US 301. This is consistent with the City’s trails plan. The portion of trail from MD 197 to Mt. Oak Road is constructed. The trail portion south of Mt. Oak Road has not been constructed, nor is it included in the County CIP. It is anticipated that MNCPPC will require either dedication or a trail easement along the subject property’s frontage. A small sliver of County land was left over from the Mitchellville Road widening project. It is likely that this will be vacated and absorbed into the subject property and can be used for the trail. Staff has included a condition to address the trail requirement.
F. Wildlife Habitat Guidelines
This site is under 10 acres. Nonetheless, the applicant has stated their intent to comply with the Wildlife Habitat Guidelines. Because a large portion of the existing woodland will remain undisturbed, there will be adequate habitat preserved for the existing wildlife. The
applicant has agreed to grade the site in a manner that will minimize any impact to existing wildlife. Staff has included this as a condition of approval.
G. Architecture
The applicant is proposing nine models with a traditional style of architecture. Base square footages for the models are as follows:
Model Square Footage
Waterford 2,014 sq. ft.
Villager 2,178 sq. ft
Perrywood 2,220 sq. ft.
Belair 2,378 sq. ft.
Villager IV 2,676 sq. ft.
Lancaster 2, 850 sq. ft.
Villager VI 2,956 sq. ft.
Villager V 3,084 sq. ft.
Kentmorr 3, 363 sq. ft.
Several of these models, the Belair, Villager VI, Lnadscaster and Kentmorr,
were approved as part of the Spring Meadows Detailed Site Plan. The proposed
models are two-story colonial and traditional style incorporating siding or
optional brick façade. Three different front elevations will be available
for all models excepting the Villager 6, which has two elevations. The Kentmorr
incorporates an English basement. The models feature 4-5 bedrooms, an unfinished
basement and two-car garage. The applicant is also offering the Belair model
which includes a first floor master bedroom. Optional features include brick
veneer, dormers, bay windows, front porch and side-entry garage. Exterior
variation is further achieved by varying roofline types and heights, window
and door treatments, and porches. Facades include reverse gables, brick sills;
trim window arches and rowlocks, palladium windows. Additional living space
options available include master bedroom, breakfast room and family room extensions,
and sunroom. A first floor laundry room is also available on some models.
All units are proposed to have at least two endwall features on side elevations. However, to be consistent with previous development recommendations and the City’s Development Review Guidelines, for highly visible units, such as those on all corner lots, a minimum of four architectural features (including decorative trim and shutters) should be provided. The affected lots are: Lots 2,12, and 13. Where brick is chosen as an option, all fireplaces and related
chimneys should be brick. The City’s other standard design conditions that are relevant to the project are also included.
V. Recommendation
Based on the above analysis, staff finds the application, with conditions, would meet the requirements for subdivision approval. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL of Preliminary Plan #4-03065 subject to the following conditions:
1. Lots 1 and 14, having the independent driveways, shall be absorbed into
the remaining lots and the lots lines adjusted to provide for maximum use
of all the lots.
2. The applicant shall provide either a trail
easement or adequate road
dedication to provide for an eight ft. wide trail along Mitchellville Road.
3. A note shall be added to the General Notes
indicating that grading will
proceed in a manner that will minimize any adverse impacts to the existing
wildlife.
4. The applicant shall construct only the nine
models submitted. Any new models shall
be reviewed by the City of Bowie prior to permit application.
5. For highly visible units, such as those on
all corner lots, a minimum of four
architectural features (including decorative trim and shutters) should be
provided. The
affected lots are Lots 2, 12, and 13.
6. On corner lots or highly visible units where
a chimney is provided that faces the street,
those chimneys should constructed entirely of brick. Where the chimney faces
public
space, brick is encouraged.
7. All fireplace chimneys, regardless of location on the dwelling unit, should
extend to
finished grade. Prefabricated inserts on the first floor shall either extend
to finished
grade or be well landscaped; prefabricated inserts on the second or third
floors shall be
limited to locations not visible from the street.
8. Units adjacent to or directly across the street from each other shall not
have
identical front elevations. A variety of different colors, materials, and
special features
should be used to ensure that units appear unique, particularly if adjacent
to units with
similar elevations.
JMM:CF