Planning Commission continues Saint Mary's Crossing PUD and DRA after developer and public debate over density, traffic and access

The Planning Commission continued, by unanimous vote, its review of the Saint Mary's Crossing planned unit development (PUD) and the related development rights and responsibilities agreement (DRA) after extended presentations by the applicant and extensive public comment about traffic, access and other impacts.

What the developer proposed

John Norris (NG&O Engineering) and project representatives told the commission the applicant revised the plan since the October hearing to add workforce housing and to increase total dwelling units from 717 to 868. The update introduced a “Heritage Series” of smaller two-bedroom units the developer says can be offered as rental or sale units and that can help meet workforce housing objectives; the developer said the plan would preserve approximately 57% of the 249-acre project as open space while concentrating the development envelope to about 107 acres.

The developer also described project infrastructure commitments: construction of public water and sewer extensions to serve the project and the donated 26-acre school site, stormwater management designed to applicable state standards, and proposed traffic mitigation including funding toward signalization at MD Route 4 and Saint Andrews Lane and other off-site improvements. The development-team traffic consultant (Mike Nalepa) said the updated traffic study addresses the increased density and that the applicant is proposing impact fee contributions and mitigation through the DRA.

Concerns raised by commissioners and public

Commissioners, county staff and many public commenters focused on vehicular access and Route 4 capacity. Residents of Saint Andrews Estates and other neighbors said existing access at Saint Andrews Lane is operating poorly, uses Bellwood Lane in part because of sight-line issues, and that adding hundreds of housing units plus a school site will further stress a corridor many speakers characterized as already failing. The developer offered to fund a signal at Saint Andrews Lane/Route 4 and to contribute toward improvements at Wildwood Parkway; a past correspondence referenced an applicant proffer of 7.91% toward the Wildwood Parkway signal cost for an earlier study.

Other topics included stormwater and pond preservation: the developer said a large on-site pond that drains a multi-square-mile basin would be preserved, enhanced and managed to maintain pre-development pond elevation at a 100-year storm; the applicant said stormwater work would follow current state rules. Commissioners also asked about landfill buffers: county public-works staff explained an existing 200-foot administrative buffer was on record and the county had modeled 500-foot and 1,500-foot radii around a future landfill cell; commissioners asked the county to supply formal guidance on buffer rules and existing Board of Appeals conditions.

Action: continued hearing and next steps

Commissioners voted to continue both the PUD and the DRA to the next Planning Commission hearing (scheduled by motion for January 14, 2008). Staff and the applicant agreed to provide additional materials before the continued hearing: revised traffic analyses that explicitly consider Bellwood Lane and offsets, a clear phasing and schedule for recreational and school-site amenities, clarifications on stormwater design standards to be applied, documentation about the landfill buffer and applicable Board of Appeals conditions, and a written proffer schedule for off-site traffic mitigation and contributions (including the methodology for the Wildwood Parkway amount). The commission also asked that the applicants provide a clearer timetable for project phasing and for any PUD time-limit or sunset provisions the county should require.

Sources and attribution

This article summarizes the applicant presentations by John Norris and NG&O Engineering, testimony by the project architect and traffic consultant, staff remarks from the Department of Public Works (John Groger), and numerous public comments recorded in the planning commission meeting transcript. Direct counts, unit totals and quoted commitments are attributed to the developers’ presentation and the transcript.