R E S O L U T I O N. Zone(s) C-S-C C-S-C. Use(s) Vacant Shopping center and office building complex. Acreage Lots 1 1.

Transcription

1 R E S O L U T I O N WHEREAS, the Prince George's County Planning Board is charged with the approval of Detailed Site Plans pursuant to Part 3, Division 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Prince George's County Code; and WHEREAS, in consideration of evidence presented at a public hearing on March 4, 2004, regarding Detailed Site Plan DSP for Prince George s Center, the Planning Board finds: 1. The detailed site plan is for construction of six separate buildings consisting of 77,077 square feet of gross floor area in Subarea 10A of the Prince George s Plaza Transit District Overlay Zone. The site consists of approximately 6.8 acres of land in the C-S-C Zone and is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of East West Highway and Toledo Terrace. The existing site is vacant and wooded, with a deep ravine created by stormwater runoff from the adjacent developments. 2. Development Data Summary EXISTING PROPOSED Zone(s) C-S-C C-S-C Use(s) Vacant Shopping center and office building complex Acreage Lots 1 1 Parcels 0 0 Square Footage/GFA 0 Bank: 3,000 SF Restaurant: 9,597 SF Office: 30,000 SF one floor retail: 10,000 SF Retail 1: 6,000SF Retail 2: 9,240 SF Retail 3: 9,240 SF Total=77,077 square feet Floor Area Ratio (FAR)

2 Page 2 3. The State Highway Administration (SHA) reviewed the previously submitted plans for the development and raised a number of concerns regarding the proposed plans for development. First, the plans proposed to locate a 42-inch storm drain pipe within the right-of-way of MD 214 (Central Avenue). SHA will not support the proposal to place the pipe in the right-of-way because of maintenance issues. The pipe is carrying approximately 23 acres of stormwater runoff from the adjacent Prince George s Plaza Shopping Center site. The staff met with both the SHA representative and the Department of Environmental Resources (DER) staff to discuss this issue on January 17, It was made clear that SHA does not consider it to be in the public interest to agree to maintain the pipe within SHA s right-of-way. The applicant submitted a revised detailed site plan package on February 9, 2004, and another revised package on February 20, These plans eliminated the 42-inch pipe from the SHA right-of-way, and the site plan shows the new location of the 42-inch pipe through the site and adjacent to the Toledo Terrace right-of-way. The applicant also submitted the Stormwater Management Concept Plan. However, the plans propose an 18-inch pipe in the SHA right-of-way, which the applicant states is necessary to convey water within the right-of-way. The staff received the following referral comments from Michael Bailey to Susan Lareuse, dated February 23, 2004: Thank you for the revised storm drain plan and computations, which was received on February 18 th on the subject of the above captioned development project. It is my understanding that this submission addresses the comments and recommendations by Highway Hydraulics Division. Presently this information is being circulated to our Hydraulics Division for further review and comments. Based on a February 23 rd meeting between SHA Access Permits, Traffic Engineering, the applicant and Prince George s County DPW&T staff, we a[re] re-thinking the requirements for site access improvements. To date the plan is not consistent with SHA requirements. We will advise you of our findings and recommendations as soon as it becomes available. Kindly advise Mr. Maisel and the Planning Board that our approval is being withheld pending resolution of outstanding issues. An entrance plan consistent with SHA guidelines for safe and efficient access to MD 410 with minimal impact to traffic operations. Approval of a proposed storm drain system relocating the 42 pipe culvert from the State Right-of-Way. Please convey to the applicant that the above are conditions required prior to SHA- Access Permit approval. If you have any questions feel free to contact me. Thank you for your cooperation. The relocation of the 42-inch pipe has raised new issues. The plans propose the 25-foot-wide

3 Page 3 easement placed over the proposed public utility easement (PUE). Evidence that the applicant has the permission of the public utilities to place the stormdrain easement over the PUE has not been provided and the staff has not yet been able to ascertain that the applicant has the authority to place another easement over the PUE, even if the Department of Environmental Resources approves the Stormwater Management Concept Plan showing the duplicate easement. Therefore, the staff would also recommend that the applicant be required to obtain evidence from the public utility companies of permission to duplicate the easement, or provide evidence their permission is not necessary prior to final plat. 4. The originally submitted plan was not in conformance with Preliminary Plan of Subdivision in that the detailed site plan for the subject property showed 0.58 acre of woodland clearing and grading on adjacent parkland to the north in order to maximize development of the site. However, the applicant s revised plans remove grading from the M-NCPPC property along the north property line through the use of a retaining wall. No details or specifications of the retaining wall have been provided, nor have top and bottom elevations of the wall been provided. This information should be required prior to signature approval of the plans. The applicant proposes two stormwater management outfalls along the western property line in an environmentally sensitive area of the park. The stormwater management plan, including the associated outfalls and drainage ways on parkland, should be reviewed and approved by DPR prior to approval of the grading permit. 5. The Transportation Planning Section has reviewed the plans and has a number of concerns, as stated in their memorandum dated February 10, One of the purposes of the Transit District is to promote Metro ridership. If excessive parking is proposed on the site, then the project promotes vehicular traffic, not pedestrian traffic. The Transportation Planning Division has reviewed the above referenced and revised Detailed Site Plan for the proposed construction of the commercial shopping center with 77,077 gross square feet of development on a acre site. The proposed development will consist of: 4-story office building with ground floor retail (40,000 s.f.) 1-story retail (6,000 s.f.) 1-story retail (9,240 s.f.) 1-story retail (9,240 s.f.) 1-story restaurant (9,597 s.f.) 1-story bank (3,000) The approved Prince George s Plaza Transit District Development Plan (TDDP) guides the use and development of all properties within its boundaries. The findings and recommendations outlined below are based upon staff evaluation of the submitted site plan and the ways in which the proposed development conforms to the mandatory development requirements and guidelines outlined in the TDDP. During the preparation of the TDDP, staff performed an analysis of all road facilities in the

4 Page 4 vicinity of the TDOZ. This analysis was based on establishment of a Transit-District-wide cap on the number of additional parking spaces (preferred and premium) that can be constructed or provided in the transit district to accommodate any new development. Pursuant to this concept, the plan recommends implementing a system of developer contributions to ensure adequacy of the transportation facilities, based on the number of additional parking spaces, as long as the authorized total parking limits and their attendant, respective, parking ratios (Tables 5 and 6 of the TDDP) are not exceeded. The collected fee will be applied toward the required number of transportation improvements totaling $1,562,000, as summarized in Table 4 of the TDDP. These improvements are needed to ensure that the critical roadways and intersections in the transit district will remain adequate and will be operating at or above Level of Service E, as required by the plan. Among the most consequential of these are: a. Establishment of a Transit-District-wide cap on the number of additional surface parking spaces (3000 preferred, plus 1,000 premium) that can be constructed or provided in the Transit District to accommodate any new development. b. Implementation of a system of developer contributions, based on the number of preferred and premium surface parking spaces attributed to each development project. The contributions are intended to recover sufficient funding to defray some of the cost of the transportation improvements as summarized in Table 4 of the TDDP and are needed to ensure that the critical roadways and intersections in the transit district remain at or above the stated LOS. c. Retaining a mandatory Transportation Demand Management District (TDMD). The TDMD was established by the 1992 TDDP plan to ensure optimum utilization of trip reduction measures (TRMs) to combine, or divert to transit, as many peak-hour SOV trips as possible and to capitalize on the existing transit system in the district. The TDMD will continue to have boundaries that are coterminous with the transit district. As of this writing, the Prince George s Plaza TDMD has not been legally established under the TDMD Ordinance (now Subtitle 20A, Division 2 of the County Code) enacted in d. Developing an annual TDMD operations fee based on the total number of parking spaces (surface and structured) that each property owner maintains. e. Requiring that the TDMD prepare an annual transit district transportation and parking operations analysis that would determine whether or not the LOS E has been maintained and to determine additional trip reduction, transportation, and parking management measures that are required to restore LOS E and reauthorization of the Prince George s Plaza Transportation Management Association recommended in the predecessor 1992 PG- TDDP. Status of Surface Parking in the Transit District Pursuant to the Planning Board s previous approvals of Detailed Site Plans in the Transit District,

5 Page 5 the remaining available preferred and premium surface parking for the Transit District and each class of land use are reduced to the following values: RESIDENTIAL OFFICE/RESCH RETAIL TOTAL PREF. PREM PREF. PREM PREF. PREM PREF. PREM TDDP Caps , ,000 1,000 Subarea 1 (178) Subarea 4 (121) Subarea 6 ( 72) Subarea 9 (321) Unallocated , ,486 1,000 As structured parking is not included in the parking caps pursuant to Mandatory Development Requirement P6, the parking figures reported above do not include the number of parking spaces that will be constructed as structured parking in each subarea. Transportation DSP Findings a. The PG-TDDP identifies the subject property as part of the Subarea 10A of the Transit District. There are 15 subareas in the Transit District, two of which are designated as open-space and will remain undeveloped. The proposed site consists of approximately 6.80 acres of land in the CSC zone. The property is located on the northwest quadrant of the East West Highway (MD 410) and Toledo Terrace intersection. b. As proposed and fully developed, the site will include approximately 44,077 square feet of commercial retail and 33,000 square feet of office space. c. The internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation patterns appear to be acceptable. On Thursday, January 22, 2004, staff met with SHA and county officials to discuss the latest modifications proposed by the applicant. It appears that proposed modifications, while meeting some of SHA requirements, do not fully address the concerns of the county DPW&T officials with regard to proposed location of stormdrain facilities and traffic operation along Toledo Terrace in the vicinity of the proposed site access. On Tuesday, February 10, 2004, staff received the applicant s revised traffic impact statement. The traffic information contained in this study relates to only 67,077 GSF of retail that is different from the levels proposed by the submitted plan. In addition, staff is concerned about several calculation errors contained in the report and are used to justify the report s findings. Finally, as of this date, the applicant has not provided staff with the necessary traffic modifications that are acceptable to SHA, DPW&T and fully address outstanding concerns. As a result, it is recommended that prior to signature approval of the proposed plan, the applicant provides staff with sufficient information that demonstrates workable and acceptable drainage and geometric modifications along both MD 410 and Toledo

6 Page 6 Terrace and at both proposed site access points and meets the SHA and the Prince George s County DPW&T standards. Transportation Staff Analysis and Conclusions Based on the preceding findings, the Transportation Planning Section concludes that the proposed development as proposed does not conform to the circulation requirements of the Prince George s Plaza Transit District Development Plan. However, if the plan is to be approved, the Transportation Planning Section recommends the following conditions: a. Prior to certification of the Detailed Site Plan, the applicant shall obtain from SHA and the Prince George s County DPW&T the approval for the proposed drainage and the necessary geometric modifications along both MD 410 and Toledo Terrace and at both proposed site access points. b. Prior to the certification of the Detailed Site Plan, the applicant shall revise the submitted plan to provide a total of 288 surface parking spaces and provide proof of payment for a total of $120,800. This fee is expressed in 1998 dollars and shall be adjusted for inflation at the time of payment. The required fee shall be paid to the Prince George s County Department of Public Works and Transportation and shall be applied toward the construction of the required transportation improvements listed in Table 4 of the Prince George s Plaza TDDP. 6. Section (c), contains the required findings for a detailed site plan in the Transit District Overlay Zone (TDOZ). The plan is not in conformance with a number of the requirements of the Transit District Development Plan (TDDP), as indicated below: (A) The Transit District Site Plan is in strict conformance with any Mandatory Development Requirements of the Transit District Development Plan; The detailed site plan is not in strict conformance with all of the mandatory development requirements. Mandatory development requirements are made up of primary and secondary requirements. The Zoning Ordinance in Section (b)(1), Amendment of the Approved Transit District Overlay Zone, allows the owner of a property to request a deviation from the mandatory requirements and states the following: (b) Property Owner. (1) A property owner may ask the District Council, but not the Planning Board, to change the boundaries of the T-D-O Zone, a property s underlying zone, the list of the allowed uses, building height restrictions or parking standards in the Transit District Development Plan. The Planning Board may amend the parking provisions concerning the dimensions, layout, or the design of parking spaces or parking lots. (emphasis added)

7 Page 7 The owner s representative has filed a request to change the minimum building height on this site from four stories to one story. Section (b)(5) states the following: (5) The District Council may approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove any amendment requested by a property owner under this Section. In approving an application and site plan, the District Council shall find that the proposed development conforms with the purposes and recommendations for the Transit Development District, as stated in the Transit Development District Plan, and meets applicable site plan requirements. (emphasis added) The District Council has mandatory review of this project because the applicant is asking for a modification to one of the requirements that is only allowed if granted by the District Council. In this case, the Planning Board provides a recommendation to the District Council. The applicant is requesting relief from the following mandatory development requirement for height for all of the buildings except the four-story office building with retail on the first floor. P86 The minimum building height shall be 4 stories. In order to understand the issue of height as it relates to Subarea 10A, the purpose statement within Subarea 10A states the following: To provide additional office space adjacent to the existing low-rise office at the intersection of Toledo Terrace and East West Highway and provide the building mass to create a gateway into the transit district. The following other mandatory development requirements also relate to height and architecture: P87 S14 S61 S62 The maximum building height shall not exceed 8 stories. Building materials shall be high quality, enduring and distinctive. Exterior building materials, such as pre-cast concrete, brick, tile and stone are encouraged. Architecture shall be high quality, enduring and distinctive. Any building located at the corner of East West Highway and Toledo Terrace shall be designed with equal orientation to both rights-of-way. There shall be no surface parking lot located between the building and East West Highway.

8 Page 8 G9 All sides of a building should receive equal design consideration if viewed from a public area. The TDDP purpose statement for Subarea 10A envisioned a four-story or taller office building, up to eight stories in height, at this location near the intersection of the two streets, which would have created a substantial landmark upon entering the transit district. The second and third requirements above require high-quality, enduring and distinctive architecture using traditional building materials of brick, precast concrete, tile and stone. The fourth and fifth requirements above address architectural detailing of the facades. As an alternative to the vision set forth in the plan, the applicant has proposed a mixed-use development, similar to a typical integrated shopping center with six separate buildings, including three retail multiple-tenant buildings, a restaurant, and two office buildings, one of which is a bank. All buildings are one story except for a four-story office building with retail on the first floor, proposed at the rear of the property. The applicant, in a memorandum dated September 27, 2003 (Norman D. Rivera to Susan Lareuse) provides the following justification for the reduction in the minimum required height of buildings in Subarea 10A: The heights for all structures are proposed to be between one, two and three stories, or a minimum of 16 feet in height. These are attractive high-quality buildings with architecturally pleasing facades and treatments. In combination with the provided landscaping and other design elements, it is our opinion the minimum height requirement can be modified. In our opinion, the modification will not be a detriment to the public, health, safety and welfare. Rather the facilitation of development of this site will further serve the goals of the transit district by providing needed retail services and banking facilities to the surrounding residential areas and users of the Metro. Furthermore, it is our opinion that the four-story requirement dealt with the site as if it were to be office, which is not proposed at this time. The above retail uses are permitted by the underlying C-S-C Zone, and as such, we believe the intent of the guideline is not to be strictly construed. Comment: The applicant argues that the modification will not be detrimental to the public and asserts that the retail services and banking are needed in the area. Neither of these arguments supports the criteria for approval of the request. Section (b)(5) states that the District Council shall find that the proposed development conforms with the purposes and recommendations for the Transit Development District, as stated in the Transit Development District Plan, and meets applicable site plan requirements. The Community Planning Division provides the following recommendation regarding this proposal by the applicant:

9 Page 9 The plan does not conform to the TDDP for building height because the proposed one-story buildings are less than the minimum four-story building height requirement. In addition, the proposed development does not achieve the design goals of the transit district (urban design, p. 28) for placement of buildings to define space, create a pedestrian-friendly environment and minimize views of parking areas. Most of the proposed buildings are up close to the street edge, however, the buildings have no relationship to one another and do not portray a cohesive design element. The development appears to be a typical suburban development with six pad sites consisting of retail shops, bank, restaurant, and an office building. This building arrangement places the prominent three-story (changed to four-story since the writing of these comments) office building to the rear of the site. The TDDP purpose for this property (TDDP page 115, Subarea 10A-Purpose) states provide office space at the intersection of Toledo Terrace and East West Highway. The architectural footprint of the pad sites do not relate in shape nor design features; some buildings are square and some are angled. The applicant should redesign the square building adjacent the median entrance off East West Highway to provide a coordinated entrance design/relationship with the other angled buildings. The plan should show compliance with the TDDP-P86 requirement. Comment: The Urban Design staff recognizes from a site design standpoint that the plan s most desirable feature in the layout is the placement of twin buildings at the intersection of East West Highway and Toledo Terrace that will visually dominate that corner. However, the design of the architectural elevations for the two buildings, as viewed from the intersection, does not provide the focal point necessary to avoid the appearance of the buildings turning their backs on the street. The site plan also places a third, large, box-shaped building near the build-to line and a fourth building, the proposed bank building, near the build-to line of East West Highway furthest to the west. This layout with the buildings near the build-to line places the architectural elevations of the buildings in a visually prominent location, making them significant elements in the streetscape. One of the primary concerns of staff is that the project be architecturally coordinated so that all the buildings appear harmonious. As of the writing of this report, the architectural elevations show a variety of materials and do not provide for repetition of materials in a consistent manner. The architectural elevations show the bank and the office building to be primarily brick. All of the retail buildings, with the exception of the restaurant, are similarly designed to each other and include the use of split-face block at the base of buildings, brick and EIFS (a synthetic dryvit-like material). The design of the Old Country Buffet restaurant does not use the same materials as the other buildings, the structure is basically a big box, and service areas are poorly integrated into the design and site layout. The rear of the building is placed at the main entrance to the shopping center. Detailing between the buildings should be coordinated with architectural renderings and

10 Page 10 material boards in order to properly evaluate the project prior to the approval by the Planning Board. As of the writing of this report, the staff is recommending that approval of the architectural elevations for all of the buildings, except the Provident Bank building, be withheld by the Planning Board. If the applicant provides new architectural elevations prior to the hearing that address the staff s concerns, the staff will report on that issue at the hearing. Absent revised elevations that fulfill the requirements of the TDDP, the applicant should submit a revision to the plan at a later date to request approval of exterior architectural elevations for all buildings except the bank. Without improved architectural elevations for the site, the staff is unable to conclude that there is sufficient justification to recommend approval of the applicant s request to modify the mandatory development requirement P86, which calls for a minimum building height of four stories. The applicant has indicated that they are working on improving the architectural elevations for the Old Country Buffet, the retail buildings, and the office building and will be submitting revisions to the plans. The staff has agreed to review the revisions prior to the Planning Board hearing. If additional conditions of approval are needed prior to approval of the architectural elevations, the staff will present those conditions at the Planning Board hearing. Otherwise, the staff will continue to recommend disapproval of the architectural elevations, except for the Provident Bank, (thus basically providing for the approval of a site plan for infrastructure only). This will make it necessary for the applicant to come back before the Planning Board with a new proposal for architecture prior to the release of any building permits. 7. As stated earlier in this report (Finding 6), the detailed site plan as submitted for development at the Prince George s Center does not conform to the TDDP public transit goals and mandatory development requirements for a 40-foot build-to line that creates the pedestrian zone along East West Highway, the 20-foot build-to line along Toledo Terrace, pedestrian walkways, 100-year floodplain preservation and parking management goals. The applicant is asking for relief from the additional following mandatory development requirements: P1 Unless otherwise stated within the Subarea Specific Requirements, each developer, applicant, and the applicant s heirs, successors and/or assigns, shall be responsible for streetscape improvements along the entire length of the property frontage from the building envelope to face of curb. (See Figures 7, 8 and 9. Toledo Terrace: 20- foot pedestrian zone; East West Highway: 40-foot pedestrian zone; Belcrest Road: foot pedestrian zone.) These improvements shall be included as part of any application for building or grading permits, except for permits for interior alterations which do not constitute redevelopment as defined in the previous chapter. No building or grading permits shall be issued without a Detailed Site Plan which indicates conformance with the streetscape requirements of the TDDP. Construction of the streetscaping improvements shall be in phase with development, or the construction schedule shall be determined at the time of Detailed Site Plan. Comment: The applicant requests relief from the width of the streetscape requirements along East

11 Page 11 West Highway and Toledo Terrace and the width of the sidewalk within the streetscape. The applicant provides the following justification statement in memorandum dated January 30, 2004, Norman Rivera to Susan Lareuse: The site plan indicates substantial compliance with this requirement. A pedestrian zone which ranges approximately from 26 to 34 in width has been provided along Route 410. This area includes a 10 minimum wide green strip, with an 8 wide trail/sidewalk, and an additional 6 wide grass strip. Likewise, an approximately 16 wide pedestrian area is provided along Toledo Terrace. This area includes an 8 wide landscaped strip and an 8 wide sidewalk/trail. The building along Toledo Terrace must be shifted to accommodate the SD easement adjacent to the r/w. The fixtures or their equals will be provided as proposed to be conditioned by this DSP with respect to trash receptacles, light poles, and benches. We seek a modification of the sidewalk from 11 to 8 as that is the existing standard for other similar projects in the TDDP. The bus shelter will not be utilized for advertising thus reducing visual pollution in the Transit District. The Community Planning Division offers the following opinion: The applicant s plan does not meet the requirements for the East West Highway pedestrian zone or the streetscape improvements. The TDDP envisions this site as part of a significant gateway to the transit district and the Prince George s Plaza Metro Station, and it is bordered by a prominent major roadway (East West Highway) and a prominent residential street (Toledo Terrace). The TDDP provides specific guidelines that will achieve a prominent gateway for the transit district. Successful urban environments warrant people activity along the street to promote activity and add marketable retail, curb and pedestrian appeal. The pedestrian zone is provided for safe pedestrian movement away from vehicular traffic. The applicant s reduction in the required 40-foot pedestrian zone along East West Highway is not justified by the submitted plan because there is ample room on this site to provide for this TDDP requirement. Figures 7, 8 and 9 refer to the required TDDP crosswalk detail, streetscape, and street trees. In addition to the discussion listed below for the TDDP- S8 requirement, the remaining streetscape elements listed in Appendix A of the TDDP require that the streetscape be consistent with that of Belcrest Road: a. b. c. Trash receptacles (Victor Stanley Model S-424 burgundy color). Light poles (Hadco pedestrian light fixture, #85277, 250 Watt, High Pressure Sodium, burgundy color, ballast module). Benches (Victor Stanley Model RB-28, match color, style and size of existing benches on Belcrest Road).

12 Page 12 d. e. Sidewalk (11-foot minimum scored concrete walk bordered and cross sectioned using eight-inch x eight-inch pavers (ruby squares by Hoyle Stone) adjacent a scored concrete; applicant should match the existing sidewalk details provided along East West Highway adjacent to the Outback Steakhouse parcel development at Prince George s Plaza. Bus shelter (dome roof with solar panel, model #13ALD-GL, etched tempered safety glass panels, five-foot metal bench with anti-vagrant bars, color to match existing Belcrest Road street furniture, dimension 4-feet 8-inch wide x 12-feet 7 7/8-inch length. Comment: The Urban Design Section supports the applicant s proposal to vary the buildto line along East West highway from the required 40 feet to a maximum of 57.6 feet and a minimum of 26 feet, and to reduce the width of the sidewalk from 11 feet to 8 feet. To be specific regarding the width of the streetscape along East West Highway, the plans propose a build-to line of 36.6 feet for the Provident Bank building, 57.6 feet for the Old Country Buffet restaurant, and 26 feet for the twin retail buildings. The reason the Urban Design staff supports the applicant s request is that the intent of the TDDP is to avoid the location of large expanses of parking along the roadway at the street edge in order to create a pedestrian-friendly environment. Along East West Highway, the plans fulfill this concept. Further, a reduction to approximately 27 feet in the streetscape width and a reduction of the width of the sidewalk were granted on the Prince George s Plaza Shopping Center site and the Boulevard at Prince George s Metro site. Since both of these sites comprise the majority of the street frontage along the north side of the Transit District, it only seems fair and consistent to grant the same relief for the subject site. Along Toledo Terrace the plans propose to set the building back from the build-to line of 20 feet to 37.3 feet. This expands to the width of the streetscape at that edge. In this case, the staff supports the requests because no precedent has been set to establish any particular width of streetscape and it is unlikely that the property to the north will be developed further to impact the build-to line. Again, the intent of avoiding large expanses of parking areas adjacent to the right-of-way has been respected, and the staff supports the applicant s proposal. In regard to phasing, the staff recommends that the applicant be required to implement the streetscape improvements concurrently with the construction of the first building permit and the improvements be in place prior to the release of the first use and occupancy permit for the site. P90 The existing trees within the 100-year floodplain shall be preserved. The applicant provides the following justification statement in memorandum dated January 30, 2004, Norman Rivera to Susan Lareuse:

13 Page 13 The existing trees within the 100-year floodplain will be preserved except a small portion at the far western side of the site where approximately 3, SF (.089 ac.) of clearing in the floodplain is proposed. The Environmental Planning Section provided the following opinion: This mandatory requirement does not allow for any clearing of woodland within the limits of the 100-year floodplain. The plans as submitted propose clearing of woodland within the limits of the 100-year floodplain on-site. Permission has been requested from the Department of Environmental Resources to fill the 100-year floodplain on-site and it is likely that this permission will be granted because the area is small and the clearing, grading and filling are necessary for the development of the property as proposed. The required approval from the Department of Environmental Resources has not been received to date. Recommended Condition: Prior to certificate approval of the Detailed Site Plan, the applicant shall submit written approval from the Department of Environmental Resources for the proposed clearing within the 100-year floodplain. P8 The Preferred Parking Cap may not be exceeded except that, at the time of Detailed Site Plan: (a) The applicant may request that the Planning Department apply the Premium Parking Cap (Table 5), its attendant ratios (Table 6) and the fee schedule (P18), or The applicant provides the following justification statement in memorandum dated January 30, 2004, Norman Rivera to Susan Lareuse: The proposed parking based on the above development proposal is 288 spaces while the Preferred amount would be 274 spaces. The Applicant seeks a minor increase in parking from the Preferred Parking Cap which will require an allocation of 14 spaces from the Premium Cap detailed Table 6 (page 59 of the TDOZ Plan). The reason for the increase is to allow sufficient parking for the national, regional and local tenants for the site in order to ensure the viability of their business. The applicant has made great strides in addressing the needs and goals of the Transit District as to design, architecture, etc., and the allocation of a minor portion of Premium spaces will ensure the success of this site. The additional spaces will be screened as required by the guidelines and as such will have a de minimus impact on the Transit District with no detriment to the public health, safety, and welfare. The Transportation Section provides the following opinion:

14 Page 14 The applicant is proposing to construct a total of 288 surface parking spaces for the proposed development, as stated in page 15 of the applicant s statement of compliance with the mandatory development requirements. The maximum allowable preferred surface parking as recommended by the TDDP preferred surface parking ratios for retail and office is 273 spaces. This would mean a total of 15 of the proposed surface parking spaces need to be from the allowed premium parking spaces. The applicant has requested in writing approval of the 15 premium surface parking to be allocated to the proposed retail uses. The Planning Department has agreed to approve the provision of 15 premium surface parking spaces but the applicant shall phase the parking construction with development. This is to ensure that each phase of development would meet the maximum allowable surface parking ratios (2.5 spaces/1,000 GSF preferred maximum for office and 5.80 spaces/1,000 GSF premium maximum for retail. For the needed 288 surface parking spaces, the total amount of the applicant s cash contribution will be $121,200, ($ * 273 plus $ 800 * 15). It is important to note that approval of the proposed plan with 288 surface parking spaces will reduce the available preferred surface parking for retail and office and premium surface parking for retail accordingly. The revised preferred surface parking caps for retail and office would be set as 205 and 1,088 spaces, respectively, and the revised premium retail surface parking cap will be set at 285 spaces. (Due to a rounding error, the actual number of preferred spaces is 274 and the premium spaces is 14.) Comment: The staff recommends that the applicant be allowed to build only the number of preferred parking spaces that correspond to the gross floor area of the phase of the project that is being executed in the field. This ensures that the number of parking spaces built within the transit district will not be over-developed. In this case, since the Planning Department is willing to allow the applicant to build additional premium spaces above the preferred ratio only if the spaces are needed and all the preferred spaces have been built in the field. The staff recommends that those 14 premium spaces only be allowed to be built at the build-out of the project. The applicant will be required to pay for the 14 spaces at the premium rate. The permit will also be required to be accompanied by an interim plan of development that will be reviewed by the Development Review Division prior to the issuance of any permits. This interim plan must also be submitted concurrently to the DER at the time of permitting. 8. The Community Planning Division has provided comment on the plans as stated in their January 15, 2004, memorandum from Brenda Iraola to Susan Lareuse. The following is a discussion of conformance to the requirements of the TDOZ in which the applicant has not asked for relief: P2 All development/redevelopment shall have a sign plan provide location, size, color, lettering style, construction details and material specification including the method of illumination. Staff Comment: It is necessary to provide all elements of a proposed signage plan as stated in the TDDP requirement for size, color, lettering style, construction details, material, and illumination

15 Page 15 methods so that a coordinated sign plan can be adhered to and reviewed for design compatibility. The signage plan for the site should be clarified for each of the buildings including type of signage (i.e., track-mounted lettering, panel, canopy-mounted, awnings, ground-mounted vs. buildingmounted directional signage, etc.), color designations, and font. No building-mounted signage should be allowed along MD 410, except as shown in the current application, which includes the signage for the Provident Bank and the Old Country Buffet, unless that applicant submits a revision to the DSP for review by the Planning Board or its designee. The freestanding sign currently meets the sign size for the C-S-C Zone and is attractively designed. However, the tenant signage on the freestanding sign should be limited in either font or color. P89 A minimum 30-foot-wide landscaped strip shall be provided along East West Highway in accordance with Figure 30. Staff Comment: The TDDP requires a 30-foot-wide landscape strip behind the streetscape. The plan provides for the 30-foot setback from the streetscape and the applicant has placed two plazas in this area. Essentially, this requirement has been met. S3 All primary and secondary pedestrian walkways shall be well-lighted to a minimum standard of 1.25 foot-candles. Staff Comment: The applicant submitted a photometric sign plan on February 20, 2004, that demonstrates conformance to the requirement above. It is also noted (for the applicant s information) that these foot-candles may not correspond with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Federal guidelines provide lighting standards for accessible spaces and pedestrian paths to be a minimum of 2.0 foot-candles. In addition, the ADA federal guidelines require 5.0-footcandles at building entrances. The applicant should consider these requirements prior to obtaining a building permit. S5 All primary and secondary pedestrian routes shall be constructed using special paving materials. (See Figure 7 for detail of crosswalks) Staff Comment: This TDDP requirement relates to sidewalks and refers to the crosswalk detail that is to be provided at all street crossings. Specifically, crosswalks should be placed at the curb opening along Toledo Terrace (near the proposed twin retail shops), across Toledo Terrace at the intersection of East West Highway for connectivity to the Prince George s Plaza development, and along the primary site entrance adjacent to East West Highway. In addition, the applicant will need to show the TDDP Figure 7 detail for crosswalks on the plan. The plans should be revised prior to signature approval. S6 Urban Design staff shall select and specify the paving material to be used for the primary and secondary pedestrian system throughout the transit district Staff Comment: The plans provide an eight-foot-wide concrete sidewalk with brick banding. It has been coordinated with that which has previously been approved at the adjacent Outback

16 Page 16 Steakhouse development and the Prince George s Plaza Shopping center. This requirement has been met. S8 All property frontages shall be improved in accordance with Figures 7, 8 and 9 in order to create a visually continuous and unified streetscape. Staff Comment: TDDP These figures refer to the streetscape/pedestrian zone area. The requirements for the pedestrian zone provide an area for pedestrian activity and safety adjacent to vehicular traffic areas. The specified pedestrian zones within the TDDP allow for the placement of the pedestrian sidewalk to be located away from vehicular traffic areas, as well as provide an expanse of space for art work, plazas, café seating, lighting, trash receptacles, etc. The pedestrian zone is provided to enhance the development. TDDP Figure 9 refers to the street trees to be used along the roadway system within the transit district; Toledo Terrace should be improved using Quercus phellos (willow oak trees) and East West Highway should be improved using Platanus acerifolia Bloodgood (London plane tree). The street trees should be provided and planted at the required TDDP 3½- to 4-inch caliper size. The plans have been revised to show compliance with the TDDP-S8 requirement. S9 Urban Design staff shall select and specify the streetscape elements which shall constitute the streetscape vocabulary for all future development in the transit district, such as lighting fixtures, benches, trash receptacles, bicycle racks, sign posts, planters, building awnings, paving pattern(s) and materials. Staff Comment: The plans have been revised to show compliance with the TDDP-S9 requirement. S11 All street trees shall be limbed up to a minimum of 6 feet above grade. Staff Comment: The plan shows compliance with this requirement. S15 All plazas shall have paving materials that are high quality, visually attractive, and compatible with adjacent building elements. A combination of the following may be required: brick, concrete pavers, flagstone, tile, exposed aggregate concrete, granite sets, and cobbles. Large expanses of poured concrete are not acceptable. A detailed paving/banding plan will be required at the time of detailed site plan. Staff Comment: The applicant s plan shows large expanses of concrete paving within the plaza areas. The plaza area should use high-quality paving material as specified in the TDDP requirement above. Concrete is not a material of sufficient quality to fulfill this requirement, nor does it provide interest to the plaza area for pedestrian use. The applicant is also required to provide a paving/banding plan at the time of detailed site plan. Prior to signature approval, the plan should be revised to show compliance with the TDDP-S15 requirement and a paving plan should be submitted for approval to the Urban Design Section.

17 Page 17 G18 Plazas should be designed to accommodate a variety of activities and users and shall provide a variety of functions, such as a bus waiting area, pedestrian link between the blocks or plazas, or outdoor lunch plaza. Staff Comment: The original plans proposed plaza cross slopes of 4.5 percent at the twin retail buildings and five percent adjacent to the restaurant. The plans have been revised to indicate cross slopes of not more than two percent on the plazas. The applicant has revised the plans to show a bus shelter with a safe pedestrian linkage to the proposed plaza and shops. 9. The Transit District Site Plan is consistent with, and reflects the guidelines and criteria contained in the Transit District Development Plan; In regard to the site development, the Transit District detailed site plan will be consistent with and reflect the guidelines and criteria contained in the Transit District Development Plan when the conditions of approval below are met. Additional revisions to the architectural elevations will be required in order to meet the guidelines of the Plan. 10. The Transit District Site Plan meets all of the requirements of the Transit District Overlay Zone and applicable regulations of the underlying zones; The detailed site plan does not meet all the requirements of the Transit District Overlay Zone, but does generally meet the regulations of the underlying C-S-C Zone. For those requirements of the TDOZ that have not been met, amendments have been requested by the applicant, which amendments are discussed elsewhere in this report. 11. The location, size and design of buildings, signs, other structures, open spaces, landscaping, pedestrian and vehicular circulation systems, and parking and loading areas maximize safety and efficiency and are adequate to meet the purposes of the Transit District Overlay Zone; The proposed application has been designed so that the location of the buildings front along the streetscape, rather than exposing large expanses of parking in front of the buildings, which is the goal and is conducive to promoting the primacy of pedestrian over the automobile. In this way the use of plazas in the design enhances the pedestrian experience. The pedestrian circulation should be improved with the relocation of loading and trash facilities to areas away from the main pedestrian system in order to maximize the safety of the pedestrian. The vehicular circulation is still under review by the State Highway Administration and the Department of Environmental Resources. This finding can only be made if the conditions of approval are adopted 12. Each structure and use, in the manner proposed, is compatible with other structures in the Transit District and with existing and proposed adjacent development. Staff has reviewed the architectural elevations as submitted and cannot make this finding based on the submitted plans. However, as of the writing of this report, the applicant is in the process of

18 Page 18 revising the architecture. The staff s findings regarding compatibility will be presented at the Planning Board hearing. 13. The Environmental Planning Section provided the following analysis of the conformance of the conditions of approval from the Preliminary Plan of Subdivision: 5. The subject property shall provide storm water management through the use of both traditional methods and innovative technologies such as green roofs, storage of storm water for reuse, alternative paving surfaces and bioretention. Comment: This site had an approved stormwater management concept plan that expires October 2, The stormwater management concept plan was revised by the applicant to reflect the information as required and is currently being reviewed by DER for approval prior to certification. 6. The off-site woodland conservation mitigation for the subject property shall be provided within the Anacostia River watershed. Comment: Note #7 on the TCII indicates compliance with this condition. 7. The submission package for the Detailed Site Plan shall include a copy of the signed Jurisdictional Determination. Comment: This condition has not yet been addressed. It is possible that a signed Jurisdictional Determination was not provided because, in years past, the Army Corps of Engineers did not always sign the plans. Recommended Condition: Prior to issuance of any grading permit, a copy of the signed Jurisdictional Determination shall be submitted or evidence that approval has been obtained shall be provided. 8. Prior to the issuance of any permits which impact jurisdictional wetlands, wetland buffers, streams or Waters of the US. the applicant shall submit copies of all federal and state wetland permits, evidence that approval conditions have been complied with, and associated mitigation plans. Comment: This condition will be addressed prior to the issuance of grading permits. 9. The reforestation on the properties to the north shall consist of the planting of one 2- inch caliper trees at stocking levels that meet the Woodland Conservation Ordinance requirements. This reforestation shall not be counted toward meeting the ordinance requirements for the subject property. Comment: The issue of clearing and grading onto parkland has been resolved. No grading is proposed on the parkland to the north.

19 Page The landscape plan associated with the Detailed Site Plan shall show all the innovative storm water management techniques to be constructed and shall contain all necessary details to ensure proper insulation and inspection. Comment: The landscape plan associated with the detailed site plan does not appear to show all the methods to be used to meet the stormwater management requirements. The submission of approved technical plans prior to signature approval of the detailed site plan will address this condition. 14. This property is subject to the provisions of the Prince George s County Woodland Conservation Ordinance because there are more than 10,000 square feet of existing woodland and the gross tract area is greater than 40,000 square feet. The Type II Tree Conservation Plan (TCPII/179/03) submitted requires additional revisions to be in conformance with the Woodland Conservation Ordinance and the requirements of the TDOZ. Recommended Condition: Prior to certificate approval of the detailed site plan, the Type II Tree Conservation Plan (TCPII/179/03) shall be revised as follows: a. Revise the Woodland Conservation Worksheet to reflect all changes to the plan. b. Have the revised plan signed and dated by the qualified professional who prepared the plan. 15. Conformance to the Landscape Manual The plan is in general conformance to the Landscape Manual. As a mixed-use development, the Landscape Manual allows the use closest to the property line to determine the required bufferyard as dictated in Section 4.7, Buffering Incompatible Uses. 16. The Permits Section pointed out that on the originally submitted plans, a loading space and the drive aisle accessing the space are proposed within 50 feet of residentially zoned property; this would require a Departure from Design Standards (DDS). The plans have been revised to move the loading space a minimum of 50 feet from the adjacent residential property and the plan proposes that a sign be posted to direct trucks to enter along East West Highway only. However, the loading/trash areas are inappropriately located in such a way to obstruct the movement of pedestrians on site. The plans should be revised prior to signature approval to move all loading and trash facilities away from the pedestrian pathways. 17. The Urban Design Section has a number of additional concerns relating to the project that should be addressed prior to the approval of the plans. Those concerns are outlined below: a. Landscaping along the perimeter of the project should be upgraded to incorporate plants with seasonal interest year round and provide interest to the pedestrians passerby. The plans should be revised prior to signature approval to provide landscaping with seasonal