Transcription

1 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: City Council Alfred D. Lott, City Manager County Zoning Ordinance Rewrite City Staff Recommendations DATE: January 12, 2017 I. Background As Council is aware, Prince George's County is conducting a comprehensive rewrite of the County s Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations. These laws define how land in certain geographic areas can be used. The current Zoning Ordinance is more than 1,200 pages, inconsistent and difficult to use. This project will transform the current zoning code to a more user-friendly 21st Century Zoning Ordinance for Prince George's County. The website address for the project is: Staff of The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) briefed City Council on the progress of the project in June 2015, January 2016 and October In addition, City staff and Councilmember Trouth attended several Stakeholder Focus Group meetings to provide input. In February, 2015 City staff sent a 10-page letter regarding the Evaluations and Recommendations Report to M-NCPPC and provided on-line comments on Module 1. The project timeline calls for County Council review of new zoning regulations beginning in 2017 and testing/adoption of regulations by late 2017 or early A formal position statement of the City Council is needed to inform the County Council of the City s recommendations. II. Introduction The Zoning Ordinance Rewrite consists of three modules, summarized as follows: Module 1 dealing with zones, zone regulations and use regulations; Module 2 dealing with development standards and adequate public facilities; and, Module 3 dealing with procedures. Module 3 also includes an update of the Subdivision Regulations, and a separate update of the County s Landscape Manual (part of Module 2) is also included in the overall effort. Fact Sheets for each Module are provided in Attachment #1. It is worth noting that Module 2 represents a complete reworking of the County s development standards. The rules have been expanded and updated, and there is now significant overlap with the City s own Development Review Guidelines. The staff analysis of Module 2 will specifically address the

2 2 City s Guidelines and how they are affected by the County s new standards. A summary table of all of the staff recommendations in this report is provided as Attachment #2. III. Analysis A. Module 1 Zones and Use Regulations 1. New Zoning Districts The number of zoning districts in the rewritten ordinance is reduced from 73 to 42. There are three types of zones included in the Rewrite: 21 Base zones; 10 Planned Development zones; and, 11 Overlay zones. Within the City, there are currently 22 different zones. The Rewrite will place property in the closest compatible zone compared to the existing zone. The biggest change to the base zone structure is the establishment of the new Transit-Oriented/Activity Center Zones. They replace the current zones used for approving mixed-use and transit-supportive development the comprehensive design, planned community and mixed-use zones. The most notable change is the creation of the Town Activity Center (TAC) zone and its future implementation in the Bowie Town Center Activity Center (Local) in accordance with the recommendations of the approved County General Plan, Plan Prince George s The Rewrite eliminates the Development District Overlay Zone that exists in Old Town Bowie. Staff views this as a positive development, since it is our belief that the increased regulatory demands placed upon property owners have hindered revitalization within the commercial district. The Rewrite also includes a Neighborhood Conservation Overlay zone, which is intended to preserve community character. The City Council has recommended this technique in the past, as a means of preserving the Levitt portions of the City. The potential for incompatible lot re-subdivision in the Levitt sections became an issue with a property on Belair Drive. To improve user-friendliness, each zone is laid out in the Zoning Ordinance document in a similar way, incorporating both text and graphics to establish the regulations and explain concepts. While there are likely to be some challenges with unique situations involving individual properties, the one-for-one zone update should not appreciably affect the zoning pattern in the City or create any alarming rezoning results. Staff therefore supports the new zoning categories. Several concerns emerged from staff s review of Module 1 and the Open Comment website. In some instances, staff s comments on the Open Comment website received a response, in other instances no response was given. Also, certain issues raised by others should be considered by Council. The comments shown in italics below are City staff comments, unless otherwise noted. Each new item begins with the page citation from Module 1 (e.g is page of Module 1) PL (Public Land) Zone Why is there not a Resource Protection Zone that preserves and protects significant features on private land? Many communities have a floodplain protection zone, for example. If the County is serious about protecting these features, the RPZ would do that on private land, complementing the approach taken in the PL zone for public properties. A suggestion was made at the February 3rd Focus Group meeting about protecting the Green Infrastructure Network through some type of zoning district. This should be examined, and would be

3 3 another way of addressing the need for a Resource Protection Zone that goes beyond land in public ownership. The Use Tables do not appear to address public uses. The current Z.O. has a category called Public/Quasi Public. Frequently, there are miscellaneous public uses that are permitted under "Public buildings and uses". This listing should be continued. I am also concerned that if the PL zone is applied to all public properties, these properties would not conform to the Intensity and Dimensional Standards. Perhaps not all public land should be rezoned to PL. Staff Recommendation: Council should communicate these concerns in the City position statement AR (Agricultural-Residential) Zone This zone should not be a district where estate housing is permitted or even preferred, since residential subdivision is not always compatible with agricultural uses. If residential is retained, conservation subdivision design would address the need for setbacks and buffering to agricultural uses. In addition, we have seen lot coverage issues when a 10% lot coverage maximum is the rule and there are numerous improvements constructed by the homeowner (long driveways, large parking pads, large house footprints with three car garages, detached garages and pool buildings. There was a text amendment passed to address the need for more lot coverage at The Hamptons in Bowie. Staff Recommendation: Council should communicate these concerns in the City position statement Lot coverage in SFR (Single-Family Residential) 6.7 Zone A comment was made on the Open Comment website that maximum lot coverage should be increased from 30% to 35%. In the City, these areas would include Old Town Bowie and the Levitt sections located between MD 450 and US 50, now zoned R-55. Staff Recommendation: Oppose. We have not seen many lot coverage variances in Old Town Bowie, and if a Neighborhood Conservation Overlay zone is implemented in the Levitt neighborhoods, lot coverage would be addressed by the impervious surface regulations of the overlay. Council should communicate these concerns in the City position statement Transit Oriented/Activity Center Base Zones Nonresidential Base Zones General Provisions for All Planned Development Zones All development in these zones should be subject to Detailed Site Plan review. I understand the desire to streamline, however, these zones are where the action is, and residents are owed an opportunity to see what type of development is specifically proposed and to participate in a hearing process since plans at this stage will affect them the most. Reply: Thanks for the comment. The staff team notes that the majority of development in the nonresidential zones that exist today, and which form the basis of these 5 proposed zones, do not require Detailed Site Plan review. Staff Recommendation: Council should communicate these concerns in the City position statement General Commercial and Office Zone I am not seeing Floor Area Ratio maximums in these Nonresidential Base Zones. Is FAR indicated anywhere? Usually, this is the most effective way of regulating building intensity in commercial and office zones. Staff Recommendation: Council should communicate these concerns in the City position statement.

4 Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Zone This zone needs to prevent incompatible re-subdivision that would create lots that do not conform to the prevailing development pattern. The zone needs to prevent construction of new homes that to not match the general sizes and architectural characteristics of existing homes. The overlay district should be approved at the request of a municipality without needing the written permission or consent of individual homeowners. The district should not overly regulate site and building features because homeowners do not want to be tightly restricted on the types and styles of home improvements they wish to make, as you might need to do in an historic district. Most municipalities are not interested in having to review for extra requirements or enforcing regulations that micromanage what a homeowner can do. Staff Recommendation: Council should communicate these concerns in the City position statement. 2. New Use Tables The Use Regulation tables are clearly one of the major changes contained in the Rewrite. All use regulations in the Zoning Ordinance are consolidated into a single division, and the treatment of principal uses is organized around a three-tiered use classification system that adds text descriptions to clarify use groups at three different levels, including Use Classifications, Use Categories and Uses. The characteristics and functions of each Use Category are established within the Use Regulation Table and each use is specifically defined in the Definitions section. The new organization and definitions of uses are consistently applied throughout the regulations and all terminology is made consistent. Use standards have been modernized to make them more concise and consistent with best practices Principal Uses Why don't you just attempt to define what flex space is and then list the zones where it is permitted? Staff Recommendation: Council should communicate these concerns in the City position statement Accessory Uses and Structures I am not in favor of accessory dwelling units within multi-family or attached units SFR-A or MFR-12. There are usually parking issues in these communities and this would make it worse. Staff Recommendation: Because the allowance for accessory dwellings will create new opportunities for affordable housing within the community, Council should support accessory dwellings, with the proposed area limitations, except in the multifamily and attached zones. It is recommended that Council communicate these concerns in the City position statement Home Housing for Poultry The Rewrite allows housing of poultry on lots at least a half-acre in size, for single-family home use only, subject to certain performance standards. This topic received the most input of any subject covered in the Rewrite. The majority of the comments were in favor of liberalizing the proposed limitations. Below is a sampling of the many comments received on the Open Comment website regarding this subject. Additional comments may be viewed on the Open Comment website. Open Comment: I think that the 1/2 acre requirement for poultry should be decreased. It deprives those who would love to have and care for the hens. Please reconsider this requirement. Open Comment: For the current, proposed version of "Home housing for poultry" (up to 6 hens for eggs), I believe RE, and RR should be Permitted by Right. SFR-4.6, SFR-6.7 and SFR-A should consider a reduced number of 3 hens for eggs and be Permitted by Right as well.

5 5 Open Comment: RE and RR should include the right to raise hens for home use. Also, the agricultural and open space base zones should allow for pastured poultry--after all, is that the idyllic family farm? [Open Comment Response: Under the proposed ordinance, agricultural production will be permitted, by right in the RE and RR zones. Agricultural Production includes chicken-keeping, and is identified as a Primary Use, as opposed to an Accessory Use.] Open Comment: As written, this new accessory use will place ownership of domestic hens off-limits to the majority of the county population - surely not the intent. Instead of a 1/2 acre lot minimum, recommend a maximum of 3 hens in residential SFH lots of no less than 1/6 acre, with an enclosure standoff minimum of no less than 25 feet from the nearest dwelling. Hens must be able to access the lot to graze and forage, which improves overall animal health and the nutritional quality of their eggs. No formal permits or licenses should be required for residential, non-commercial uses. It should be acknowledged that 'backyard' hens are kept for companionship as well as as utility. Commercial uses such as breeding or egg sales should be restricted to agricultural zones. Open Comment: The limit of 1/2 acre plot before hens can be housed needlessly restricts ownership of backyard birds by the majority of residents. This is an unnecessary encumbrance. Hens kept for non commercial, residential egg production are quiet and clean, educational, and fun. In limited number they are perfectly suited to a plot far smaller than 1/2 acre without any impact on the residential life quality. Growing up we had chickens on a 100x 40 foot plot in NY. The small chicken yard and coop was perfect for 6-8 chickens. Sometimes even 10. No reasons for the neighbors to ever complain except when winter slowed laying and they didn't get a dozen! Please let my kids share the same joys I had in playing with chickens and collecting the bounty. Open Comment: The 1/2-acre minimum should be dropped, as it essentially maintains a ban on suburban residents owning backyard poultry. It is out of step with best practices in the hundreds of localities, from Baltimore and Anne Arundel County Chicago, that allow residents to own and benefit from backyard poultry on their small lots. If these areas can manage backyard poultry on small lots without an effective ban, there is no reason why our county can't too. Open Comment: I agree with the other commentors, the half acre requirement should be removed. My husband and I are looking to purchase a home in PG County, but it's very important to us that we be able to have a small chicken coop for personal use (eggs) in our backyard. It would be a small coop and certainly could have some setbacks from the property line (they would need to be minor). Most of the houses we are looking at are ~6,000 square feet. There's plenty of room for a coop for hens, and they would not be noisy (no roosters), so the neighbors would not be bothered. The other counties we're looking at already allow this, and is is a factor in our home-buying decision (I know that may seem odd to some, but sustainability is very important to us). We strongly believe in property rights and see this as a property rights issue - we should be allowed to have non obtrusive things, like coops/hens, on our property, the same as our neighbor should be able to build a shed in their backyard, which we will never see or be bothered by. Thank you! To clarify, the houses we're looking at are on 6,000 square foot lots. Staff Recommendation: In order to limit the extent of any possible negative neighbor-to-neighbor situations, staff believes the proposed minimum threshold of 20,000 square feet for the keeping of chickens should be retained and not reduced below a half-acre. This threshold is the minimum

6 6 acreage in the current and proposed Rural Residential zones. Council should communicate this position in the City position statement Planning Director Use Interpretations Need to identify appeal process from Planning Director decisions. Should it go to Zoning Hearing Examiner or Board of Appeals? Staff Recommendation: Council should communicate these concerns in the City position statement Home Gardens Open Comment: Home gardens should be allowed in any yard on residential properties. Restricting home gardens to backyards is unfounded and impinges on the rights of property owners. Open Comment: As a part of the home garden, residents should be allowed to raise bees for honey. This increases our sustainability in raising our own sweeteners, increasing garden harvest through pollination, and helps the struggling honeybee population. If Baltimore City allows for backyard beekeeping, why don't we? Staff Recommendation: Staff concurs that home gardens should be allowed in any yard on residential properties. This would assist with locating butterfly gardens and rain gardens, which are encouraged by the City to improve habitat and the natural environment. Council should communicate these concerns in the City position statement.

7 7 B. Module 2 Development Standards and Adequate Public Facilities A summary of the contents of Division 27-5, which contains the Rewrite s development standards, is provided below, followed by staff commentary on each subsection. 1. Roadway Access, Mobility, and Circulation The section consolidates rules on circulation, mobility, and access for a multi-modal network of mobility. It also introduces new access and circulation standards, such as cross-access standards in certain zones and connectivity standards for new single-family development. In addition to providing updated zoning standards, this section addresses the need for shorter vehicle trips, traffic calming, pedestrian access and circulation and bicycle access and circulation. Staff Comments: There are a number of observations and concerns with this new section. Section , Circulation Plan Required: What is the threshold for requiring a Circulation Plan? It does not seem necessary in all instances. Section B.3, Other Streets, is unclear what is intended. The referenced accessways (driveways and alleys) are not other streets. Section D, Vehicle Access Management addresses City Development Review Guidelinesw (DRG) Transportation Guidelines 12 and 13, which will no longer be needed.

8 8 Section G, Pedestrian Circulation, introduces better and more specific standards than City DRG Transportation Guideline 3, which will no longer be needed. Section H.3, External Street Connectivity, notes that at all locations where streets terminate with no street connection, but a future connection is planned or accommodated, a sign shall be installed with the words FUTURE STREET CONNECTION to inform land owners. This is in conflict with City DRG Transportation Guideline 18, which reads, Ghost streets, or stub streets, placed on proposed residential subdivisions are discouraged where those streets could lead to future inconsistent development in adjacent and undeveloped parcels. Alternative accesses to such adjacent land parcels or roads are preferred. Staff Recommendation: Oppose the requirement to install a sign, as a means of discouraging use of those streets if alternative accesses are available. Section J, Traffic Calming Measures. Traffic calming, as a matter of City policy, will be considered to slow traffic speeds on more heavily travelled local streets. The proposed standard applies to new developments on all local and subcollector streets that connect between two nodes in the connectivity system. Staff does not agree that traffic calming measures should be built into the design of a new subdivision, as the purpose of the regulations is to design a development that is not encumbered with traffic issues such that the development must install traffic calming measures from the beginning. Staff Recommendation: Oppose the inclusion of this section, as well as Subsection L.2, in the Rewrite. Section K.4, Development Entry Points, with 80 units or less, is more conservative than City DRG Transportation Guideline 14, which sets a maximum of 100 units with only a single point of access and is no longer needed. Staff Recommendation: Support. Section O, Vehicle Stacking Spaces, are required to be calculated and a minimum number provided at uses with drive-throughs or auto-oriented uses. This is a typical site planning issue that would benefit from the existence of the new standard. Staff Recommendation: Support. Section , Pedestrian Access and Circulation, adequately covers City DRG Transportation Guidelines 8 (regarding sidewalks) and 11 (regarding crosswalks), which are no longer needed. Regarding waivers of sidewalks discussed in A.2.c, the City s Transportation Guideline 10 is more prescriptive, allowing for a complete waiver only on cul-de-sacs with 10 or fewer lots on them, or a waiver of sidewalk only on one side of the street on cul-de-sacs with more than 10 lots. Staff Recommendation: Modify Section A.2.c to conform to the City s standard. Section B.4, Pedestrian Walkways through Large Vehicular Parking Areas and Parking Garages, is more comprehensive than City DRG Commercial Guideline 10 and General Guidelines 5 and 12, which are no longer needed. Section , Bicycle Access and Circulation, is much more comprehensive than City DRG General Guideline 29, which requires bike racks at publicly accessible buildings and parks and is no longer needed. Staff Recommendation: Council should communicate support of the above recommendations in the City position statement.

9 9 2. Off-Street Parking and Loading This section updates minimum parking standards based on best practices and studies from maturing suburbs and auto-oriented communities investing in transit. Different standards are recommended for different contexts, such as inside the Beltway versus outside the Beltway. The section provides requirements for parking lot design, strengthens bicycle parking standards based on zone and location, and expands flexibility provisions along with tools that support use of parking reduction strategies (such as Transportation Demand Management). Staff Comments: There are a number of observations and concerns with this new section. Section B.1.b, Change in Use, incentivizes changes of use inside the Beltway. Because the same circumstances apply everywhere, the same trigger should be used for all changes of use throughout the County. Staff Recommendation: Oppose restricting the applicability of the incentive to be exempted from the Off-Street Parking requirements for changes of use with limited impacts. Section , Parking Plan Required, sets a threshold of more than 100 off-street parking spaces. Why is this threshold so high? A lower threshold would require Parking Plans for smaller projects. Staff Recommendation: Revise the threshold to parking facilities with 20 spaces or more. Section B.2, Pervious or Semi-pervious Surfacing, encourages the use of pervious surfacing materials, subject to an ongoing maintenance process, which must be certified as capable of accommodating anticipated traffic loading stresses and maintenance impacts. The City s DRG General Guideline 28 states that Pervious paving materials (e.g. concrete pavers, grass pavers and porous pavement) are encouraged at parking areas, driveways, sidewalks and trails in order to allow rainwater to permeate through hard surfaces into the ground at the site rather than run off the site. The City s guideline is no longer needed. Section C.1, Safe and Convenient Access, more comprehensively addresses the City s DRG General Guideline 5 which is no longer needed. Section D, Markings, more comprehensively addresses the City s DRG General Guideline 16 which is no longer needed. Section G, Exterior Lighting: Should parking lots over a certain size be required to have lighting? The City s DRG General Guideline 14 is more expansive than the wording of this section: Outdoor lighting should use full cut-off fixtures that are fully shielded wherever possible to reduce the amount of light needed and to reduce glare. The lighting system should include timing devices to turn off unneeded lighting during times the project is not in use. Outdoor lighting should be efficient but not excessive and should be designed to enhance safety. Staff Recommendation: Modify this section to conform to the City s Guideline. Section H.2 and 3, Landscaping, includes standards that are not landscaping. Staff Recommendation: These items should be deleted or relocated to another section. Section J, Maintained In Good Repair, sets a new performance standard for maintenance. This section should be amended to reference all items shown on the Parking Plan and to detail the consequences of being out of compliance with the approved plan. Staff Recommendation: Support with the above-mentioned changes to this section.

10 10 Section K.1.a, Primary Drive Aisle, allows parallel parking spaces to be located on both sides of the main drive aisle accessing a large parking facility of 300 or more parking spaces. This appears to contradict the principles of minimizing congestion and providing safe access, therefore, staff does not support the concept. Staff Recommendation: Oppose. This section should be deleted. Table A, Minimum Number of Off Street Spaces, sets a standard for multifamily buildings of 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit if the site is located inside the Beltway and 2.0 spaces per dwelling unit if the site is located outside of the Beltway. Since the use requires minimum parking facilities, why allow a different standard based on location? The City s DRG Residential Guideline 25 states that parking in multifamily developments should be provided at a rate greater than that required by the County Code. Staff Recommendation: Modify Table A to require a minimum of 2.0 parking spaces per multifamily unit, regardless of location. Section D, Maximum Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces, establishes a new approach to ensure that excessively sized parking lots are not allowed. Staff Recommendation: Support. Section E, Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Stations. This section states that up to 10% of the required number of parking spaces may be used and designated as EV charging stations. The City generally supports expansion of opportunities for siting EV charging stations whenever possible. Staff Recommendation: Support. Section F, Driveways Used to Satisfy Standards, allows driveways to satisfy minimum offstreet parking requirements for single-family dwellings. Should there be a different parking standard for home occupation uses conducted within single-family dwellings? Section D.2.b, Location. It appears that this paragraph deals more with pedestrian access and should be relocated to the subsequent subsection (Pedestrian Access). Section E.2, On-Street Parking Agreement. Staff sees this section as problematic, as it would not be prudent in any event to contract away public parking spaces to private entities. Staff Recommendation: Oppose and delete this section from the Rewrite. Section A.1.b, Bicycle Racks or Lockers Required. Change will to shall. Staff Recommendation: Council should communicate the above concerns in the City position statement. 3. Open Space Set-Aside Standards The new language requires a minimum amount of open space set-asides for private open space in new developments. Open space is defined to include: natural features; required landscaping; active and passive recreation; squares, courts and plazas; stormwater that is a site amenity; and, public access easements with paths and trails. The new requirements will supplement public dedications. Staff Recommendation: Only one issue emerged as staff reviewed the new section on Open Space Set-Asides: Why would areas of privately owned lots be credited as a set-aside? Section A states that private yards, not subject to an open space or conservation easement, shall not be counted as open space set-asides. The area of a lot under an open space or conservation

11 11 easement is still privately held by the property owner; it is not a true set-aside. For this reason, staff recommends opposing this specific provision. Council should communicate this concern in the City position statement. 4. Landscape Manual Revisions There are two new landscaping concepts introduced in the revision to the Landscape Manual: building frontage landscaping and requirements for nonresidential and mixed use development. These are contained in Sections 4.8 and 4.11 of the Manual. Staff Recommendation: Staff concluded that the new requirements are items that are typically addressed in a site plan review. Having the structure for these types of requirements within the Landscape Manual will strengthen the ability of staff to ensure that such items will be addressed in site development. As we understand it, the proposed regulations in Section 4.11, as written, will only apply to the IE and HI zones (i.e. the industrial zones). In order to have the desired impact, the regulations will have to be expanded to include the standard of one shade tree per 1,000 square feet of green area within several of the other new zones (GCO, LTO, NC and SC), which currently do not have any requirements for green area. Council should communicate these concerns in the City position statement. 5. Fences and Walls New and revised standards are included for fences and walls, including maximum heights, materials and appearance standards that apply near streets. Staff Comments: Staff identified several items of concern in this section. Section B lists new exemptions from the standards of Section To assist homeowners in improving the appearance of their properties, an exemption should be added that allows a homeowner to replace existing fencing in-kind, without having to comply with Section An additional exemption should be identified that defines ordinary repairs. The County DPIE s current interpretation is that homeowners may replace the slats of a fence, without removing the posts, and a building permit is not required. Section B, In Utility Easements. Staff finds the language of this subsection to be problematic because it is unrealistic to expect a homeowner to seek written authorization from a utility easement holder in order to erect a fence within an easement area. It is recommended that the first sentence of the referenced sub-section be deleted. Section E, Within Required Landscaping Areas, states that fences may be installed within required landscaping areas, subject to an approved landscaping plan. Staff believes this requirement places an unnecessary burden on the homeowner. If a landscaping area is required and is already subject to a site plan approval, the addition of fencing should be considered a revision to the site plan. A landscaping plan should not apply in any other situation. Section , Height Standards. Staff believes the County is going in the wrong direction by restricting fence height to four feet in the front yards of all lots, not only for corner lots which are one acre or less. The City Council s stated position regarding the existing fence height requirements for corner lots is that the County should go back to permitting six-foot high fences, as they did prior to enactment of a new law in Municipal codes are permitted to be more

12 12 restrictive, and municipalities would address situations where lower fence height should be mandated within their own rules. Table A should be revised accordingly. Section B, Exceptions, should include screening walls for service areas. Section C, Fence and Wall Landscaping, references fence heights higher than four feet, if located within 15 feet of a street right-of-way must be supplemented with landscape screening to soften the visual impact of the fence. The requirement is limited in single-family areas to only those lots that are located within 15 feet of a designated collector or higher street. Even though the situations where landscaping is required is fairly limited, the requirement to screen a fence (which has an obvious screening purpose of its own) seems excessive. Staff recommends deletion of this section, as individual situations not involving single-family homes can be addressed with site plan conditions tailored to the unique circumstances of the use and its location. Section , Security Exemption Plan. Is this section intended to allow higher fences on corner lots, through an administrative approval process, rather than a zoning appeal hearing? If so, staff supports this additional flexibility in the Zoning Ordinance, as it would be consistent with City Council policy and will reduce the high number of appeal applications involving reasonable requests from homeowners. Staff Recommendation: Council should communicate these concerns in the City position statement. 6. Exterior Lighting New exterior lighting standards are provided to support dark skies, such as use of full cut-off fixtures, maximum foot-candle limits and maximum light fixture pole heights based on use. Staff Comments: Staff believes the new requirements are a vast improvement over the current Zoning Ordinance standards, but staff is concerned that there is not enough emphasis on enforcement and amortizing existing lighting that does not conform to the new standards. Section B, Exemptions. Exemption 13 attempts to deal with lighting that does not conform to the new zoning standards by requiring compliance when the fixtures become unrepairable. Staff recommends including a sundown date in the regulations, after which all existing lighting must comply. Section , Street Lighting, provides some standards for street lights. If the lights are located within the public right-of-way, the agency having jurisdiction should determine the requirements. The standards of this section should be deemed to be advisory only. Staff Recommendation: Council should communicate these concerns in the City position statement. 7. Environmental Protection and Noise Controls The purpose of this section is to ensure that development complies with County environmental protection and noise control standards. The County s environmental regulations, such as Woodland and Wildlife Habitat Conservation, Floodplain Management, Erosion and Sediment Control, and Stormwater Management and Chesapeake Bay Critical Area, are incorporated by reference. New decibel level standards are included for noise control.

13 13 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends supporting the specific decibel standards for noise control contained in Section , as it will assist in resolving potential code enforcement problems. Council should communicate this support in the City position statement. 8. Multifamily and Townhouse Form and Design Standards A key goal for the proposed design standards is ensuring attractive development. The standards address: site access; parking and garage location; building orientation and configuration; building length and facades; roofs; transparency/windows; and location of outdoor activity areas. Staff Recommendation: The majority of the standards in Section far exceed the standards of the City s Development Review Guidelines. However, the DRG require a greater offset for individual townhouse units (four feet instead of two feet proposed in the Rewrite) and the City has a standard of no more than six townhouse units per linear building facade. It is recommended that these standards be included in the Rewrite. 9. Nonresidential and Mixed-Use Form and Design Standards This section includes general standards which address: building orientation; single- and multibuilding layout; development of small parcels at the fronts and corners of big retail areas; façade surface variety and materials, windows and doors; roofs; location of parking; and, loading, service and equipment areas. There are also large retail development standards which apply to single tenant buildings that devote 60% of space to retail sales. Staff Recommendation: The majority of the standards in Section far exceed the standards of the City s Development Review Guidelines. However, on multi-building sites, the DRG require that the proposed architecture should relate buildings to one another, and that large projects should be designed with an overall architectural theme. It is recommended that these standards be included in the Rewrite. 10. Industrial Form and Design Standards The purposed and intent of this section is to ensure a minimum quality of form and design for all types of industrial development. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends no position regarding these standards, which are more comprehensive than, and far exceed, the standards of the City s Development Review Guidelines. 11. Neighborhood Compatibility Standards The intent of these new regulations is to protect existing single-family neighborhoods from impacts of adjacent new development, including multifamily, townhouse, live/work, nonresidential and mixed-use development. The standards address: building height and setbacks; building orientation, design, roofs and materials; multi-building placement; parking and loading area location; outdoor dining and drive-thrus; open space location; exterior lighting; signage; buffers; and hours of operation. Staff Recommendation: Staff referenced these proposed standards in the review of the Bowie Marketplace residential proposal. Staff recommends no position regarding these standards, which are more comprehensive than, and far exceed, the standards of the City s Development Review Guidelines.

14 Agricultural Compatibility Standards The new requirements include agricultural compatibility standards such as a required minimum 100-foot buffer adjacent to agricultural operations, vegetative screening and buffering, location of open space, treatment of lot edges adjacent to agriculture areas. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends no position regarding these standards, which are more comprehensive than, and far exceed, the standards of the City s Development Review Guidelines. 13. Signage Revised signage standards are included, such as modernized illumination standards, new standards for digital displays and a simplified table of standards for building wall signs, roof signs and freestanding signs. Staff Comments: Staff has several comments and concerns regarding this section. Section , Applicability, includes clarification that the new standards for sign review will, in an attempt to streamline the process, separate the review of signage during the site plan review stage and allow signage to be reviewed during permit review. Even though design and quality of signage is routinely discussed during site plan review, staff supports this recommendation to streamline the process. In practice, many projects do not have their final signage designs determined when the site plan is submitted and often have to return through a site plan revision process to have signage approved C.7, Temporary Real Estate Directional. Staff recommends Transportation, Public Works and other government officials be included along with police officers authorized to remove a sign that is a hazard to traffic I.1 and 4, Sandwich Board Signs. One sign per tenant in a multi-tenant building could allow a line of signs. Staff recommends a limit on the number of signs. Staff further recommends that sandwich board signs be prevented from being attached to any pole, structure or device by chain, strap or other device O, Campaign Signs. There is no prohibition for the successful candidate of a primary election leaving their campaign sign up until 10 days after the general election, since they will not be erecting the sign 45 days prior to the election. A provision should be included in this section requiring that all candidates of a primary election must remove their signs within 10 days of the primary election , Prohibited Signs, includes one sign situation for which staff requests clarification: A. Signs located in any manner or place so as to constitute a hazard to traffic. Staff recommends amending the text to read: a hazard to pedestrian or vehicular traffic. Staff Recommendation: Council should communicate these concerns in the City position statement.

15 Green Building Standards and Incentives The new standards apply to new residential development with ten or greater units, new nonresidential development that is 10,000 square feet or greater and major redevelopment projects. Development must earn a minimum number of points in a new scoring system in order to be approved. Points are earned for: location within a Transit Oriented Development or Activity Center; redevelopment of Brownfields; Energy Conservation; cool roofs, green roofs, skylights; solar or tankless water heating; solar, wind or alternative energy; rainwater harvesting; keeping natural vegetation; community gardens; recycled construction materials; EV charging stations; and, shower facilities for bike users. The Green Building incentives apply in Transit Oriented/Activity Centers and nonresidential zones. Incentives include limits up to: one additional dwelling unit per acre; one additional floor of height; 10% additional lot coverage; 15% parking reductions. Staff Recommendation: There were many comments submitted on the Open Comment website in support of more demanding Green Building standards. Staff has several suggestions to strengthen this new portion of the Zoning Ordinance. First, the two transit-oriented menu items listed in Table B, under Location, should be allotted more points (add 0.5 to 1 point). These items are of great importance in terms of developing public transit in Prince George s County and would significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Second, under vegetation, there should be a menu item that addresses native tree canopy specifically. Also for the item that says remove lawn or turf in favor of ground cover consisting of plant material or mulch it may be best to specify native plant material. Third, in the water conservation and water quality section, there should be items that address greywater systems, reducing impervious surfaces and possibly installing composting toilets. Council should communicate these concerns in the City position statement. 15. Public Facility Adequacy Regulations The new standards apply to transportation, water, sewer, police, parks and schools (fire/rescue has been discontinued). The new section consolidates APF review, provides for the issuance of a Certificate of Adequacy by the Planning Director and requires APF review for projects with approvals and old APF determinations that have not proceeded with development. For transportation adequacy, the Rewrite changes road adequacy to transportation adequacy, establishes exemptions for development in transit zones and a lower Level-of-Service threshold (LOS E ) in certain areas. For parks, the new standards link parks/recreation to Formula 2040 and reduces the recommended park Level-of-Service in transit zones and Activity Centers to levels consistent with more urban development. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends no position regarding these standards, which are more comprehensive than, and far exceed, the standards of the City s Development Review Guidelines.

16 16 C. Module 3 Procedures and Subdivision Regulations The emphasis of Module 3 was to consolidate and clarify development review procedures. Module 3 includes General Provisions (Division 27-1), Administration (Division 27-2), Nonconformities (Division 27-6), Enforcement (Division 27-7) and Terms and Uses Defined. In addition, the Subdivision Regulations were addressed in Module 3. The authors of the Rewrite attempted to: (1) make it easier to achieve high quality development/jobs; (2) make the process more efficient and certain; and, (3) provide more flexibility to support desired redevelopment. An Executive Summary of Module 3 is included as Attachment #3. 1. Division 27-1, General Provisions This section contains general provisions that are relevant to the rewritten Zoning Ordinance as a whole. While many of these provisions are in the current Zoning Ordinance, they are found in different sections. In the new Ordinance, they are consolidated into one section in the new Ordinance. Division 27-1 plays an important part in making the Ordinance user-friendly by including certain overarching principles and establishing a clear basis for the authority by which the ordinance is adopted and administered. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends no position regarding these provisions. 2. Division 27-2, Administration The subjects covered in Division 27-2, Administration, are organized into the following subsections: Staff Comments: Staff has several comments and concerns regarding this section. Section should have an explanation of the applicability of zoning within public rights-ofway.

17 17 Table , Summary of Development Review Responsibilities, does not reflect the role of some municipalities as Decision Making Bodies. A revised table adding a column for municipalities was distributed by County staff. The table should be revised to reflect this new information and a separate subsection describing the role of municipalities should be added at the end of Section (Throughout the public review process to date, municipal stakeholders have made it clear that the Rewrite process should address the desires of municipalities to be included in the revised processes. Repeatedly, County staff and consultants informed municipal stakeholders that there would be no additional authority given as a result of the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite, but the intention was not to take away any authority granted to municipalities under State law. There needs to be a reconciliation of existing authority with the proposed Rewrite provisions, as the draft documents appear to overlook this arrangement in several instances, such as with Variances, Nonconforming Uses, Alternative Compliance and Minor Revisions to Special Exception Site Plans. The Rewrite does not recognize the role of municipalities in Table except under Section , Board of Appeals.) The new process for departures from sign design standards identifies the Planning Director as the decision making body. This would take a current function away from municipalities and should be opposed, even though it is recognized that signage review will become a permit-level review in all instances, rather than being reviewed through the site plan review process. Departures from all zoning requirements, to the extent there are decisions to be made, should remain with municipalities that currently have this authority. Section , Standard Review Procedures and , Application Specific Review Procedures and Decision Standards, initiate some significant changes to how development applications are processed in Prince George s County. Pre-application conferences and neighborhood meetings are mandatory for rezonings, planned developments, special exceptions, major site plans and major adjustments. Notices must be mailed and signs posted ten days before the neighborhood meeting. City staff has always used a minimum of two weeks notice, when scheduling Stakeholders Meetings, and notices are mailed to all properties within a 500-foot radius of the subject property, at a minimum. It is recommended that this same method be used countywide. In addition, the current requirements for informational mailings represent a successful method of informing prospective stakeholders of a developer s interest in a property, well in advance of (at least 30 days but not more than 90 days before) the beginning of the application process. It is recommended that this practice continue and Section be revised to include these provisions. Section , Review and Decision by Decision Making Body or Official: Staff would like to see a new section added that would allow the City s Planning Director to serve as a Hearing Officer for adjustments, on non-contested cases. It is recommended that the City make this recommendation as part of its position statement. Section , Text Amendments, provides a new, more public process for Zoning Text Amendments. Public notice and a Planning Board hearing are required, and decision making standards are established for review of text amendments. Since it is unclear what will happen with prior approved text amendments when the new regulations are adopted, some explanation should be offered.

18 18 Section C.7.d, Review and Recommendation by Advisory Board or Official, states that the Zoning Hearing Examiner shall either submit its recommendation or decline to hear the case. Taken together with the preceding paragraphs in the same section, there could be instances where neither the Planning Board nor the Zoning Hearing Examiner hold hearings. The only hearing would be held by the District Council. This new process seems highly unusual, and staff recommends that the Zoning Hearing Examiner be required to hold a public hearing as the hearing of record. Section , Special Exceptions, appears to be taking away the District Council s review of a Zoning Hearing Examiner s decision on its own motion. Since the District Council is the County s zoning body, it should continue to have the ability to make final decisions regarding zoning actions, like rezonings and special exceptions. Section E, Minor Changes to Approved Special Exceptions, should reference the delegated authority to municipalities. Will the Planning Director of a municipality with previously delegated authority be permitted to make the same lower level minor changes as the County Planning Director? Section , Site Plans (Minor and Major), presents some significant issues. In Section B.2, Applicability, the following exemptions are problematic and should not be allowed in their current form: (l.) Construction, expansion or alteration of single-family detached, single-family attached, two-family, and/or three-family dwellings; (m.) Construction, expansion, or alteration of townhouse and/or multi-family dwelling development of less than ten units; (n.) Construction, expansion or alteration of nonresidential development of less than a total of 100,000 square feet of gross floor area; (o.) Construction, expansion, or alteration of mixed-use development with less than 50,000 square feet of gross floor area and/or 50 dwelling units. In Section C.1 (Minor Site Plan), the thresholds are too high and should be lowered. Also, for Major Site Plans, why not have a process that says, if no one requests a public hearing within 21 days of posting, the application will be handled as a Minor Site Plan? In addition, staff believes that Section D.6, Scheduling Public Hearing and Public Notice (N/A), should include a requirement that requires a public hearing on the Minor Site Plan, if anyone requests one. Section b, Lapse of Approval, identifies that an approved minor site plan is valid for six years. This is the same validity period for Major Site Plans. Given the minor nature of Minor Site Plans, which should truly be minor in their magnitude, a shorter validity period is appropriate. Staff recommends a validity period of two years for minor site plans. Regarding Section F, Site Plan (Minor and Major) Decision Standards, staff believes the references to the Subdivision Regulations (Subtitle 24) in #6 and #7 are unnecessary and may not be applicable in many instances. The text of #9, regarding conformance with the master plan, is from the Subdivision Regulations, but is repeated as the regulations were written prior to the 2015 text amendment, which added General Plan conformance. Further, the addition of (a) and (b) to #9 really raises some questions. The wording of #9 should be re-written to address compliance with

19 19 master plans and the General Plan for all types of site plans. The use of the words reasonable alternative in the current Zoning Ordinance should appear somewhere in this section. There were several specific comments on this section made by the City of Greenbelt planning staff, with which City staff agrees, including: Section , Site Plan (Major and Minor): The thresholds for the exemption from major/minor site plan review are too high and the proposal is very concerning. To allow a 100,000 square foot expansion or a 50,000 square foot construction/expansion of a mixed use development or 50 dwelling units by permit review only is unacceptable. We question whether the permit review staff is trained to review plans of such complexity. Standards adopted by Montgomery County should be evaluated. Montgomery County also looks at compatibility with abutting properties. The proposal provides no opportunity for public review or appeal. Section D.11, Appeal: The requirement to file an appeal within 10 days is too short. There is no deadline given for the Planning Director to mail out the decision so the appeal period could actually be shorter than 10 days. Section E, Major Site Plan Procedure: Municipalities should be invited to the preapplication conference. Regarding the Adjustment process, City staff also agrees with the following comments from the City of Greenbelt staff: Section C, Minor Adjustment Procedure: Why is there a requirement for a sign to be posted 10 days prior to the Planning Director s decision, but there is no opportunity within the process for the public to comment and/or appeal minor adjustments? Section C.11, Minor Adjustment: Why is the appeal process available only to the applicant? The public should have an opportunity to appeal a decision. Persons of record and municipalities should specifically have the opportunity to appeal. Section , Sign Permit: Subsection C.9, Conditions of Approval, notes that conditions on sign permits are allowed. It seems that if an application for a permit-level review complies with the decision standards, approval should be unconditional. Section D, Temporary Use Permit Decision Standards, should include a requirement that states the use will not violate any prior approvals or restrictions of record. For example, temporary use permits have been granted at the Bowie Town Center without regard for the fact that a Parking Departure application was approved by the City that reduced the amount of required parking below the minimum allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. Temporary uses were approved that occupied required parking spaces in the parking lot. In order to ensure that prior approvals are examined, Section C.5 should have a required referral to the Planning Director. Staff Recommendation: Council should communicate all of the above concerns in the City position statement. 3. Section 27-6, Nonconformities This section addresses nonconforming uses, structures, lots of record, signs, and site features. Nonconformity is determined at the time of development review, and certification is no longer required. Some general rules for nonconformities, going forward, include: (1) nonconformities may continue and

20 20 be maintained in good repair; (2) burden is on the landowner to demonstrate a legal nonconformity; and, (3) reconstruction and reestablishment after abandonment is allowed. Most current nonconformity rules are carried forward. For nonconforming uses, the Rewrite includes a new rule that allows landowners inside the Capital Beltway to substitute one nonconforming use for another, with approval of a special exception and compliance with review standards. For nonconforming structures, the Rewrite includes a new rule that allows expansion inside the Capital Beltway if expansion complies with Section 27-5 (Development Standards). For nonconforming lots of record, the new language always allows single-family development on a nonconforming lot. The Rewrite often allows other permitted development that complies with all standards except lot area. It also requires consolidation of adjoining lots in common ownership to make lots conforming/more conforming. Regarding nonconforming signs, current provisions are carried forward. For nonconforming site features, the current Zoning Ordinance does not address parking, landscaping and lighting. The Rewrite establishes a sliding scale requiring partial compliance depending on the amount of expansion or extent of remodeling. Staff Recommendation: One of the new changes is that the Planning Director determines if a nonconformity exists. Also, the burden of proof is on the applicant and not the County, which is currently the case. These changes result in a much simpler and less time consuming process than the current one. In addition, the philosophy behind making the best of the situation and allowing reasonable continuation or expansion of a nonconformity is in the interest of continuing economic development and furthering community preservation. While it is a different approach than has traditionally been used in the past, staff believes the changes will result in an overall beneficial effect on the County. Therefore, staff recommends Council support the nonconformity provisions and communicate the above recommendations in the City position statement. (It should be noted that one of the areas of municipal zoning authority granted by the Maryland Legislature includes nonconforming uses. While provisions have existed in the City Code since 2011, not a single case has been filed in the City. The effect of the Rewrite language is to take away the power the City has to make nonconforming use determinations and place it with the M-NCPPC Planning Director. With the implementation of new zoning districts and use regulations, the number of nonconforming use determinations may be significant, especially until the zoning pattern becomes more refined with a comprehensive rezoning pursuant to the update of the Bowie and Vicinity Area Master Plan. One consideration is whether the City s Planning Director should be given this responsibility. Such action would be in keeping with the concept of keeping land use decisions at the most local level and would retain the municipal role in this process. It is unclear what the impact will be on the existing delegated authority, or whether State law must be amended to reflect the new provisions.) 4. Section 27-7, Enforcement The new section consolidates all enforcement provisions, reorganizes and refines current provisions, clearly states what is considered a zoning violation, broadly defines who is responsible for violations, provides a list of typical violations and states that all remedies are cumulative. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends no position regarding these provisions.

21 21 5. Subdivision Regulations Although not nearly as voluminous, the re-draft of the Subdivision Regulations follows an organization similar to the Zoning Rewrite. There are sections devoted to: (1) Subdivision Administration; (2) Subdivision Standards; (3) Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Standards; (4) Enforcement; and (5) Definitions. One significant refinement to the current Subdivision Regulations is regarding the conservation subdivision regulations. The three-stage procedure (sketch plan, preliminary plan and final plat) and the standards for conservation subdivisions are carried forward and clarified. In addition, a new four-step process is established for creation of a Conservation and Development Plan, to be reviewed as part of the sketch plan review. The plan ensures that the highest priority areas are identified and protected early in the conservation subdivision process. Staff Recommendation: Staff finds the new regulations are generally similar to the current regulations, with some minor modifications. Many of the revisions are simply to integrate the Subdivision Regulations with the new Zoning Ordinance provisions. Staff supports the rewriting of the Subdivision Regulations as proposed and only has one recommendation. Because the new process for conservation subdivisions described in Section B will improve the process for protecting high priority areas, staff recommends Council support this aspect of the Subdivision Regulations Rewrite and communicate this recommendation in the City position statement.

22 10 THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT MODULE 1: ZONES AND USES 1 Simplification of the County s Current Zone Structure Clarion Associates proposes reducing the County s current 73 zones to 44 zones. This is accomplished by integrating the best components of today s zones with national best practices while also removing zones that are redundant or accomplish similar development goals. The zone consolidation helps to support the County s priorities of smart growth, economic- and transit-oriented development at our Metro stations, and encourages the right growth in the right locations. 2 Creation of Transit-Oriented/Activity Center Zones Where does the activity happen in Prince George s County? Clarion Associates BIG new idea is the creation of Transit-Oriented/Activity Center base zones that serve as focal points for a neighborhood or a series of neighborhoods. These zones are intended to create places that are walkable and more urban than the immediate surrounding community. They reflect the County s General Plan, Plan Prince George s 2035 center classifications, and implement policies associated with those classifications and the prioritization of County revitalization and public sector investment contained in Plan Creation of Planned Development Zones Module 1 adds ten new planned development zones that provide alternatives to the Residential, Nonresidential, and Transit-Oriented/Activity Center base zones where increased design flexibility is desired. Each planned development zone identifies the allowed uses, lists the types of intensity and dimensional standards the Planned Development Basic Plan must provide, and outlines development standards that may be modified through this plan. These zones allow for more flexibility in design and density, with the expectation that the development quality will surpass what is achievable in the base zone alternative. A planned development must be approved through a rezoning and would be subject to a public review process. 4 Creation of a New Neighborhood Commercial Zone The proposed new Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Zone is envisioned to create and enhance community-centric retail and traditional main streets. Think Main Street Upper Marlboro or long-time neighborhood shops in Mount Rainier. The zone reflects a small-scale, neighborhood-serving character, though it can be more flexible in that it allows uses and accommodates residential and modest mixed-use development. ABOUT THE MODULE In October 2015 project consultants Clarion Associates presented Prince George s County with the first glimpse of the proposed new Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations. These recommendations are based on national best practices that draw on the most effective approaches to zoning, subdivision, community involvement, and development used by jurisdictions similar to Prince George s County. We strongly encourage everyone to review Module 1: Zones and Uses to determine how the proposals may impact their property and community; but just as a quick refresher here is a list of ten key proposals made in Module 1 that may be of interest. For more information TTY: zoningpgc@ppd.mncppc.org zoningpgc.pgplanning.com For press inquires Anika Jackson, anika.jackson@mncppc.org

23 5 Creation of a Neighborhood Conservation Zone The new Zoning Ordinance includes a proposed Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Zone that protects and preserves the unique development features and characters of established neighborhoods in Prince George s County, while encouraging development that is compatible with existing neighborhoods. The Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Zone would incorporate specific design regulations that are intended to reinforce the character of a specific community. The Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Zone is a flexible tool that may be applied to multiple neighborhoods or situations, each of which will have its own unique architectural, natural, cultural, and historic attributes. 6 Chickens! Simultaneously one of the most popular and questioned - recommendations proposed in Module 1 is the allowance of home-housing for poultry. Residential properties with half-acre or larger lots will be allowed to keep up to 6 hens (sorry, no roosters) in their yards if certain design regulations are met. In addition to permitting chickens on residential property, Clarion Associates proposal significantly strengthens support for the County s traditional and urban agricultural uses. 7 Allowance of Accessory Dwelling Units An accessory dwelling unit is a small second dwelling on the same property as a regular single-family dwelling. Commonly referred to as granny-flats, motherin-law suites, or guest homes accessory dwelling units can be an apartment over a detached garage, a basement apartment, or a living area connected to the main home. Accessory dwelling units are a common practice throughout the nation and provide options for affordable housing and aging in place. Design standards would require the property owner to provide at least one off-street parking space, among other regulations. ABOUT THE ZONING REWRITE The Prince George s County Planning Department is comprehensively rewriting the County s Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations. The Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations are the laws that determine how land or property in the County can be developed. The intended impact of this multi-year project is to modernize the County s zoning code into a more user-friendly document that is aligned with the County s vision for smart growth, economic development, and improved quality of life for Prince George s County residents. 8 Replacement of the Transit-District Overlay Zones (TDOZ) and Development-District Overlay Zones (DDOZ) A major criticism of the County s design overlay zones is that they are overly regulatory and very confusing as separate documents and sets of regulations. Clarion Associates draft zone structure recommends the elimination of these overlay zones in favor of more traditional zones and clear, easily understood, and market-tested design standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. While the specifics of the design and place-making standards will come in Module 2: Development Standards, they will address street connectivity, building placement, roofs, streetscapes, parking, and signage among other things. 9 Replacement of Mixed-Use and Comprehensive Design Zones including the M-U-TC, M-U-I, and M-X-T Zones The current ordinance has 30 zones specifically created to encourage mixeduse development in the County. These zones are proposed to be eliminated in favor of streamlined zones and review/approval procedures. They will be replaced with a combination of nonresidential base zones, transit oriented/activity center base zones, and planned development zones. 10 Greater Mix of Residential and Nonresidential Development Clarion Associates is proposing that multifamily residential base zones and commercial base zones allow more blending of uses by-right, in keeping with national best practices. The guiding principle is that including a limited mix of uses encourages healthy communities and allows for an easier transition for blighted or vacant properties. The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission Prince George s County Planning Department Governor Oden Bowie Drive, Upper Marlboro, MD Phone: ; TTY:

24 10 THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT MODULE 2: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS & PUBLIC FACILITY ADEQUACY 1 Protections for Single-Family Communities Clarion Associates proposes Neighborhood Compatibility Standards to create a smoother transition between new multifamily and mixed-use development that may be constructed next to existing single-family neighborhoods. These standards help to establish and maintain vibrant pedestrian-oriented areas where differing uses can operate in close proximity to one another, like a shopping center across the street from a residential community. Applicable developments would have to comply with standards regulating many aspects of construction, which include building heights and setbacks, trash collection areas, parking and loading areas, and hours of operation. 2 Required Form and Design Standards Form and Design Standards help shape the public realm. Module 2 proposes mandatory Form and Design Standards for new nonresidential, mixed-use, industrial, and multifamily development. These standards would help to provide a predictable expectation of how new development would impact the surrounding community. Proposed elements to be regulated include building placement, location of off - street parking, physical elements required on buildings, and the arrangement of windows and doors on a building s front 3 Preservation of Agricultural Lands Prince George s County has a rich heritage in agriculture. In order to protect this legacy, Module 2 introduces Agricultural Compatibility Standards that help prevent new nonresidential and residential development from overtaking lands traditionally used for farming. In addition to promoting the rural and agricultural character in designated zones, the new standards would require proposed non-agricultural uses adjacent to existing agriculture to address the location of buffers, fencing, lot size configuration, and other techniques that help to ensure a better transition between the two uses. 4 Addition of Green Building Standards Modern zoning ordinances address the increasing desire for the built environment to be more harmonious with nature. Clarion Associates proposes green building standards to require development that promotes healthy lifestyles, reduces greenhouse gas emission, and protects our natural resources. Implemented through a scoring system, applicants would have to select from a list of green practices to satisfy the minimum point requirement in order to get an approval or permit. Green building incentives that could yield additional density in Transit-Oriented/Activity Center zones in exchange for more sustainable amenities are also proposed. ABOUT THE MODULE In May 2016, the Clarion Associates team presented new development standards and public facility adequacy measures for Prince George s County s proposed Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations. Module 2 addresses fundamental elements of neighborhoods such as walkability, building heights, streetscapes, public recreation, even whether a fence can be built. We encourage you to review Module 2: Development Standards and Public Facility Adequacy to determine how the proposals may impact your property and community. Here s a quick guide highlighting ten key proposals made in Module 2. For more information TTY: zoningpgc@ppd.mncppc.org zoningpgc.pgplanning.com For press inquires Anika Jackson, anika.jackson@mncppc.org

25 5 Updated Public Facility Adequacy Standards Adequate Public Facility (APF) standards establish requirements that public services, such as transportation, police, water and sewerage, parks and recreation, and schools, are available to accommodate proposed development. The recommendations carry forward many of the current practices, but there are several key updates. Most notable among these updates is the requirement of APF certification prior to receiving a preliminary plan of subdivision and, under certain circumstances, a building permit, final plat, or rezoning. Additionally, proposals in Module 2 would require APF (re)certification for building permits where a Planned Developmen t Basic Plan or site plan was approved at least 10 years before the effective date of the Subdivision Regulations. 6 Usable Green Space While you may not notice, your local shopping center is full of green space. It just happens to be scattered throughout the development site. Open Space Set- Aside Standards would work to reconfigure those green pieces and create larger more functional public green areas. As a new section, Open Space Set-Asides Standards establishes minimum private open space requirements for new residential, nonresidential, and mixed-use development. It identifies the types of open space that can be used to meet the Open Space Set-aside standards, which can include paths, trails, gardens, squares, plazas, and vegetated walls. 7 Modernized Parking Requirements In many cases, today s Zoning Ordinance requires development sites to have more parking than needed in the worst case scenario Black Friday shopping. This excess parking creates additional impervious surfaces that could be reconfigured and used for improved stormwater management or creative public spaces. Recommendations for modernizing the County s parking standards eliminate a one size fits all approach to parking. Proposed parking standards vary by density, where more urban areas with greater access to transit would have smaller ratios for required parking. This section accomplishes the reduction in total parking by expanding shared parking and allowing for more off-site parking depending on its location and pedestrian access. 8 Improved Cyclist and Pedestrian Infrastructure Several recommendations are provided that are meant to help improve the safety and mobility of pedestrians and cyclists throughout the County. They require bike parking facilities at schools, multifamily housing, and nonresidential properties; mandate the construction of sidewalks, bike lanes, and bike paths in new developments; establish safe pedestrian access ways through large parking areas; and encourage design standards that lead to more attractive and easier to navigate streetscapes. Additionally, road adequacy in the Subdivision Regulations becomes transportation adequacy to recognize the increasing use of transit, bicycle, and pedestrian modes of transportation in urban areas. 9 Updated Fence Standards The Zoning Ordinance determines the placement, material, and heights of fences in residential and nonresidential areas. A new standard is added to require that all fences, except for ones protecting livestock, be constructed with the finished side facing outward. 10 Greater Street Connectivity and Mobility The new Zoning Ordinance encourages a multi-modal approach to moving both vehicles and people throughout our communities. To help accomplish this goal, Module 2 incorporates a Street Connectivity Index, a metric that determines how connected a single-family residential development should be by calculating the number of blocks and intersections. Simply put, the Street Connectivity Index helps to determine how many paths a person can take to get to one destination in a development. This helps to improve circulation throughout a community by improving cross-access and creating a more defined street grid. ABOUT THE ZONING REWRITE The Prince George s County Planning Department is comprehensively rewriting the County s Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations. The Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations are the laws that determine how land or property in the County can be developed. The intended impact of this multi-year project is to modernize the County s zoning code into a more user-friendly document that is aligned with the County s vision for smart growth, economic development, and improved quality of life for Prince George s County residents. The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission Prince George s County Planning Department Governor Oden Bowie Drive, Upper Marlboro, MD Phone: ; TTY:

26 10 THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT MODULE 3: ZONING PROCESSES AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS 1 Pre-Application Neighborhood Meetings Required Pre-Application Neighborhood Meetings are new to the zoning code. These meetings help neighboring land owners and residents learn more about a proposed development application. Meetings would take place weekday evenings at a location that is near, and accessible to, those affected by the application. After the meeting, applicants would submit a written summary that includes a list of attendees and discussion topics. Pre-Application Neighborhood Meetings would be required for certain development applications, including special exceptions, major site plans, and major adjustments. 2 Major and Minor Site Plan Applications Module 3 proposes that the County combine the conceptual and detailed site plans to create two tiers of site plan review Minor and Major. The Planning Director would approve Minor Site Plans and appeals would be made to the Planning Board and then the District Council. The Planning Board would approve Major Site Plans and appeals would be made to the District Council. 3 Updated Notice Requirements How do residents find out about development proposed in their neighborhood? They use , snail mail, sign postings, twitter and more! Module 3 proposes significant updates to the County s notification procedures and encourages the use of new technologies to connect with residents neighboring new development. 4 Being Heard Clarion Associates proposes several new ways for citizens to have their voices heard. Module 3 recommends a Procedures Manual. This manual would require Technical Staff Reports for each application to include a summary of citizen comments received on the application. It would also provide assurance that the public can speak either in favor of, or against, an application. ABOUT THE MODULE In September 2016, Clarion Associates presented Module 3, which includes updates to community input, notice requirements, special exceptions, development review procedures, zoning enforcement, and subdivision regulations. We encourage everyone to review Module 3: Zoning Processes and Subdivision Regulations to determine how the proposals may impact your property and community. Here s a quick guide highlighting 10 key proposals made in Module 3. For more information TTY: zoningpgc@ppd.mncppc.org zoningpgc.pgplanning.com For press inquiries Anika Jackson, anika.jackson@mncppc.org

27 5 Who Decides What? Module 3 addresses what the District Council decides, and what decisions the Council chooses to delegate to other bodies, such as the Planning Board, Zoning Hearing Examiner, Board of Zoning Appeals, or the Planning Department. Module 3 recommends that decisions on small projects be made at an administrative or staff level and require larger projects, or special circumstances, to be determined by the Planning Board. Master Plans, rezonings, text amendments, and other decisions would be made solely by the District Council. 6 Non-conforming Structures and Uses Module 3 addresses existing development that is not consistent with the new zoning rules. It also addresses if, and how, those developments can be reconstructed, renovated, or enlarged. In a key change from today s process, a Certification of a non-conformity is no longer required. Instead, nonconformity status is determined during the normal review of development applications. 7 The Enforcers The Zoning Ordinance not only helps us determine how land is developed, it also tells us what happens when someone violates the zoning laws and who is responsible for enforcing the law. In keeping with the current procedures, Module 3 grants the Department of Permitting, Inspections and Enforcement, County and Municipal Police Departments, and the County s Fire/EMS Department authorization to enforce violations of the code. ABOUT THE ZONING REWRITE The Prince George s County Planning Department is comprehensively rewriting the County s Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations. The Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations are the laws that determine how land or property in the County can be developed. The intended impact of this multi-year project is to modernize the County s zoning code into a more user-friendly document that is aligned with the County s vision for smart growth, economic development, and improved quality of life for Prince George s County residents. 8 Transitions to the New Ordinance Module 3 includes transitional provisions that clarify how to treat pending development applications, approvals, and permits when the rewritten Zoning Ordinance is adopted. Pending permits or approvals will be processed under the laws that were in place at the time of approval. If an applicant wishes to develop under the new laws, they would need to withdraw and resubmit an application. 9 Zoning Text Amendments The Zoning Ordinance may be modified by using text amendments. Although we will have a new code, periodically amending the code will allow us to keep our zoning laws modern and competitive. Clarion Associates proposes a formal process for initiating and adopting text amendments that would require public notice, public hearings, and review by technical staff and the Planning Board, and decision by the District Council. 10 Special Exceptions In some cases, a use is allowed in a zone, but may need additional review to determine if it is compatible with the neighboring area. Module 3 creates clear procedures for the review of special exceptions. In each case, the proposals mandate a Pre-Application Staff Conference, a Pre-Application Neighborhood Meeting, and a public hearing with the Zoning Hearing Examiner. Appeals from these rulings would be made to the District Council. The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission Prince George s County Planning Department Governor Oden Bowie Drive, Upper Marlboro, MD Phone: ; TTY: