Issuu

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment

$9.50

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment October 2009

The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission Prince George’s County Planning Department www.mncppc.org/pgco

October 2009

DE BLA

NSBURG

COLM AR MANOR

COTTAGE CITY

EDMONSTON

ABSTRACT

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Title:

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment

Author:

The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission

Subject:

Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment for the Port Towns (portions of Planning Areas 68 and 69)

Date:

October 2009

Source of Copies:

The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive Upper Marlboro, MD 20772

Series Number:

2111092306

Number of Pages

234

Abstract:

This document is the approved sector plan and sectional map amendment (SMA) for the Port Towns area. The plan and SMA amends portions of the 1994 Approved Bladensburg-New Carrollton and Vicinity Master Plan and Sectional Map Amendment (Planning Area 69), the 1994 Approved Master Plan and Sectional Map Amendment for Planning Area 68, and the 2007 Approved Bladensburg Town Center Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment. Developed with the assistance of the community, this document recommends goals, policies, strategies, and actions pertaining to development patterns, zoning, environmental infrastructure, transportation systems, public facilities, parks and recreation, economic development, historic preservation, and urban design that promotes the revitalization of the area as a destination in a way that benefits the health and wellness of the overall community. The SMA proposes zoning changes to implement the recommendations of the sector plan.

Fern V. Piret, Ph.D. Director Al Dobbins, III, AICP, Deputy Director Project Team Core Members

Vanessa Akins, Division Chief Joseph Chang, Project Facilitator (retired) Robert J. Duffy, AICP, Planning Supervisor Reggaei Abdelfattah, Project Facilitator Dineene O’Connor, Project Leader (retired) Judith Dambrosi, Senior Planner Tamara Jovovic, Planner Roberto Duke, Planner Coordinator HyoJung Garland, Senior Planner Robert Metzger, Phd., Planner Coordinator Sam White, Senior Planner

Project Team Resource Members—Community Planning North Division Briana Davis, Administrative Aide Lisa Washington, Administrative Aide Gena Tapscott, Administrative Aide

Project Team Resource Members—Countywide Planning Division Howard Berger, Planner Coordinator Karen Buxbaum, RLA, Planner Coordinator Rodney Harrell, Senior Planner (retired) Tiffaney Williams-Jennings, Planner Coord inator Ted Kowaluk, Planner Coordinator Faramarz Mokhtari, Planner Coordinator Fred Shaffer, Senior Planner

Department of Parks and Recreation Eileen Nivera, Planner Coordinator

Technical Assistance—Community Planning North Division Gary Thomas, Principal Planning Technician

Technical Assistance—Information Management Division Marc Abresch, IT Support Specialist Asfaw Fanta, Master Planner/Supervisor Mishelle Carson-Reeves, Principal Planning Technician Martin Howes, Principal Planning Technician

Technical Assistance—Office of the Planning Director Ralph Barrett, Clerk Supervisor La’Tasha Harrison, Stock Clerk James Johnson, Stock Clerk Susan Kelley Supervisor, Office and Publications Services Dee McChesney, Publications Specialist Catrell Thomas, Publications Specialist

And Special Thanks To:

Town of Bladensburg Mayor and Town Council Town of Colmar Manor, Mayor and Town Council Town of Cottage City, Mayor and Town Council Town of Edmonston, Mayor and Town Council Port Towns CDC Port Towns Youth Council

Kaiser Permanente Anacostia Watershed Society Anacostia Trails Heritage Society University of Maryland School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation Rhodeside and Harwell, Inc., Lead Consultant

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment October 2009

B LAD

E N S B U RG u C O L M

C AR MANOR u

OTTAGE CITY u

EDMONSTON

The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission Prince George’s County Planning Department www.mncppc.org/pgco

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

THE MARYLAND‑NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION Samuel J. Parker, Jr., AICP, Chairman Royce Hanson, Vice Chairman

OFFICERS Oscar Rodriguez, Executive Director Patricia Colihan Barney, Secretary-Treasurer Adrian R. Gardner, General Counsel The Maryland‑National Capital Park and Planning Commission is a bicounty agency, created by the General Assembly of Maryland in 1927. The Commission’s geographic authority extends to the great majority of Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties: the Maryland-Washington Regional District (M‑NCPPC planning jurisdiction) comprises 1,001 square miles, while the Metropolitan District (parks) comprises 919 square miles, in the two counties. The Commission has three major functions: The preparation, adoption, and, from time to time, amendment or extension of the General Plan for the physical development of the Maryland‑Washington Regional District; The acquisition, development, operation, and maintenance of a public park system; and In Prince George’s County only, the operation of the entire county public recreation program. The Commission operates in each county through a Planning Board appointed by and responsible to the county government. All local plans, recommendations on zoning amendments, administration of subdivision regulations, and general administration of parks are responsibilities of the Planning Boards. The Prince George’s County Department of Planning (M‑NCPPC): Our mission is to help preserve, protect and manage the county’s resources by providing the highest quality planning services and growth management guidance and by facilitating effective intergovernmental and citizen involvement through education and technical assistance. Our vision is to be a model planning department of responsive and respected staff who provide superior planning and technical services and work cooperatively with decision‑makers, citizens and other agencies to continuously improve development quality and the environment and act as a catalyst for positive change. Prince George’s County Planning Board Samuel J. Parker, Jr., AICP, Chairman Sylvester J. Vaughns Sarah Cavitt Jesse Clark John H. Squire

Montgomery County Planning Board Royce Hanson, Chairman Joseph Alfandre Jean B. Cryor Amy Presley Marye Wells-Harley

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY Jack B. Johnson, County Executive

COUNTY COUNCIL The County Council has three main responsibilities in the planning process: (1) setting policy, (2) plan approval, and (3) plan implementation. Applicable policies are incorporated into area plans, functional plans, and the general plan. The Council, after holding a hearing on the plan adopted by the Planning Board, may approve the plan as adopted, approve the plan with amendments based on the public record, or disapprove the plan and return it to the Planning Board for revision. Implementation is primarily through adoption of the annual Capital Improvement Program, the annual Budget, the water and sewer plan, and adoption of zoning map amendments.

COUNCIL MEMBERS Thomas E. Dernoga, 1st District, Council Vice Chair Will Campos, 2nd District Eric Olson, 3rd District Ingrid M. Turner, 4th District Andrea C. Harrison, 5th District Samuel H. Dean, 6th District, Camille Exum, 7th District Tony Knotts, 8th District Marilynn Bland, 9th District, Council Chairwoman

Clerk of the Council Redis C. Floyd

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

iii

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

PLAN HIGHLIGHTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 INTRODUCTION

Plan Purpose. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Planning Area Boundary and Regional Setting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Other Plans and Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Public Participation Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Demographic Profile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Market Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

DEVELOPMENT PATTERN ELEMENT

Vision Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Overall Sector Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Port Towns Waterfront Character Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Bladensburg Road Gateway/Main Street Character Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Edmonston Road Main Street Character Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Edmonston-North Workshop Character Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Annapolis Road Gateway Character Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Bladensburg Town Center Character Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Goal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Green Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Primary and Secondary Corridors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

TRANSPORTATION

Goal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Transit Element. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Roadway Element. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Trails Element. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

PUBLIC FACILITIES

Goal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Library Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Public Safety. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Fire and Rescue Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

PARKS AND RECREATION

Goal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Goal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

HISTORIC PRESERVATION

Goal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Historic Resources, Historic Sites, Documented Properties, and Survey Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Historic Preservation Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Colmar Manor History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Cottage City History. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Edmonston History. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Bladensburg History. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

COMMUNITY HEALTH AND WELLNESS

Goal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

FUNDAMENTAL URBAN DESIGN PRINCIPLES

Pedestrian-Oriented Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Place Making. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Architectural Style Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Street Character. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Sustainable Design in Mixed-Use Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

IMPLEMENTATION

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Revitalization Tools. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Public Facilities Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

SECTIONAL MAP AMENDMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 vi

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT STANDARDS

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 Character Area Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 Applicability of Standards and the Permit and Site Plan Review Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

BUILDING AND SITE STANDARDS

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 Urban Space Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 Street Type Specifications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 Streetscape Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 Squares and Civic Greens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 Tree Lists. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 Building Envelope Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 Kenilworth Avenue (Limited Access Highway). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 Architectural Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 Parking and Loading Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

DEFINITIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201

PERMITTED USES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 APPENDICES

I. Procedural Sequence Chart. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 II. Guide to Zoning Categories. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214

MAPS

1. Sector Plan Boundary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Regional Setting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Illustrative Framework Vision Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4. Existing Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5. Proposed Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6A. Port Towns Waterfront Character Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 6B. Port Towns Waterfront Character Area Visualization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 7A. Bladensburg Road Gateway/Main Street Character Area Part I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 7B. Bladensburg Road Gateway/Main Street Character Area Part II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 8A. Edmonston Road Main Street Character Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 8B. Edmonston Road Main Street Character Area Visualization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 9. Edmonston North Workshop Character Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 10A. Annapolis Road Gateway Character Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 10B. Annapolis Road Gateway Character Area Visualization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 11. Bladensburg Road Town Center Character Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 12. Green Infrastructure Network. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 13. Transit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 14. Access and Circulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 15A. Reconfigured Alt. US 1 and Annapolis Road. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 15B. Reconfigured Alt. US 1 and Annapolis Road Cross Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 16A. Reconfigured Annapolis Road Intersection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

vii

16B. Reconfigured Annapolis Road Intersection Cross Sections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 17. Existing and Proposed Trails. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 18. Pedestrian Circulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 19. Existing and Proposed Public Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 20. Parks and Recreation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 21. Colmar Manor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 22. Cottage City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 23. Edmonston . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 24. Bladensburg. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 25. Existing Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 26. Proposed Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 27. Bladensburg Road Gateway/Main Street Character Area Urban Design Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 28. Annapolis Road Gateway Character Area Urban Design Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 29. Edmonston North Workshop Character Area Urban Design Plan and Edmonston Road Main Street Character Area Urban Design Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 30. Port Towns Waterfront Character Area Urban Design Plan and Bladensburg Town Center Character Area Urban Design Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 31. Street Type/Build-to Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

TABLES

1. Population and Households. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2. Household Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3. Household Income. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4. Industrial Supply Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5. Office Supply Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6. Residential Supply Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7. Retail Supply Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8. Hotel Supply Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 9. Entertainment Supply Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 10. Existing AADT, Daily Service Volumes, and Levels of Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 11. Prince George’s County Public Schools Within the Port Towns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 12. 3DI Ranking of Prince George’s County Public Schools within Port Towns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 13. Projected School Enrollment and Capacity Needs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 14. Identified Historic Resources, Historic Sites, Documented Properties, and Surveyed Areas within the Port Towns Sector Plan Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 15. Action and Phasing Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 16. Public Facilities Cost Analysis and Estimates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 17. Cumulative Zoning Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

viii

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

FOREWORD The Prince George’s County Planning Board is pleased to make available the Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment. The approved plan contains recommendations on future land uses and development for a new Port Towns destination center focused on the Anacostia waterfront that links the four Port Towns of Bladensburg, Colmar Manor, Cottage City, and Edmonston. Policy guidance for this plan came from the 2002 Prince George’s County Approved General Plan. The plan is a continuation of the community efforts begun over a decade ago to encourage reinvestment and redevelopment in the Port Towns. The plan contains recommendations for future development within targeted areas of the Port Towns and development standards specifically tailored to meet the goals and objectives of the Port Towns. Community participation and input were vital to the development of this plan. Fourteen focus group meetings were held prior to a planning charrette process to provide the community with the opportunity to share visions and proffer feedback on planning issues. The pre-charrette held in April 2008 was an opportunity for key stakeholders to refine and define the issues and opportunities and begin developing the vision for the area. A six-day charrette was held in June 2008 to allow the community, along with the planners, designers, and elected officials, to craft a vision for the Port Towns. The results of these efforts were presented to the community on September 17, 2008. The Port Towns of Bladensburg, Colmar Manor, Cottage City, and Edmonston envision their communities as thriving with social and economic revitalization. Through collective thinking, these cities pioneered a plan to answer the needs of their communities—enhancing quality of life. Today, the Port Towns are reviving their communities using their wealth of diversity and historic uniqueness to build an even stronger community for tomorrow’s generation. We are continuing this effort countywide through an Envision Prince George’s initiative to engage a broad cross section of stakeholders in developing a shared vision for the county’s future direction and growth. We invite you to visit the Envision Prince George’s web site at www.mncppc.org/Envision to learn more about how to participate in this exciting initiative. On April 14, 2009, the District Council and the Planning Board held a joint public hearing on the preliminary sector plan. The Planning Board held a work session June 11, 2009, to review testimony and adopted the plan June 25, 2009, through PGCPB Resolution 09-99. The District Council held a work session September 15, 2009 and approved the plan October 6, 2009, through Council Resolution 72-2009. Sincerely,

Samuel J. Parker, Jr., AICP Chairman Prince George’s County Planning Board

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

PLAN HIGHLIGHTS THE VISION The vision for the Port Towns area (Bladensburg, Colmar Manor, Cottage City, and Edmonston) is to achieve green, healthy, and pedestrian-friendly communities and destinations that celebrate and build upon the area’s cultural diversity, strategic location, industrial base, and historical, recreational, and environmental assets.

DEVELOPMENT PATTERN RECOMMENDATIONS Resolve land use conflicts with the existing zoning. Establish Annapolis and Bladensburg Roads as the Port Towns’ “main street” and provide mixed-use development to support a pedestrian- and transitoriented corridor. Establish strong linkages between the four Port Towns and the waterfront. Promote the Anacostia River as the Port Towns Peoples’ Harbor. Retain existing housing stock.

Implement automobile oriented/pedestrian safety techniques. Enhance internal and external connectivity.

INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS Protect the green infrastructure network in the Port Towns, particularly the main stem of the Anacostia River, as designated by the 2005 Approved Countywide Green Infrastructure Plan. Provide a fully integrated, multimodal transportation network of vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit/bus systems by the following actions: Upgrade the intersection of Annapolis Road and Landover Road with a “T” intersection that promotes vertical mixed-use development that activates the street and encourages pedestrian activity. Upgrade Annapolis Road between 46th Street and 56th Avenue to create a pedestrian boulevard environment.

Retain vital existing industrial zoning and industrial uses.

Provide a pull-off for passenger pick-up and discharge at the Annapolis Road and Edmonston Road intersection bus stop.

Implement the classification of Port Towns as a regional center.

Develop a pedestrian/bicycle loop around the perimeter of the town center.

Promote development potential of key sites, especially the Peoples’ Harbor projects, Riverview on the Anacostia, and the Watershed Education Facility.

Promote an F8 bus route that connects all the Port Towns, especially Edmonston, by routing the bus along Decatur Street.

Enhance recreational and environmental assets as destination opportunities that reinforce the revitalization efforts in the Port Towns.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Reconfigure Bladensburg Road in the vicinity of Peace Cross to promote a grid system of blocks that further mixed-use development and pedestrianism.

Provide a continuous and connected system of sidewalks throughout the Port Towns and enhance Edmonston Road and Kenilworth Avenue with safe sidewalks as these are areas of high pedestrianism and/or locations for bus riders. Establish gateway elements in Port Towns character areas that act as a view terminus, such as the Port Towns Waterfront Character Area, the gateway at Eastgate in Cottage City, and Annapolis Road at the Publick Playhouse. Consider a possible MARC rail station in Cottage City at the western end of the corridor, with pedestrian bridges across the railroad tracks; support this station with mixed-use development and a public green surrounding the station. Ensure that future development and street improvements accommodate potential fixed, guided transit service that connects all the Port Towns to the greatest extent feasible to the Purple Line. Ensure that bus stops are safe, attractive, and accessible to pedestrians via crosswalks. Recommend a remodeled or new library at its present site to support the civic core.

COMMUNITY CHARACTER RECOMMENDATIONS Diversify the existing jobs base and housing types and adapt the Port Towns’ retail environment to changes in the ethnic makeup of local consumers to maintain a responsive retail market. Apply appropriate and creative adaptive reuse strategies to historic resources, such as the Bostwick House and site. Incorporate urban design guidelines into the physical restructuring of the Port Towns to create a high-quality, mixed-use, pedestrian- and transitoriented environment.

IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS Develop strategies and opportunities for investment and funding and recommend phasing and action plans to implement the goals of the plan. The plan recommends a significant change in zoning to M-X-T with the application of formbased code development standards via the DDOZ. Support and encourage partnerships and resource sharing within the public and private development communities.

Rehabilitate Bladensburg South Community Park, provide trail access to the Bladensburg Waterfront Park, and improve Bladensburg Elementary School’s ball field.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

INTRODUCTION PLAN PURPOSE On June 17, 2008, the District Council initiated the Port Towns Area Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment (SMA). This document is organized to reflect the 2002 Prince George’s County Approved General Plan. The sector plan, prepared in conjunction with the Port Towns of Bladensburg, Colmar Manor, Cottage City, and Edmonston, contains goals, policies, and strategies to guide future growth and development for the Port Towns Sector Plan area. The principal purposes of this plan are: To implement the recommendations of the 2002 Prince George’s County Approved General Plan and assess its implications on the sector plan area. To update parts of the 1994 Approved Master Plan and Sectional Map Amendment for Bladensburg– New Carrollton and Vicinity (Planning Area 69). To update parts of the 1994 Approved Master Plan and Sectional Map Amendment for Planning Area 68 (Avondale, Brentwood, Colmar Manor, Cottage City, Edmonston, Hyattsville, Mt. Rainier, North Brentwood, Riverdale, and University Hills). To update parts of the 2007 Approved Bladensburg Town Center Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment. To amend the zoning map, through an SMA, in order to implement the land use recommendations of this sector plan and 2002 General Plan. To set policies that will guide future development pertaining to urban design, historic resources, economic development, roads, trails, transit, public facilities, parks and recreation, and environmental infrastructure in the planning area. Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY AND REGIONAL SETTING The sector plan area, being part of Planning Areas 68 and 69, generally comprises the properties contained within the municipal boundaries of Bladensburg, Colmar Manor, Cottage City, and Edmonston, as well as including properties south of the Bladensburg municipal boundary from the south side of Annapolis Road to the Baltimore– Washington Parkway (excluding the properties within the Cheverly municipal boundary) east to the Colmar Manor municipal boundary, and properties east of the Edmonston municipal boundary and north and west of the Bladensburg boundary to Carters Lane. (See Map 1: Sector Plan Boundary and Map 2: Regional Setting.) The sector plan area is largely residential but also contains a mix of other uses, including several shopping centers, employment areas, and portions of the Northeast and Northwest Branches of the Anacostia River.

OTHER PLANS AND STUDIES Previous plans and studies established the groundwork for this sector plan and provided background information critical to the development of key planning recommendations. Title: Prince George’s County Approved General Plan (2002) Author: The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission Key Recommendations: The Bladensburg Town Center Sector Plan boundaries place the study within the Developed Tier, along the MD 450/Annapolis Road Corridor, and within the Port Towns Regional Center as specified by the 2002 Prince George’s County Approved General Plan.

Title: The Approved Bladensburg Town Center Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment (June 2007) Author: The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission Key Recommendations: The Town of Bladensburg is a targeted wellness district and is developed in a way that benefits the overall health and wellness of its residents. Residents of the town center and adjacent areas have access to healthy foods, reliable transportation, safe places to walk and exercise, and employment and housing options that help individuals in making healthy choices. The Bladensburg Town Center Sector Plan boundaries place the study area within the Developed Tier, along the MD 450/Annapolis Road Corridor and within the Port Towns Regional Center as specified by the 2002 Prince George’s County Approved General Plan. The Developed Tier’s policies emphasize: medium- to high-density, quality infill and redevelopment; restoration, as well as preservation and enhancement of environmental quality; transit and pedestrian facilities; and adequate public facilities to serve existing and future residents. Developed Tier corridors generally contain a higher intensity of residential and nonresidential land uses and a greater mix of uses that are more regional in scope than the surrounding land use. Development should occur at selected corridor nodes and be planned as transit-oriented development.

use of existing industrial sites, and capitalization of the planning area’s proximity to the District of Columbia, Metro stations, and other commercial, office, and community growth areas. The 1994 master plan also recommends protecting existing natural resources, expanding and enhancing an open space system (including taking remedial actions to correct environmental deficiencies), utilizing urban design principles to guide improvements to the appearance of the community, and incorporating funding mechanisms to achieve these visions. The master plan shows the marina and levee as M-NCPPC parkland within the Natural Reserve System. The Natural Reserve System designates lands “…which exhibit severe constraints to development or which are important to sensitive ecological systems.” The plan states: “Natural Reserve Areas must be preserved in their natural state…this does not preempt so much land from development as to be unduly restrictive.” The plan recommends that the Bladensburg Marina should be incorporated into a “… comprehensive ‘main street’ revitalization program that would stimulate economic development, with the promotion and conservation of the town’s historic resources as key components.” Recommendations include renovation of the marina and needed pedestrian links between historic properties to be used to promote the commercial revitalization of Bladensburg. The parkland between the river and the CSX railroad tracks is currently zoned C-S-C (Commercial Shopping Center), with the northwest portion of the property located within the R-C-O (Resource Conservation Overlay) Zone of the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area.

Regional centers are locations for regionally marketed commercial and retail centers, offices and employment areas, some higher education facilities, and possibly professional sports and recreation complexes primarily serving Prince George’s County.

Title: Approved Anacostia Trails Heritage Area Management Plan: A Functional Master Plan for Heritage Tourism (September 2001)

Title: 1994 Approved Master Plan and Sectional Map Amendment for Bladensburg–New Carrollton and Vicinity (Planning Area 69)

Key Recommendations: The plan describes the Anacostia Trails Heritage Area (ATHA) and heritage tourism resources; strategies for heritage tourism, interpretation, stewardship and linkages; and discusses implementation practices.

Author: The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission

Key Recommendations: The 1994 master plan recommends orderly infill development, the creation of new job opportunities through effective and efficient 4

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

500 1,000

JOH

Municipal Boundaries

ER HIL L

TH 35 BU

oad

Sector Plan Boundary 1ST

2,000 Feet

COLMAR MANOR

sbu rg R

COTTAGE CITY

Island A venue

40TH

Railroad

e Av re

Water Body

ore W Par ashin kwa gto n y

42 RD

Major Road

CHEVERLY

ND 62

Edmonston

EDMONSTON

HYATTSVILLE

lt Ba

BLADENSBURG

tim

Bal

40TH

DO XE TU N O S AN

Map 1: Sector Plan Boundary

den

Bla

39TH

Rhode

TA YL

VI ER

RD 36

MOUNT RAINIER

33 H

District o f Columb ia Prince Ge orge's Co unty

SIA

ALLISON

UTAH

M DO

RT H

An lis

A WALL

ver Ro

Lando

IL W

WIN

R FA

RA UT

st ia

TI LA

Ave n

Road

ON RIS HAR

e nu TE

68TH

D LA N

or im Ba lt T AYE LAF

IS DE RHO

68T

eA ve

RIVERDALE PARK

orth

Ken ilw

AK GLE

COLUMBIA

Y RR RN OT IS

H RTEC RIVE

Joh

n nso

Hig

District o f Columb ia Prince Geo rge's Cou nty

Map 2: Regional Setting

Sector Plan Boundary

Miles

Municipal Boundaries

na is

0.5

An l po

0.25

ver Ro

Lando

oad

sbu rg R

den

Bla

ati

Metro (gree line n line )

Metro Line

Hig

n ter

e1 ut

apel Road

Railroad

u Aven

Water Body

Major Road

rkway

ton Pa

shing re Wa altimo

worth

Kenil

Montgomery County Sector Plan Boundary

Howard County

Capital Beltway (I-495)

Charles County

Prince George's County

District of Columbia

Queens Ch

Ea est st W

rkwa

var

ns Pa

ule

eltw

6 ive Bo ad

Veter a

ty rsi Ro

al B

e elt

Cap it

Gr b en

hw ay

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Title: Feasibility Study for the Bladensburg Town Center Project (2004)

Examining shared parking redevelopment plans.

Author: HRG Consultants, Thomas Point Associates, Inc., Paradigm Design

Enhancing linkages between the town center and the surrounding residential and recreational areas through a more complete street grid.

Key Recommendations: The Town of Bladensburg contracted with the consultant team to explore opportunities and options for a municipal/civic town center to spur investment and development. The feasibility study for the proposed Bladensburg Town Center investigates the potential financial, design, and planning implications of building a civic/ government complex on the Bladensburg Shopping Center site and establishing a town center master plan. The study for the town center project is the basis for a recommendation to amend the Bladensburg-New Carrollton and Vicinity Master Plan and SMA to create a mixed-use town center. The study concludes that the transportation infrastructure of Bladensburg does not support a walkable community or a pedestrian-oriented town center. Commuter highways, high-volume traffic, and lack of building frontage along the street reflect an auto-oriented suburban environment. The feasibility study recommends development of the existing municipal core, the adaptive reuse of the library incorporating a mix of office, retail, and residential uses, and incorporation of the Bostwick House as a visual focal point of a government complex at the terminus of Edmonston Road and Annapolis Road. Annapolis Road should become Bladensburg’s “main street,” anchored by the Bladensburg Waterfront Park at the western gateway and the Publick Playhouse near the eastern boundary. Recommendations for a future town center master plan include: Creating a future landscape median in selected areas of the left turn lane along Annapolis Road as a traffic-calming technique. Providing on-street parking along Annapolis Road during off-peak hours. Reducing the number of driveway entrances to accommodate on-street parking and median strips. Providing design guidelines for buildings and streetscape elements.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

opportunities

Improving public transit areas. Establishing connections between the Anacostia River and the town center. Title: 1997 Smart Growth and Neighborhood Conservation Act Author: The Maryland General Assembly Key Recommendations: Loss of open space, decline and abandonment of older communities, the cost of supporting an increasingly dispersed population, and the deteriorating health of the Chesapeake Bay led to Maryland’s 1997 Smart Growth and Neighborhood Conservation Act. In the mid-1990s, individuals, organizations, and elected officials traced these seemingly unrelated trends, at least in part, to a single, complicated source: low-density development far from existing population centers. The purpose of Smart Growth, however, is much broader than simply stopping sprawl. Smart Growth aims to give people the opportunity to live in a variety of healthy, safe communities to fit diverse, healthy lifestyle choices. In 1997, the Maryland General Assembly enacted a package of legislation collectively referred to as the Neighborhood Conservation and Smart Growth Initiative. This act comprises five main components: Priority funding areas Rural legacy Live near your work Brownfields Job creation tax credits A significant aspect of the initiative is the Smart Growth Area legislation requiring that state funding for projects in Maryland municipalities, other existing communities, and industrial and planned growth areas designated by counties will receive priority funding over other projects. The cornerstone of Smart Growth, establishment of priority funding areas, ensures that existing communities continue to provide a high quality of life for their residents. The act designates by law certain areas, including municipalities inside the Capital Beltway, as priority funding areas.

An employer-assisted housing program, Live Near Your Work, uses state, local, and private resources to help people purchase homes in distressed communities near their place of employment. Live Near Your Work helps increase the rate of homeownership, introduces a mix of incomes into communities, and encourages people to use alternative modes of transportation for their daily commutes. In an effort to encourage cleanup and redevelopment of abandoned or underutilized properties with contamination or the perception of contamination, the Brownfields Voluntary Cleanup and Revitalization Program streamlines the cleanup process, offers developers and lenders certain limitations on liability, and provides economic incentives for redevelopment. Originally passed in 1996, the Jobs Creation Tax Credit Act encourages mid-sized and small businesses to invest in Priority Funding Areas by providing tax credits to targeted growth sector businesses. Finally, the Rural Legacy program protects rural greenbelts and regions rich in natural and cultural resources from sprawl through the purchase of easements and development rights. Rural Legacy encourages jurisdictions and land trusts to develop a land preservation plan and to work across jurisdictional boundaries. In 2000, Maryland passed Smart Codes legislation that makes it easier to rehabilitate buildings, build in existing communities, and create new communities that emulate the characteristics of our most vibrant communities, providing guidelines for infill development and “smart neighborhoods.” Title: Approved Master Plan and Sectional Map Amendment for Planning Area 68 (1994) Author: The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission Key Recommendations: It includes a historical overview and a community profile of the development vision for the future of the community. The plan makes recommendations to guide public policy and investment in the planning area. The major focus of the plan is on revitalization, and it presents specific recommendations addressing community revitalization needs, including two new zones for the US 1 Corridor. 8

The plan includes detailed revitalization plans for Hyattsville, Mount Rainier and Riverdale Town Centers and for the Brentwood and North Brentwood Industrial Employment District.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM Public participation is fundamental to the creation of a community-vested vision plan. Multiple efforts were undertaken in the Port Towns to ensure that a broad cross section of residents and stakeholders was included in the development of the plan and that the process was open and transparent. These efforts consisted of: One-on-one interviews. Fourteen stakeholder group interviews. The three-step charrette process (consisting of a pre-charrette, charrette, and post-charrette). Neighborhood walking tours. Tours of model neighborhoods in Alexandria and Arlington, Virginia. Coordination with county and state public agencies, community and youth groups (such as the Port Towns Community Development Corporation (CDC) and the Port Towns Youth Council), and corporate initiatives (such as the Kaiser Permanente Community Health Initiative). Municipal briefings and meetings with the four Port Towns mayors and councils. A pre-charrette was held in April 2008 to introduce stakeholders to the sector planning process and to allow them the opportunity to share their concerns and ideas about their communities and visions for the future of the area. Residents, business owners, local organizations, public officials, and other citizens provided valuable input on the project area’s economic, historic, transportation, and environment issues. The charrette, conducted at the Bunker Hill Fire Station over a six-day span in June 2008, was open to the public; invitations were sent to over 2,000 households in the sector plan area. A charrette is a multiday planning and design process that brings interested and vested parties to the table to meet with the planning team and provide feedback on proposed revitalization/redevelopment plans, alternative design concepts, and implementation strategies. The process Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

consisted of two presentations, two 3-hour public drop-in periods, a mayors’ reception, one-on-one interviews, and focus groups. Over three dozen residents, public leaders, and stakeholders (including three middle-school students) participated in the process, which culminated in a preparation of a preferred design alternative. The planning team presented the refined preferred design alternative and implementation strategies to the public for their review and input at the post-charrette gathering held at the Publick Playhouse on September 17, 2008. Attendance exceeded expectations and included significant representation from the Port Towns Youth Council.

DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE This section summarizes the demographic and socioeconomic character of the four municipalities comprising the Port Towns—Bladensburg, Colmar Manor, Cottage City, and Edmonston. Although the properties located in the unincorporated portions of the project area are not directly included in this analysis, the profile is considered to be representative of the Port Towns project area in its entirety. Data are from 2007 unless otherwise stated.

Population and Households In 2007, the population of the Port Towns was 11,097, contributing approximately 1.3 percent of the county’s population and 1.4 percent of its households. In population terms, Bladensburg dominated the Port Towns (comprising approximately 70 percent of the population), with Colmar Manor, Cottage City and Edmonston contributing approximately 11 percent, 10 percent, and 9 percent, respectively. (See Figure 1.)

Port Towns Municipal Populations, 2000

Cottage City 10%

Edmonston 9%

Colmar Manor 11% Bladensburg 70%

Figure 1: Source—U.S. Census, 2000

The Port Towns featured a smaller household size (2.59) than the county (2.76). Their households were less likely to be composed of family-members (57.5 percent versus 69.1 percent), suggesting that their composition might be influenced by the availability of employment opportunities and/or the shortage of affordable housing. In contrast, the Port Towns households contained a higher proportion of persons over the age of 65 (20.4 percent versus 16 percent), intimating that the residents are aging in place at a greater rate than in the county. (See Table 1.) Although the Port Towns are projected to experience household growth between 2007 and 2012 (0.3 percent), they are not expected to capture a proportionate share of new households relative to the county and region (metropolitan statistical area) over the five-year period. (See Table 2.)

Table 1: Population and Households

Population, 2007 Households, 2007 Household Size, 2007 Households by Type: Families, 2007 Households by Type: Persons older than 65, 2007

Port Towns

County

11,097 4,273 2.59 57.5% 20.4%

856,679 304,333 2.76 69.1% 16%

Port Towns as Percentage of County 1.3 1.4 93.8

Source: ESRI Business Information Solutions; BBPC 2008 Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Table 2: Household Trends Existing Households, 2007 Projected Households, 2012 Net Increase

Port Towns 4,273 4,337 0.3%

County 304,333 317,330 0.84%

Port Towns

County

$63,451 $43,704

$72,228 $67,216

Region (MSA) 2,043,838 2,231,520 1.77%

Source: ESRI Business Information Solutions; BBPC 2008

Table 3: Household Income

Average household income Median household income

Port Towns as Percentage of County 87.8 65

Source: ESRI Business Information Solutions; BBPC 2008

Income

Diversity and Age

Although the Port Towns had lower average and median household incomes than the county as a whole (see Table 3), projected trends indicate that incomes are expected to rise over the next five years. By 2012, the percentage of households with incomes under $50,000 is expected to decrease, while the share of households making over $75,000 is anticipated to grow faster than the share of lower-income households. (See Figure 2.)

The Port Towns had a diverse population with approximately 63 percent of their residents identifying themselves as black, 19 percent as white, and 20 percent as being of Hispanic origin. The proportion of residents of Hispanic origin is anticipated to experience the highest rate of growth increasing to nearly one- quarter of all residents (24 percent) in 2012.

Projected Change in Port Towns Household Inome 35,000

Number of Households

30,000 25,000

Two indicators that further highlight the diversity of the project area include the percentage of residents who are foreign born and speak a language other than English at home. The Port Towns exceeded the county on both of these indicators by over 66 percent, signaling the attractiveness of the Port Towns to immigrants. (See Figure 3.)

20,000 15,000

Diversity Measures, 2000

10,000

30.0% 5,000 0

2007 2012

<$15,000

$15,000$24,999

$25,000$34,999

$35,000$49,999

$50,000$74,999

$75,000$99,999

$100,000- $150,000- $200,000+ $149,999 $199,999

Household Income

Figure 2: Source–ESRI Business Information Solutions; BBPC 2008

25.0%

20.0%

15.0%

10.0%

5.0%

0.0%

Foreign born Port Towns Prince George's County

Speak language other than English at home

Figure 3: Source–U.S. Census, 2000 10

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

The median age in the Port Towns was 32.9 as compared to 35.1 in the county. Like the county, however, the Port Towns are projected to experience growth of residents age 55 and over as its current population ages, while the number of residents under the age of 20 is expected to decline. The 20-to-24 age group will undergo the greatest rate change and is anticipated to grow rapidly to 41 percent, exceeding the county’s projection of 28 percent. This growth rate reflects the propensity of younger workers to migrate to new areas in pursuit of employment opportunities. (See Figure 4.) Age Group Growth Rates, 2007-2012 50.00% 40.00%

Education There is a noteworthy educational disparity between Port Towns and county residents 25 years and older. County residents were more than twice as likely to hold a bachelor’s degree and 25 percent more likely to hold a high school diploma than the average Port Towns resident. (See Figure 6.)

20.00%

Educational Background, 2000

10.00%

90.0%

0.00%

-30.00%

Port Towns

Average

Age Groups

85+

75-84

65-74

55-64

45-54

35-44

25-34

-20.00%

20-24

15-19

10-14

5-9

0-4

-10.00%

80.0%

Prince George's County

Figure 4: Source–ESRI Business Information Solutions; BBPC 2008

% of Population 25 years and older

Growth Rate

30.00%

The housing stock is distinguished from the county’s by two additional characteristics—its age and affordability. In 2000, 71 percent of units were constructed before 1969 in the Port Towns, compared to 50.3 percent in the county. The area’s housing stock was also more affordable than the county’s, with median home values reaching only 78.5 percent of the county’s ($296,912 versus $378,272) in 2007.

70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0%

High school graduate or higher Port Towns

Housing Although the Port Towns offer a breadth of housing types and styles, 59 percent of all occupied housing served as rental housing. A closer analysis of this statistic reveals that 53 percent of all Port Towns rental housing was concentrated in the municipality of Bladensburg. (See Figure 5.) Housing Ownership Proﬁle, 2000 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Bladensburg Colmar Manor

Owner-occupied housing units

Cottage City

Edmonston

Port Towns

Renter-occupied housing units

Prince George's County

Bachelor's degree or higher Prince George's County

Figure 6: Source–U.S. Census, 2000

Area Commuting Patterns and Vehicle Ownership A comparison of local commuting patterns to the county’s in 2000 reveals that Port Towns’ residents were more likely to use alternate forms of transportation to reach their workplace (43 percent versus 33 percent). Concurrently, the Port Towns households owned fewer vehicles (1.2 cars per household versus 1.6). Rising gas prices and a weakening economy may magnify this differential, underscoring the importance of supporting transit and pedestrian improvements in the project area. (See Figures 7 and 8.)

Figure 5: Source–U.S. Census, 2000

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Prince George's County Commuting Patterns, 2000

Port Towns Commuting Patterns, 2000

Other Worked at Home Walked 1% 2% 2%

Walked 3%

Worked at Home 2%

Public Transportation 17%

Public Transportation 12%

Carpooled 16%

Other 1%

Figure 7: Source—U.S. Census, 2000

DriveAlone Alone Drive 57% 57%

Carpooled 20%

Drive Alone 67%

Figure 8: Source—U.S. Census, 2000

Labor Force and At-Place Employment, 2007 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

er Ot h

en t m ve rn

Se rv i

ce s Go

ta il

Tr ad Tr e Uti an l iti s po e s rt ati on / In fo rm a ti Fi on Re na n al ce Es /I t a ns te ur an ce /

ad e Tr

g rin

ho le sa le

ac tu

M an uf

ns tru

cti on

Labor Force At-Place Employment

Figure 9: Source–ESRI Business Information Solutions; BBPC

Labor Force The Port Towns labor force represented 1.2 percent of the overall county labor force, notably a share similar to the number of county residents living in the Port Towns. The service industry dominated the labor force (51 percent of the total labor force), followed by the construction industry (10 percent), and then government (9 percent). However, the occupations and skills offered by the local labor force were not aligned with the jobs provided by local employers. 12

(See Figure 9.) Although over half the labor force worked in the service industry, 50 percent of the jobs available locally were industrial based. As a result, construction jobs outnumbered the local labor force by three to one, while the service-sector labor force outnumbered local jobs by five to two. This dichotomy highlights the Port Towns jobs/skills mismatch that could constrain the future competitiveness of the area’s industries and/or impede service-sector employees’ and residents’ ability to obtain higherpaying jobs. Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

MARKET ANALYSIS

Industrial Market Analysis

With a mix of long-standing industrial businesses, stable residential neighborhoods, and convenient retail offerings, the Port Towns are similar to other older, established neighborhoods in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan region. Like similar inner-ring communities, the Port Towns are now experiencing renewed interest in future mixed-used and sustainable (re)development. At the same time, the project area’s industrial base remains viable and interested in targeted expansion generating opportunities for retention and growth in the existing employment base.

Its expansion potential is driven by the employment growth in local industrial-based companies—both through the expansion of existing and the recruitment of new companies—and by the growth of the industrial sector in the county. Table 4 summarizes the industrial market’s key characteristics and development opportunities.

Basile Baumann Prost Cole and Associates, Inc. performed a detailed analysis of demographic and economic trends, current development plans and proposals, and the project area’s strengths and constraints to evaluate the market potential for industrial, office, residential, retail, hotel, and entertainment development in the Port Towns.

The Port Towns industrial market is relatively affordable, stable, older, and primarily owner occupied.

Office Market Analysis The office market represents a secondary type of land use in the Port Towns and is described as being dispersed, older, and challenging to lease. Near-term prospects for the development of new office space are limited. However, the growth of the industrial sector, combined with future mixed-used development in the area, present opportunities for the recruitment of small-scale, serviceoriented firms. Table 5 summarizes the office market’s key characteristics and development opportunities.

Table 4: Industrial Supply Characteristics Strengths Strategically located near regional transportation networks

Weaknesses Older industrial stock becoming increasingly obsolete with limited parking and flex space, poor access, and low floors

Opportunities Foster high-quality industrial development at select locations

Develop specialized industrial Relatively affordable providing cluster featuring green buildings ease of entry for newcomers and green industries (industries Tension between industrial base and community and economic that fabricate elements used in the Low vacancy rates signaling goals for community construction of green buildings) relatively strong demand Local job/skills mismatch forcing Facilitate expansion of existing Older, suggesting there is an companies to pull employees from large-scale industrial business/ opportunity for companies to other communities property owners upgrade to new space

Table 5: Office Supply Characteristics Strengths Strategically located near regional transportation networks Projected growth in information technology and business and finance office employment in county

Weaknesses Scattered buildings and lack of existing office nodes

Opportunities Foster high-quality office development at selected locations

Limited commercial investment

Interested property/business owner for office/mixed use development

No Class A office space to attract high-quality tenants Lack of precedent for large office buildings or centers

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Potential niche in green building design/sustainability

Table 6: Residential Supply Characteristics Strengths Relatively affordable

Weaknesses Crime or perception of crime

Historic

Old housing stock with 71 percent of units constructed before 1969 (2000 census)

Improved amenities and infrastructure (e.g., Anacostia watershed)

Perceived transient populations

Opportunities Foster high-quality residential development/mixed use at appropriate locations Market recreational amenities and regional access to employment as selling points to new households Market housing to University of Maryland at College Park students

Residential Market Analysis The Port Towns housing stock is older, relatively affordable, and dominated by renter-occupied units in multi-unit structures with ten or more units. Housing demand is expected to derive from the area’s projected population growth, future mixed-use development, relative affordability, location, and historic character. Table 6 summarizes the residential market’s key characteristics and development opportunities.

Retail Market Analysis The Port Towns contain several convenience-oriented shopping centers, most of which were built prior to the 1990s, with some dating to the 1940s and 1950s. They offer notable opportunities for retail expansion and diversification. Although analysis shows that households and employees already present in the area

have the disposable income to support a variety of retail establishments, the current lack of retail diversity (especially the shortage of sit-down restaurants) and the perception of crime in the evenings have prevented Port Towns’ shopping areas from fully taking advantage of these key customer groups. The recruitment of fullservice restaurants would serve as retail anchors which could, in turn, attract other community-oriented businesses currently undersupplied in the Port Towns, such as small-format convenience and food stores, and sporting goods/hobby/book/music stores. The relative attractiveness of shopping in the Port Towns will be enhanced if stores offering communitybased goods are located in close-proximity to existing and future residential neighborhoods and are clustered in cohesive retail nodes that provide “one-stop” shopping. Table 7 summarizes the retail market’s key characteristics and development opportunities.

Table 7: Retail Supply Characteristics Strengths Existing retail centers with expansion and renovation potential

Weaknesses Lack of vibrant retail nodes Lack of national retailers

Opportunities Need for sit-down restaurants, general merchandise, clothing, etc.

Curtail retail sales leakage Crime (real or perceived) limiting Lower lease rates provide ease of Opportunity to capture market area’s nighttime traffic entry into market convenience goods expenditures Unregulated competitive businesses Need for high-quality, mixed-use retail making it difficult for some development businesses to operate profitably Existing shopping center owners interested in redeveloping/expanding to mixed use Potential niche market catering toward Hispanic goods 14

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Table 8: Hotel Supply Characteristics Strengths Strategic location

Weaknesses No existing lodging facilities Competition from nearby US 1 Corridor Lack of retail/entertainment uses and adjacent office/industrial clusters to drive demand for lodging space

Hotel Market Analysis The Port Towns are situated within the College Park hotel market area, which includes approximately 20 hotels, mostly clustered along US 1. Although none are located within the Port Towns, there is a 156-room Howard Johnson in nearby Cheverly. With most of the demand for hotel rooms in the College Park area originating from visitors to the University of Maryland, there does not appear to be an immediate opportunity for hotel accommodations in the Port Towns. However, new mixed-use, commercial and entertainmentoriented development that spurs business travel and/or destination tourism may generate potential in the hotel market in the medium to long term. Table 8 summarizes the retail market’s key characteristics and development opportunities.

Health and Wellness Profile The U.S. is not among the industrialized nations top 10 for the protection and promotion of the public’s health. Recent data show the United States ranked 24th (down from 19th in 1989) among industrialized nations in infant mortality, the single most common public health indicator. National data from the 19992000 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, referred to as NHANES, revealed that 34 percent of the nation’s children and adolescents are either overweight or at risk of becoming overweight. In 2002, 34 percent of African-American children age 2 to 19 in Prince George’s County were overweight compared to 19.6 percent of their white counterparts. Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Opportunities New hotel development can create demand for other uses (e.g., retail and restaurants) Opportunity for lodging options that are more affordable than regional alternatives Creation of destinations (StarSpangled Banner National Historic Trail, Riverview on the Anacostia Waterfront) to increase demand for overnight accommodations

The Healthy People 2010 objective is to reduce by five percent the number of overweight youth between the ages of 12-19 years old. Overweight children and adolescents tend to become overweight and/or obese adults. Of adult (>18 years old) county residents, 58.6 percent are overweight or obese compared to 54.0 percent for the State of Maryland. Alarmingly, 63.6 percent of African-American adults in the county are overweight or obese (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m²) compared to 52.3 percent of whites. Examining obesity alone (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m²); 25.2 percent of African-Americans and 18 percent of whites are obese. BRFSS 2007 data reveal a worsening of this trend in Prince George’s County residents. Currently available data reveal that 68.8 percent of county adults are overweight (39.2 percent) or obese (29.6 percent). African-American adults experience the worst of this problem with a reported 75.2 percent compared to 58.5 percent of whites. This level of obesity is well above the Healthy People 2010 target of only 15 percent of adults. Although data has not been provided here about the County’s Hispanic population, based upon national trends, it is expected that such data on adolescent Hispanic males and females will show a significant caloric/exercise imbalance for that population as well. Chronic diseases that are initiated and exacerbated by obesity, smoking and other influences are quickly replacing population health risks associated with infectious disease. Injury, disability, and trauma from violence put individuals, especially young people, at much higher risk for poorer health outcomes. As the Adverse Childhood Experience Study suggests, 15

violence and maltreatment in early life are among the major risk factors for the leading causes of illness and death in the U.S., and are imperative to address as they affect individual and community health outcomes and overall wellness. These and many other health threats exist in a social context brought on by such trends as increasing control of national economies; dramatic demographic shifts; uncontrolled urban sprawl; reduced federal and state revenues for investments in basic human needs and community infrastructure; and a political climate hostile to publicly funded social services. As a result, the 21st century prognosis is that the next generation is anticipated to have a shorter life expectancy. These same patterns of poor population health affect residents across Prince George’s County. For these reasons, M-NCPPC has a historic opportunity to play a critical role in positively impacting the future health and well-being of current residents as well as future generations in the form of a Port Towns Sector

Plan that designates the Port Towns as a Wellness Opportunity District where there is a convergence of best practices in terms of land use that positively impact healthy lifestyles.

Entertainment Market Analysis In the Port Towns, the Crossroads Entertainment Complex in Bladensburg attracts visitors from around the region. Additionally, there are currently two major planned projects with entertainment/recreational components in the Port Towns—the Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail and the Riverview on the Anacostia Waterfront. The creation and marketing of these planned destinations could enhance Port Towns’ visibility to local, regional, state, and to a lesser degree, national visitors and catalyze additional development. Table 9 summarizes the entertainment market’s key characteristics and development opportunities.

Table 9: Entertainment Supply Characteristics Strengths Weaknesses Waterfront and water resources Hidden and fragmented historic resources Historic and cultural resources, including the Star-Spangled Lack of existing cluster of stable Banner trail and the Battle of entertainment facilities Bladensburg

Opportunities Pursue Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail to increase national exposure

Parkland and recreational assets

Consider joint marketing of future entertainment, recreational, and tourism attractions to enhance image and boost visitation of local, regional, state and even national guests

Trail connections Superior regional access Active CDC with vision for entertainment attractions The Crossroads music venue, which attracts visitors from around the region

Build recreational attractions through partnership with Kaiser Permanente

Use catalyst projects, such as the Riverview on the Anacostia Waterfront and the Watershed Educational Center, to boost visitation

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

DEVELOPMENT PATTERN ELEMENT VISION STATEMENT

OVERALL SECTOR AREA

The vision for the Port Towns area is to achieve green, healthy, and pedestrian-friendly communities and destinations that celebrate and build on the area’s cultural diversity, strategic location, industrial base, and historical, recreational and environmental assets. The four Port Towns function as cohesively interlinked communities with well-defined development nodes while retaining their own distinct identities. For each of the Port Towns, an active civic core is closely integrated with a vibrant mix of residential, retail, and office development located along major commercial corridors. Rehabilitated housing and infill residential development offer a diverse mix of market rate and workforce housing linked to convenient mass transit stops by an efficient and safe network of pedestrianfriendly streets and paths. The unique historic buildings and sites in the community enhance the sense of place and highlight the history of the town, drawing visitors and guests to new businesses. A revitalized, rehabilitated, and more accessible Anacostia waterfront is closely linked to surrounding communities and to an improved and expanded network of public open spaces and trails. The Port Towns comprise a wellness district that fosters healthy lifestyles by providing safe and comfortable routes for walking and bicycling, recreational and athletic facilities, healthy food choices, and sustainable design and development practices that contribute to a healthy environment.

Background Clustered around the banks of the Anacostia River and traversed by key transportation routes and rail lines, the Port Towns area is distinguished by an array of recreational, environmental, historical, architectural, community, and economic assets. It boasts a strategic location, a vibrant and diverse population, an affordable and distinct housing stock, a walkable scale, active leadership, historic landmarks and sites, and a thriving industrial base. Despite these advantages, the landscape of the four municipalities is challenged by predominantly autooriented infrastructure and development. This fosters an unfriendly environment for pedestrians and blocks access to views of the river and the area’s recreational and historic resources. Inadequate transit service, lack of healthy food options, and pollution further impair the quality of life of the Port Towns’ residents.

Goals Enhance the unique character of each of the Port Town communities while developing strategies to link them as a regional center. Support the implementation of the wellness opportunity district and ensure community health and wellness are addressed as land use policies are developed. Improve community security and safety.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Map 3: Illustrative Framework Vision Plan 18

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

40TH

Rhode

HAR RIS ON

35 TH

TH 35

ON IS AD M

40TH

UTAH

UT AG RR FA

39TH

ALLISON

N TI LA AL G

HIL

M DO WIN ACE WALL

D ER H

EP SH

TA YL

R 33

RHO

AND

ISL

H RTEC

T AYE LAF

RIVE

Island A venue

im alt

COTTAGE CITY Bla

den

sbu

ve eA

rg R

oad

EDMONSTON

COLMAR MANOR

lis

tia

Ken

ilwo

rth A ven

BLADENSBURG

ver Ro

Lando

Bal

tim

500 1,000

Residential High

Bare exposed rock

Commercial

Industrial

Mixed Use Residential

Residential Low

Bare ground

Extractive

Institutional

Parks and Open Space

Residential Low Medium

Residential Medium

AK NO

Mixed Use Commercial

Transportation GLE

IL W N SIA

Forest

COLUMBIA

Y RR

68TH

N 62

Wetlands

IS OT

Water Body RN

Railroad

Sector1SPlan Boundary T

RV SE Agriculture

DO XE TU ON

E IC

ANS

Municipal Boundaries

JOH

RT H

2,000 Feet

68T

ore W Par ashin kwa gto n y

Residential Medium High Rural

Map 4: Existing Land Use Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Ba l

HAR RIS ON

N SO

Rhode

35 TH

D 2N

I AD

RHO

AND

ISL

40TH

N TI LA AL

AG RR FA

40TH

UTAH

ALLISON

HIL

39TH

ACE WALL

D WIN

D ER H

EP SH

TA YL

U SH UP

H RTEC

T AYE LAF

RIVE

Island A venue

Bla

den

sbu

lt Ba

COTTAGE CITY

ve eA

rg R

oad

COLMAR MANOR

EDMONSTON

lis

tia

Ken

ilwo

rth A ven

BLADENSBURG

ad ver Ro

Lando

Bal

tim

500 1,000

Transportation

Residential High

Bare exposed rock

Commercial

Industrial

Mixed-Use

Residential Low

Bare ground

Extractive

Institutional

Parks and Open Space

Residential Low Medium

Residential Medium

IL W N SIA

Forest

GLE NO

COLUMBIA

Y RR

68TH

N 62

Wetlands

Water Body RN

Railroad

Sector1SPlan Boundary T

DO XE ON

I RV SE Agriculture

ANS

Municipal Boundaries

JOH

RT H

2,000 Feet

68T H

ore W Par ashin kwa gto n y

Residential Medium High Rural

Map 5: Proposed Land Use 20

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Enhance pedestrian safety and mobility.

PORT TOWNS WATERFRONT Improve the multimodal connectivity of and CHARACTER AREA service to the area.

Background

Preserve and enhance the industrial tax base while The heart of the Port Towns Waterfront Character encouraging sustainable development and design. Area is the existing Peace Cross circle, where Address the appropriate scale, mix, and location of Annapolis Road, Bladensburg Road and Baltimore Avenue intersect at the Peace Cross Memorial. This new development. character area includes portions of all three roadways, Enhance the historic character of the Port Towns the industrial area bounded by Annapolis Road and area. Baltimore Avenue, the riverfront area between the Integrate efforts proposed by the Anacostia Trails Bladensburg Waterfront Park, and the Bladensburg Heritage Area (ATHA). border with the City of Hyattsville. Land uses are Connect the communities to the Anacostia River primarily industrial and commercial, including and to the area’s open space and environmental industrial and warehouse uses, the Crossroads restaurant and nightclub, a pawn shop, parking lots, resources. and the historic George Washington House. The area Support Prince George’s County green infrastruc- also features a number of open space amenities, ture goals. including the existing Bladensburg Waterfront Park, Provide a realistic implementation action plan, the M-NCPPC Balloon Park, and a nearby M-NCPPC with both short- and longer-term goals and park on Baltimore Avenue. Construction of a CSX railroad bridge over Annapolis Road between 46th strategies. Street and 47th Street has recently been completed. In order to achieve the vision of the Port Towns and the goals, six areas are targeted for redevelopment. Key planning issues in this area include: an existing These six areas provide a framework to achieve roadway network that forms a barrier between the vertical mixed-use development that promotes waterfront and the Bladensburg Town Center; the lack pedestrianism, linking the Port Towns together to form of safe pedestrian access to the waterfront; the need to a recognizable place. (See Map 3: Illustrative improve the overall accessibility and visibility of Framework Vision Plan). The six character areas are: Bladensburg Waterfront Park; the high speed of traffic (1) Port Towns Waterfront, (2) Bladensburg Road on both the northbound and southbound lanes of Gateway/Main Street, (3) Edmonston Road Main Baltimore Avenue; and the need to preserve industrial Street, (4) Edmonston North Workshop, (5) Annapolis uses while identifying appropriate solutions for the Road Gateway, and (6) Bladensburg Town Center. industrial edges closest to Annapolis Road and Goals, policies and strategies to guide development Baltimore Avenue. for each of the six focus areas are discussed below. (Also see Map 4: Existing Land Use Map and Map 5: Goals Proposed Land Use, indicating areas of land use A new center for the Port Towns. change to achieve the vision of the Port Towns.) A redesigned street network that restores the historic street grid. Mixed-use development overlooking waterfront parks. Shopping and family-oriented entertainment destinations. Indoor athletic and recreation facilities. Preservation, greening, and adaptation of existing industrial uses. Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Sustainable development and design practices. Protection and enhancement of the natural environment.

Incorporate the Peace Cross monument as part of a new public open space within the restored street grid.

A safe and comfortable pedestrian environment Design the reconfigured intersection such that it with improved access to the waterfront. functions as a gateway to the Port Towns. An environmental education center. Interpretive elements that highlight the area’s history.

Policy 2:

Policy 1:

Establish a storefront and family-oriented entertainment district as the core of the area.

Restore elements of the historic street grid pattern in the vicinity of the Peace Cross monument. Strategies:

Develop a low-scale (four-story maximum) mixeduse district with storefronts and family-oriented Simplify traffic patterns by reconfiguring the Peace entertainment uses, as well as office and residential Cross monument intersection as a “T” intersection uses, along the reconfigured Baltimore Avenue. and restoring the street grid in this area. Define the area with an architectural style that both Reconfigure Baltimore Avenue such that its western respects and takes architectural cues from nearby lanes serve as a two-way major collector route historic structures (i.e., require porches at the with regional northbound and southbound traffic, build-to line to respond to the George Washington while the eastern half of Baltimore Avenue is House). transformed into a local street with a “waterfront Design and construct a public plaza that main street” environment; disconnect the eastern incorporates the Peace Cross monument right-of-way from the western right-of-way and provide a link to Tanglewood Drive. Ensure that retail frontage faces the proposed plaza to activate this public space. Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Annapolis Road and the reconfigured Baltimore Policy 3: Avenue. Provide pedestrian access to the waterfront via a Develop a mixed-use district and family-oriented crosswalk at the intersection of Annapolis Road entertainment destination along 46th Street.

Strategies:

and the reconfigured Baltimore Avenue.

Strategies:

Extend walkways from signalized intersections to provide access to the Waterfront Park and to Encourage medium-scale (six-story maximum) mixed-use development along the east and west riverfront development on the opposite side of the sides of 46th Street. river. Construct an additional connecting road, located Require entertainment or commercial uses on the ground floor and residential or office uses on the midway between Tanglewood Drive and Upshur upper floors for all mixed-use development. Street, linking 46th Street and the Bladensburg Waterfront Park.

Explore the potential for a large-scale indoor athletic and recreational complex along the west Install a traffic signal at the additional connecting side of 46th Street, north of Upshur Street. road and Upshur Street and provide pedestrian access to the waterfront at the connecting road.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Policy 4:

Policy 6:

Preserve, enhance and provide a transition to existing Commemorate the area’s history. industrial uses.

Strategies:

Commemorate the Battle of Bladensburg with interpretive elements, including an interpretive trail and a potential indoor exhibit space (possible locations include Bostwick House, Magruder Encourage the development of workshop building House, the Market Master’s House, the proposed types in the area east of 46th Street and north of environmental center, and within mixed-use Upshur Street to enable the incorporation of riverfront development in Colmar Manor). industrial uses in the area and provide a transition to the mixed-use areas to the south. Explore potential funding opportunities associated with the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Reduce stormwater runoff quantities and improve Bladensburg in 2012. runoff quality on existing industrial properties using low-impact development and sustainable Explore the potential restoration of the Spring and green building design techniques to mitigate Grove site as an open space and interpretive feature negative impacts to the Anacostia River. that provides a narrative of the site’s historical use as a destination spring and spa. Evaluate adjacent uses for incompatibility and provide buffers and screening where appropriate. Incorporate elements that interpret the area’s natural and cultural history, as part of the proposed Create incentives to maintain and expand existing environmental education center. businesses and attract new business that support the growth of the industrial job market. Preserve existing industrial uses in the area east of 46th Street and north of Upshur Street.

Policy 7:

Policy 5:

Develop an identifiable entry to the Bladensburg Waterfront Park with a pedestrian-oriented edge that Celebrate, protect, and enhance the area’s natural connect future waterfront development to the environment. Bladensburg Waterfront Park.

Strategies:

Construct an environmental education center Furnish a signalized intersection at the Annapolis northwest of the reconfigured Bladensburg Road/ Road entry to the Bladensburg Waterfront Park. Annapolis Road/Baltimore Avenue intersection. Maintain sidewalks on the north and south sides of Reconstruct wetlands along the riverfront, west of Annapolis Road with convenient and clearly the reconfigured Baltimore Avenue, as part of the marked crosswalks. environmental education center site development. Create an attractive pedestrian walkway with Develop new wetland trails at the Bladensburg boardwalk or bridges as necessary that include Waterfront Park. recreation/environmental information and connect People’s Harbor and future riverfront development to the Bladensburg Waterfront Park. Support signage and lighting that identifies and welcomes visitors into the park; refer to the design guidelines for signage and alternate lighting techniques contained in the Implementation Chapter of this plan.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Policy 8:

Policy 10:

Create two new pedestrian/bike routes to the Promote and use the interconnections between the Port Towns recreational resources. waterfront.

Strategies:

Establish a connection to the waterfront area via a Continue the Artway system identified in the approved Gateway Sectional Map Amendment and river access trail on Upshur Street. Sector Plan, along the Anacostia River levee and Form a waterfront connection from Quincy Street trail system, into the People’s Harbor and along the with an elevated river trail enabling access over the northeast branch. CSX railroad tracks. Link all the Port Towns recreational resources into a single “Port Towns Central Park” and for Policy 9: recreational programming create a Port Towns Create a Port Towns Waterfront “landmark” and Recreation Council to work with M-NCPPC park Recreational Parks Visitor Center at the confluence of programming staff to develop the recreation the major Port Towns sight lines–Bladensburg Road/ offerings including classes, events, programs, etc. Annapolis Road/Baltimore Avenue/Anacostia River Develop the park area northeast of Cottage City, South. near the confluence of the Anacostia River branches, into an outdoor wetlands and stormwater Strategies: management education area and extension of the At Colmar Manor Community Park increase the proposed Anacostia River Education Center. use of the park by building a greater variety of recreation facilities as appropriate for the former At Colmar Manor Community Park, increase the use of the park by building a greater variety of landfill. Facilities to be considered include recreation facilities as appropriate for the former equestrian sites, skate parks, and off-leash dog landfill. To be considered include equestrian parks. facilities, a skate park, and an off-leash dog park. Increase promotion of the Port Towns Memorial Gardens, by incorporating them into a greater Port Increase promotion of the Town Towns Memorial Gardens by incorporating them into a greater Port Towns central waterfront park and increase Towns central waterfront park and increase interpretive information on the memorials interpretive information on the memorials contained contained therein. therein. Explore a private/public partnership and provide assistance for potential entrepreneurs to start small Explore a private/public partnership and provide assistance for potential entrepreneurs to start small businesses to expand bicycle rental service within businesses to expand bicycle rental service within those areas owned by M-NCPPC to promote those areas owned by M-NCPPC to promote interconnections along the trails system and interconnections along the trails system and promote promote bicycling as a healthy choice for active bicycling as a healthy choice for active living. living.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

od lewo

Tang

Driv

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

200'

400'

800'

46th Street

Anacostia River

Baltimore Avenue / US-1

Upshur Street

Map 6A: Port Towns Waterfront Character Area (see Map 6B for proposed visualization).

Restored Riparian Landscape

Nature Center

Indian Queen Tavern

Indoor Sports

Historic Springs

Annapolis Road

View Location

Civic Buildings

Proposed Buildings

Existing Buildings

LEGEND

Signalized Intersection and Waterfront Pedestrian Access

Existing Peace Cross and Civic Green

War Memorials

Mix Use / Entertainment

CSX Railroad

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

bur

o gR

Map 6B: Port Towns Waterfront Character Area Visualization

ns ade

Bridge Improvements

Anacostia River

Wetland Restoration

Nature Center

lti

n ve

A n n a p o li s R

Mixed Use Development

Signalized Intersection

r mo

Existing Peace Cross

Civic Green

oad

Port Towns Waterfront Before

Port Towns Waterfront After Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

BLADENSBURG ROAD GATEWAY/ MAIN STREET CHARACTER AREA Background

Policy 1: Establish Bladensburg Road as a mixed-use urban boulevard.

The Bladensburg Road Gateway/Main Street Character Area includes the Bladensburg Road corridor between the Anacostia River and Eastern Avenue as well as the remaining portions of Colmar Manor and Cottage City to the south and north of Bladensburg Road. On the Colmar Manor side of Bladensburg Road, commercial properties include the Port Towns Shopping Center, restaurants and fast-food establishments, and a range of other commercial uses, including a medical center, an air-conditioning business, a convenience and liquor store, auto-related uses, and a newspaper distribution facility. The latter property, a 2.17-acre site facing the Anacostia River that is currently occupied by the National News Agency, was recently the focus of a design competition sponsored by the Port Towns Community Development Corporation, which has signed an agreement to purchase the site and redevelop it as a mixed-use waterfront development. On the Cottage City side of Bladensburg Road, land uses range from light-industrial closest to Eastern Avenue to autorelated uses, a gas station, a bedding and furniture store, a variety of service-oriented businesses located in converted houses, and a boiler repair/inspection business. Neighborhoods to the north and south of Bladensburg Road consist primarily of residential, civic, and park uses.

Strategies:

Goals

A mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly boulevard.

Ensure that bus stops are safe, attractive, and accessible to pedestrians via crosswalks.

Waterfront mixed-use development.

Policy 3:

Implement the proposed Port Towns Riverview mixed-use project at the eastern end of the corridor on the south (Colmar Manor) side of Bladensburg Road adjacent to the river, including improved pedestrian access to the river. Consider a second phase of the Port Towns Riverview project, developing a complementary mixed-use project on the northern (Cottage City) side of Bladensburg Road. Encourage additional medium-density, mixed-use development along the south side of Bladensburg Road. Encourage redevelopment of the Eastgate property in Cottage City as a mixed-use development oriented toward a possible future MARC rail station in this location. Encourage low-density mixed-use development along the north side of Bladensburg Road, west of 40th Avenue.

Policy 2: Incorporate potential transit improvements.

Strategies:

Consider a possible future MARC rail station in Key planning issues in the area include: transforming Cottage City at the western end of the corridor, the existing auto-related corridor into a more with pedestrian bridges across the railroad tracks; pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use boulevard; preserving support this station with mixed-use development and enhancing existing residential neighborhoods and a public green surrounding the station. while providing an adequate transition to uses along Bladensburg Road; making historic resources in the Ensure that future development and street improvements accommodate potential fixed-route, area more accessible and visible; and improving and guided transit service along Eastern Avenue and expanding the open space network. Bladensburg Road.

A new MARC rail station surrounded by mixeduse development. Preservation and expansion of housing options. Interpretive elements that highlight the area’s history. New and improved public open spaces. 28

Improve the street network to ensure connectivity for pedestrians and vehicular traffic.

Strategies: Ensure that there are sufficient crosswalks along Bladensburg Road. Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA 800'

400'

E er

200'

t as

u sb

d la

Map 7A: Bladensburg Road Gateway/Main Street Character Area Part I

Civic Green

MARC Station

Artist Lofts

en Av

a Ro

Civic Buildings

Proposed Buildings

Existing Buildings

LEGEND

Fort Lincoln Cemetery and War of 1812 Joshua Barney Memorial

Mixed Use Main Street

Town Home

Dueling Creek Park

Cottage Terrace Street Bridge Connection to Civic Greens

42n

ven th A

37t

la hP

ve hA

Existing Buildings

LEGEND

Mixed Use Development

View Location

Dueling Grounds Interpretive Park

ven dA

Map 7B: Bladensburg Road Gateway/Main Street Character Area Part II

42n ven dA

Civic Buildings

43r

Town Home

ue Proposed Buildings

oad

ven dA

Existing Single Family House

ven th A

800'

R ark

400'

200'

oad

ven th A

R ark w Ne

lac B

43rd Avenue

Aven u

4 ad

37th

P 0th sbu

41 en lad

ven st A o gR

An sti

Civic Green

Existing Bungalow

Existing Town Hall

o ac i aR

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Bladensburg Road Gateway Before

Bladensburg Road Gateway After

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Identify and improve other roadways, including Strategies: 38th Avenue, that serve as a barrier to east/west Develop a public green at the corner of Bladensburg pedestrian circulation. Road and 40th Avenue that is integrated with the Improve sidewalks and fill in gaps in the sidewalk surrounding mixed-use development and groundnetwork; establish build-to lines to allow for wide floor retail. sidewalks. Develop a public green within the proposed Eastgate Establish 40th Avenue and 42nd Avenue as priority redevelopment area such that the public space is neighborhood connections from Bladensburg Road. located at the end of a new shopping street and is integrated with surrounding mixed-use development, Ensure that bus stops are accessible and aligned ground-floor retail, and the potential MARC station. with major pedestrian crossings. Provide a street connection between the proposed Improve the accessibility and visibility of the Dueling Grounds with the inclusion of interpretive MARC station and the Cottage City residential elements and Bladensburg Road signage. neighborhood to the east. Improve the open space south of Colmar Manor with a Policy 4: continuous loop drive, upgraded ball fields, a Expand housing options in Colmar Manor and Cottage City. neighborhood recreation center, and river access points.

Strategies:

Policy 7:

Preserve and enhance existing housing.

Preserve and highlight the area’s history.

Support mixed-use development that includes Strategies: residences on the upper floors. Commemorate the Battle of Bladensburg with Encourage development of townhouses along the interpretive and artistic elements, including an north side of Newark Road as a transition to the interpretive trail and a potential indoor exhibit space existing adjacent single-family neighborhood. (possible locations include Bostwick House, Encourage development of townhouses fronting Magruder House, the Market Master’s House, the Bladensburg Road on both ends of the proposed proposed environmental center, and within mixedmixed-use redevelopment of the Eastgate property, use riverfront development in Colmar Manor); as well as along a new street perpendicular to include Bladensburg Road, the Dueling Grounds, Bladensburg Road. and relevant memorials and markers in Fort Lincoln Cemetery as part of the interpretive trail route. Encourage development of townhouses or small multifamily structures in the area north of Explore potential funding opportunities associated Bladensburg Road and east of Dueling Creek. with the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Bladensburg.

Policy 5: Retain the area’s cottage-style architecture.

Policy 8:

Support small scale transitional development in the industrial area located on the north side of Bladensburg Strategies: Road between Dueling Creek and Eastern Avenue in Preserve and improve existing cottage-style Cottage City during the pre-transit transition period. bungalows on the north side of Bladensburg Road Strategy: in Cottage City. Ensure that new development along Bladensburg Encourage workshop structures as a transition until transit is realized and supports the more Road respects and incorporates elements of the comprehensive mixed-use development potential cottage-style architectural language. envisioned in the plan.

Policy 6:

Improve and expand the network of public open spaces.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

EDMONSTON ROAD MAIN STREET CHARACTER AREA

Policy 1:

Background

Strategies:

The Edmonston Road Main Street Character Area encompasses both the Edmonston Road and Kenilworth Avenue corridors. Land uses along Edmonston Road include a mix of commercial (primarily restaurants, retail, and other serviceoriented businesses), residential, and institutional uses. East of Edmonston Road, land uses are primarily residential. Kenilworth Avenue serves as the primary commercial corridor in Edmonston. The east side of Kenilworth Avenue consists of a mix of commercial uses, including two shopping centers, auto-related uses, and assorted others. Along the west side of Kenilworth Avenue, uses include a self-storage facility, a heating/air-conditioning/plumbing supply business, and multiple other businesses (telephone, oxygen, glass and construction services) sharing a parcel adjacent the Bladensburg line. Planning issues in the area include: addressing the pedestrian environment and the visual quality and auto-oriented nature of Kenilworth Avenue; improving street connectivity while identifying appropriate solutions for access to Kenilworth Avenue; and exploring opportunities for infill development along both Edmonston Road and Kenilworth Avenue. Site analysis identified the intersection of Decatur Street and Edmonston Road as an opportunity to create a town center for the Edmonston community, which currently lacks a definable core area.

Establish a new town center for Edmonston. Explore opportunities to locate civic uses, including a possible new town hall site, around a public green that could serve as the focal point for the new Edmonston town center. Encourage low-density, mixed-use development with ground-floor retail fronting Edmonston Road and Decatur Street.

Policy 2:

Preserve, support, and expand the supply of housing to provide a range of housing options.

Strategies: Preserve and enhance existing housing. Promote development of a range of single- and multifamily housing types, ranging from small-lot, single-family residences and rowhouses to medium-density housing. Support mixed-use development that includes residences or offices on the upper floors. Encourage small-lot, single-family development to the south of the town center, between Decatur Street and Chesapeake Road. Encourage a mix of infill housing—small-lot single-family residences, rowhouses, and mediumdensity housing—along Edmonston Road, Decatur Street, and 53rd Avenue. Explore mechanisms to provide financial support for rehabilitating existing housing.

Goals

Policy 3:

A new town center along Edmonston Road.

Establish a parkway character along Kenilworth Avenue.

Parkway character along Kenilworth Avenue.

Strategies:

A new retail center fronting Kenilworth Avenue Limit street intersections along Kenilworth Avenue to enable implementation of parkway character. and Edmonston Road. Improved roadways, street connectivity, and Undertake streetscape improvements to implement the parkway character, including new sidewalks pedestrian accommodations. and plantings. Preservation and expansion of housing options.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Improve pedestrian circulation and safety along Kenilworth Avenue by providing sidewalks, improved lighting, and safe pedestrian crossings across Kenilworth Avenue at intersections with traffic lights (including Decatur Street and Buchanan Street). Improve the safety and appearance of bus stops by providing new and ample sidewalk connections, bus shelters, and lighting.

Policy 4:

Develop a mixed-use and retail center fronting Kenilworth Avenue and Edmonston Road.

Strategies: Develop a medium-density, “urban retail” center that extends from the Bladensburg town line past Buchanan Street. Ensure that shop fronts face Edmonston Road and/ or Kenilworth Avenue and that parking is located to the side and to the rear of buildings. Concentrate the tallest structures near Kenilworth Avenue, with shorter structures located along Edmonston Road.

Strategies: Establish a “main street” character along Edmonston Road. Fill in gaps in the sidewalk network along Edmonston Road and adjacent streets. Study the redesign of Edmonston Road as a three-lane thoroughfare with on-street parking on the west side. Connect both ends of Buchanan Street by creating a new street connection between Kenilworth Avenue and Edmonston Road. Extend 53rd Avenue across Decatur Street to Emerson Street to create a new street connection parallel to Kenilworth Avenue, while also providing a new connection to Edmonston Road via an extended Crittenden Street. Establish a new street connection through the proposed mixed-use area at Edmonston Road and Decatur Street to provide access to the mixed-use development in this location. Extend Decatur Street from past its existing terminus to create a new residential street connection to 55th Avenue.

Provide entrances from both Kenilworth Avenue and Edmonston Road.

Policy 5:

Improve roadways, street connectivity, and pedestrian circulation along Edmonston Road.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

reet

200'

400'

800'

rth

nil

Av en

nst

Ch Av en

Map 8A: Edmonston Road Main Street Character Area (see Map 8B for proposed visualization).

Town Home

ad Deca

tin St

Mixed Use Main Street

so me r

nR o tur S treet

Stree Deca tur

Av e

k ea

eR o esa p

Galla

Kenilworth Avenue Parkway with Bus Pull-Off

th nu

a an

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

il th

uc h

r wo

Existing Church

Existing Salvation Army

Town Hall and Civic Green

Mixed Use

Single Family Neighborhood

Existing Church

View Location

Civic Buildings

Proposed Buildings

Existing Buildings

LEGEND

n S tre et

Existing Church

en Av

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Map 8B: Edmonston Road Main Street Character Area Visualization

Town Hall

Civic Green

Existing Salvation Army

nst

r tu

e tr

Mixed Use Main Street

EDMONSTON-NORTH WORKSHOP CHARACTER AREA Background The Edmonston North Workshop Character Area includes the Decatur Street corridor west of the Northwest Branch, as well as residential uses, autorelated businesses, and light-industrial uses to the north. Along Decatur Street, assorted commercial uses mix with residential, offices, and a small restaurant to the south of 49th Avenue and a former school building that now houses commercial uses. The adjoining area, bounded by the railroad tracks, Lafayette Place, and 46th Avenue, houses a variety of light-industrial, autorelated, other commercial services, and storage operations. The west side of 46th Avenue marks an abrupt transition from light-industrial uses to adjacent residential uses.

Policy 1: Encourage development of a mixed-use district.

Strategies: Develop a low-density, mixed-use complex with townhouses that includes buildings fronting on both Decatur Street and 46th Avenue. Encourage ground-level retail along Decatur Street and 46th Avenue. Reuse and retrofit the existing former school building on Decatur Street as part of the mixed-use district. Incorporate the existing M-NCPPC Northeast Branch Stream Valley Park as part of the mixeduse complex.

Key planning issues in the area include: establishing an identity for Decatur Street through redevelopment and streetscape improvements; identifying opportunities for infill development and redevelopment; preserving viable industrial uses while providing a transition to other uses; protecting existing residential neighborhoods; identifying sustainable design practices and other measures to mitigate the environmental impact of industrial uses; and enhancing existing natural resources and parkland.

Policy 2:

Goals

Provide a transition between the mixed-use district and the existing large-floor-plate industrial district at the opposite end of 46th Avenue.

A new mixed-use district Workshop mixed-use with industrial uses

Establish a “green” industrial mixed-use district.

Strategies: Develop a green-oriented industrial mixed-use district along the northern portion of 46th Avenue. Encourage workshop/mixed-use structures that include workshop or commerce uses in front, facing the street, with space behind the structures for parking and loading.

Industrial preservation and greening

Policy 3:

Additional housing options

Encourage industrial preservation and greening.

Protection of existing neighborhoods Improved transitions between conflicting uses Enhanced natural resources and open spaces A “green” streetscape along Decatur Street

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Strategies: Preserve and enhance existing industrial uses. Encourage application of “green” design strategies (green roofs, energy efficiency, rain gardens, etc.) to minimize the environmental impact of industrial uses on the surrounding neighborhood and on water and air resources.

Promote development of “green collar jobs” through environmentally oriented businesses (including incubator “green” businesses) in this area. Install appropriate stormwater management measures to retain and absorb stormwater runoff before it reaches the river.

Policy 4: Protect and enhance existing residential neighborhoods.

Strategies: Limit the amount of industrial traffic that passes through the adjacent residential neighborhood by closing access from 46th Street to Hamilton and Gallatin Streets; incorporate unused portions of the right-of-way into pedestrian and stormwater management zones. Preserve and enhance existing housing. Explore mechanisms to provide financial support for rehabilitating existing housing. Incorporate the existing M-NCPPC Northeast Branch Stream Valley Park into proposed mixed-use development to help establish an appropriate transition to the single-family residential neighborhood.

Policy 5: Implement other “greening” initiatives in the area.

Strategies: Expand Edmonston’s plans to design and construct a “green” street along Decatur Street. Add riparian plantings along the Northeast Branch of the Anacostia Stream Valley.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Map 9: Edmonston North Workshop Character Area

Edmonston’s Decatur Street Before

Edmonston’s Decatur Street After 40

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

ANNAPOLIS ROAD GATEWAY CHARACTER AREA Background The Annapolis Road Gateway Character Area includes the portion of Annapolis Road between the Baltimore– Washington Parkway, the Port of Bladensburg Shopping Center, and the future Bladensburg Town Center area, as well as the blocks immediately north and south of Annapolis Road (roughly between Spring and Shepherd Streets and Quincy Street). A primary focus is the vicinity of the M-NCPPC community theater, the Publick Playhouse, and the junction of Annapolis Road and Landover Road. The area includes commercial properties, the Central Baptist Church, and additional M-NCPPC properties (undeveloped, surface parking, and a former restaurant) surrounding the Publick Playhouse. The remainder of Annapolis Road is defined by strip commercial development— including shopping centers, small-scale retail, small restaurants and carry-outs, service-oriented businesses, gas stations and other automobile-oriented business— as well as scattered residential uses and churches. In some locations, former houses have been converted into commercial uses. To the north and south of Annapolis Road, land uses are primarily residential. Key planning issues include an opportunity to establish the Publick Playhouse as the focus of a larger cultural and entertainment district, including possible expansion of the theater facility itself and development of other nearby uses that support and complement cultural activities. Future improvements to this area will be complemented by the reconfiguration of the intersection of Annapolis Road and Landover Road to improve pedestrian crossings, simplify traffic patterns, and make available additional land for development. Additional planning issues include identifying redevelopment opportunities on underutilized properties along Annapolis Road, including both mixed-use development and residential infill.

Goals

Redeveloped underutilized properties. New mixed-use and residential development along the Annapolis Road corridor. Preserved and rehabilitated existing housing stock. Adaptive reuse, conversion and expansion of existing structures.

Policy 1: Undertake improvements to circulation and the pedestrian environment in the Annapolis Road Gateway Character Area.

Strategies: Modify and reconstruct the intersection of Annapolis Road and Landover Road as a “T” intersection, utilizing the land made available by the intersection reconfiguration for a new public park and additional land development. Improve pedestrian crossings within the context of the new Annapolis Road and Landover Road intersection configuration. Provide landscape buffers and other streetscape amenities to allow convenient and safe pedestrian access. Provide continuous sidewalks of adequate widths to support pedestrian movement between various activities. Minimize the number of commercial driveway cuts along Annapolis Road by consolidating access points and utilizing alley access to rear parking where possible. Provide clearly marked crosswalks at all intersections with pedestrian-activated crossing lights and/or countdown lights where necessary.

Policy 2: Establish a new mixed-use district centered on the Publick Playhouse.

Strategies:

A reconfigured Annapolis Road/Landover Road Expand the Publick Playhouse building to intersection. incorporate mixed-use development around the existing structure. A new cultural and mixed-use district focused around the Publick Playhouse.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Extend mixed-use development to adjacent parcels Convert existing multifamily apartments on the to the east of the Publick Playhouse. north side of Annapolis Road to ownership/ condominium units. Construct a new public park with an arts theme on the southwest corner of Annapolis Road and Policy 4: Landover Road. Develop a medium-density, mixed-use complex Create a new activity node at the intersection of opposite the Publick Playhouse on the north side of Annapolis Road and 57th Avenue. Annapolis Road on the existing shopping center site.

Strategies:

Maintain a food store as part of the new mixed-use development on the north side of Annapolis Road. Develop a high-density, mixed-use complex along the western side of 57th Avenue. Encourage new restaurants and retail uses that Construct a new street network that includes an extension complement the Publick Playhouse. of Spring Road to 57th Avenue, a connection between Pursue public/private development opportunities on Spring Road and 57th Avenue, and a street with retail parcels owned by M-NCPPC. frontage linking 57th Avenue and Annapolis Road. Assemble and incorporate outparcels into the Improve the stream corridor adjacent to Spring existing M-NCPPC property. Road as a pedestrian/green space amenity. Encourage shared public/private parking arrangements between adjacent properties to Policy 5: minimize the need for multiple parking facilities. Consider adaptive reuse of the existing Annapolis

Policy 3: Encourage residential development along Annapolis Road.

Road Academy Alternative High School building as a possible elementary school site.

Strategies:

Convert Bladensburg Elementary School to a prekindergarten through 8th grade school to meet the Provide a transition to surrounding residential Port Towns future need for elementary and middle neighborhoods through residential development. school seats. Encourage medium-density residential development on the parcels on either side of 54th Avenue, Convert or build a new urban model elementary school on the site of the existing Annapolis Road north and south of Annapolis Road. Academy Alternative High School (explained in Encourage medium-density residential development the Public Facilities Section). along the south side of Annapolis Road, between the Landover Road intersection and 57th Avenue, Policy 6: as well as on the parcels east of 57th Avenue. Preserve, retain, and support existing housing stock. Encourage medium-density residential development on the north side of Annapolis Road, between the Strategies: Landover Road intersection and 56th Avenue, as well as at the western end of the proposed mixed- Explore mechanisms for providing financial support for housing rehabilitation throughout the use complex at 57th Avenue. Annapolis Gateway. Encourage assembly of existing disparate commercial and residential parcels facing Implement public streetscape improvements to add value to residential real estate throughout. Annapolis Road to allow for cohesive moderate- to-high density residential development.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

200'

400'

800'

Spr

reet

cy St

Annapolis Road

oad

R ing

Randolph Str eet

Quin

Publick Playhouse

Town Home

57th A venue

Annapolis Road

Spring Street

ace

Map 10A: Annapolis Road Gateway Character Area (see Map 10B for proposed visualization).

Street

Str ee

Quincy

She phe rd

Mixed Use

t 57

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

54th Street

h A ven

Mixed Use

h A ven 57

Residential

56th Pl

View Location

Civic Buildings

Proposed Buildings

Existing Buildings

LEGEND

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

erd S treet

Annapolis Road

nce Road e a te r E n tr a

Quincy Street

Map 10B: Annapolis Road Gateway Character Area Visualization

Existing Publick Playhouse

Mixed Use Development

Sheph

Lan

dov

er R

oad

Mixed Use Development

Art Park

Mixed Use Development

BLADENSBURG TOWN CENTER CHARACTER AREA

Goals

Background

The town hall relocated to the town center.

The Bladensburg Town Center Character Area includes both the newly designated civic core and adjacent areas. The northern boundary extends to the existing town hall site at Upshur Street and the southern boundary extends to Quincy Street. Kenilworth Avenue and the Port of Bladensburg Shopping Center demarcate the western and eastern edges of the character area, respectively. The total land within the town center character area is approximately 67.5 acres. Predominant land uses include the existing strip commercial development along both sides of Annapolis Road and single-family and multifamily residential uses to the north and south. Public services, including a municipal police station, a volunteer fire station, a post office facility, and the existing town hall, occupy the northernmost portion of the focus area. The town center area is also distinguished by a collection of historic properties— the Bostwick House, Market Master’s House, HillearyMagruder House, and Free Hope Baptist Church. South of Annapolis Road, steep slopes, wooded wetlands, and recreational open space characterize the landscape.

Mixed-use residential, retail, and office development at moderate-to-high densities.

Key planning issues include the lack of density and housing choices; the lack of visibility and accessibility of the key town attributes, including its historic resources and its waterfront; the poor pedestrian environment; the current isolation of the municipal core to the north of the town center area; and the barrier created by the elevated Kenilworth Avenue. Other issues include environmentally sensitive areas, flooding, and traffic concerns related to cut-through and truck traffic. Strengths and opportunities include: the potential for mixed-use development and increased density near the core of the town center; the potential to increase the visibility and accessibility of historic sites; the proximity of the town center area to the Anacostia waterfront and the potential for improved linkages; the presence of numerous infill development opportunities, including large parcels under single ownership and significant publicly owned land; and the potential for restoring and enhancing the existing housing stock north and south of the town center.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

A vibrant and walkable civic core.

Sustainable development and design practices. Active and passive open spaces. Diverse housing and homeownership opportunities. Adequate public facilities. A multimodal, safe, and attractive road network. Restored and fully integrated historic resources.

Policy 1: Encourage mixed-use infill development in the town center to create a pedestrian-oriented center for activities and services.

Strategies: Redevelop the existing shopping centers on the north and south sides of Annapolis Road in the town center as mixed residential, office, and ground floor retail uses. Support rezoning by application, or sectional map amendment, to a mixed-use category that is appropriate for implementing the land use concepts of the Bladensburg Town Center plan. Develop mixed-use retail, residential, and/or office adjacent to the future town hall site along Edmonston Road and 48th Street. Identify themes, opportunities and potential tenants for retail and office development. Consider converting the service road along the eastbound lanes of Annapolis Road at the shopping center opposite Edmonston Road to a pedestrianoriented plaza until the property is redeveloped as mixed use.

Policy 2: Establish and develop a new town hall and the surrounding block as the focal point of the Bladensburg Town Center in the vicinity of Annapolis Road and Edmonston Road. 45

Reconnect St. Paul’s/Free Hope Baptist Church visually and physically with the town center and Relocate the existing town hall to the heart of the ensure that it is situated to allow recognition of its town center at the civic core. significance. Explore opportunities for a partnership project to develop block-wide mixed uses, a public/private Request documentation from the Cultural Resources Section of the Maryland State Highway shared parking facility, and a civic plaza. Administration pertinent to the archeological Encourage mixed-use development facing the survey and testing of the Market Square properties future town hall site. as development proposals occur to ensure proper Maintain connected pedestrian circulation between restoration of the historic character of the landscape the town hall site, transit stops, and town activity while ensuring preservation of buried archeological nodes. resources. Create a public gathering place facing Edmonston Road within the relocated town hall site as a civic Policy 5: green. Undertake traffic-calming and pedestrian improvements

Strategies:

Create a new street (Spring Street) on the existing on key thoroughfares to provide a viable pedestrianpaper street, north of the future town hall, to foster oriented town center in Bladensburg. a street grid fabric.

Explore opportunities for mixed-use development Strategies: north of the proposed new street (Spring Street). Create a safe and pleasurable passage for pedestrians and bicycles along Annapolis Road to Policy 3: the Bladensburg Waterfront Park entrance, modifying the Kenilworth Avenue tunnels to Ensure high-quality design for all future development enhance the pedestrian experience and foster a in the Bladensburg Town Center Character Area. sense of safety.

Strategies:

Provide a signalized intersection at the entrance to Bladensburg Waterfront Park to make entering and Develop urban design standards to establish a exiting the park safe and convenient for pedestrians consistent design character in the town center. and vehicles. Develop a historic preservation plan to manage, preserve, and integrate all historic sites and structures. Provide a landscaped median and pedestrian crossings on Annapolis Road and develop a new streetscape that includes wider sidewalks on both Policy 4: sides and bus pull-off areas. Ensure that Bladensburg’s historic resources are Minimize the number of commercial driveway visible and accessible. cuts along Annapolis Road by consolidating access points and utilizing alley access to rear parking Strategies: where possible. Improve the physical and visual access to the Install appropriate traffic-calming features and Bostwick House site from Annapolis Road. provisions for on-street parking on 48th Street and Integrate the Market Master’s House and the Edmonston Road. historic Market Square into the town center as a Upgrade existing thoroughfares to improve visitor destination as well as a resident resource. pedestrian and bicycle access to the waterfront. Develop a comprehensive streetscape plan for the town center and vicinity.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Policy 6:

Policy 8:

Undertake open space improvements in the Retain and support existing housing. Bladensburg Town Center Character Area.

Strategies: Utilize existing public rights-of-way for open space improvements on Upshur Street.

Strategies:

Utilize existing bungalow-style housing as an architectural precedent for additional and/or infill housing.

Consider the M-NCPPC property, South Explore the opportunities to utilize federal, state, and county grant programs to support housing rehabilitation. Bladensburg Community Park, located south of Quincy Street for open space improvements to meet Increase home ownership through innovative state the neighborhood demand for active park facilities. and county loan and employee/employer partnership programs throughout the Town of Bladensburg. Utilize existing and proposed thoroughfares for open space improvements and linkages through Policy 9: streetscape enhancements and clear connections to Encourage new residential development to provide the parks and trail systems. housing opportunities for the community. As a part of the county’s Water Resources Plan, study stormwater management techniques that are Strategies: appropriate to incorporate as part of any open space improvement opportunity (for example, the Explore options to develop condominium home ownership opportunities. Bladensburg South Community Park could expand the Support new mixed-use development that provides existing wetland/stormwater management feature). upper floor residential opportunities.

Policy 7:

Utilize government and privately sponsored home ownership programs to increase home ownership Pursue public/private partnership opportunities that opportunities. implement the Bladensburg Town Center.

Strategies:

Explore options to create home ownership opportunities with new infill single-family houses.

Study the opportunities for joint use development of Policy 10: the Bostwick House property and the Bladensburg Retain and improve police, fire, and post office uses Shopping Center. north of the town center. Explore public/private development opportunities for the privately owned Market Master’s House Strategies: and historic Market Square site. Support development of a new municipal police Investigate opportunities for public/private partnerships facility on the town-owned visitor center site that implement the town center development goals for adjacent to the existing volunteer fire station at the town-owned properties. intersection of Tilden and Edmonston Roads. Explore the opportunity for townhouse residential Retain the existing post office use and evaluate any development around the site of the existing town hall. future plans for expansion of the facility relative to maintaining the neighborhood character. Pursue public/private partnerships to redevelop the

parcels surrounding the Publick Playhouse to Retain the existing volunteer fire station and review support the theater, provide visitor services, and additional redevelopment proposals on the fire offer new housing opportunities. department property for compatibility with the existing neighborhood character.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

48th Street

il Ken ue

wor

Map 11: Bladensburg Road Town Center Character Area

800'

ven th A

400'

Annapolis Road

Quincy Street

Edmonston Road

200'

Str eet

51st Street

Newton Street

Public Park Expansion

Residential

ncy

et Stre

Taylor Street

Tilden Road

Qui

52nd Street

Residential

Tay l

oad

Til de

53rd Street

Market Square and Market Master’s House

Magruder House

Civic Green and Town Hall with Existing Libreary

Mixed Use

n Ke

Residential h A ve n ilw o

53rd Place

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Civic Buildings

Proposed Buildings

Existing Buildings

LEGEND

Bostwick Historic Home and Grounds

Residential

ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE GOAL

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE

Ensure an interconnected system of public and private lands that contains significant areas of woodlands, wetlands, wildlife habitats, and other sensitive areas, as well as developed areas that benefit from retrofitting and restoration using environmental site design. Provide the Port Towns Sector Plan area with welldesigned and strategically located open spaces connected by tree-shaded walks and streets, making the Port Towns a desirable community in which to live, work, and shop. Ensure the livability of the area is enhanced by incorporating the landscape, both natural and built, into the redevelopment of the area.

The 2005 Approved Countywide Green Infrastructure Plan was developed to protect, enhance, and/or restore important environmental features of countywide significance. For this sector plan, the countywide network was not modified to include any additional areas of local significance because these areas were already included in the countywide network. (See Map 12: Green Infrastructure Network Map.)

BACKGROUND The Port Towns plan area is highly urbanized, with significant amounts of impervious surfaces. The majority of the plan area was developed years ago and much of the development that currently exists was not subject to the strict environmental regulations of today. The Port Towns Sector Plan offers an opportunity to retrofit these highly developed areas to include more environmentally sensitive site design initiatives that will lead to environmental and social health and the long-term economic viability of the area. The plan will identify the remaining natural landscape and propose preservation and enhancement strategies to ensure that existing development, as well as redevelopment, is sustainable and within the development capacity of the environmental systems.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

The designated green infrastructure network is divided into three environmental assessment categories: regulated areas, evaluation areas, and network gaps. Regulated areas contain environmentally sensitive features such as streams, wetlands, buffers, the 100year floodplain, and steep slopes that are currently regulated (i.e., protected) during the land development process. Evaluation areas contain environmentally sensitive features, such as unique wildlife habitats that are not currently regulated (i.e., protected) during the development review process. Network gaps comprise areas that are critical to the connection of regulated and evaluation areas and are targeted for restoration in order to support the overall function and connectivity of the green infrastructure network. Networks need to be connected to provide the best possible environment for the preservation of all aspects of an ecosystem, which includes vegetation, wildlife habitat, and water quality.

TH NK ER

35 BU

39TH

Rhode

TA YL

Island A venue

40TH

COLMAR MANOR

oad

COTTAGE CITY den sbu r

Bla

TH HIL

36 5

Sector Plan Boundary 1ST

2,000 Feet

DO XE TU N O ANS

Map 12: Green Infrastructure Network

VI ER

500 1,000

JOH

Municipal Boundaries

50 ac

SIA

Railroad

ALLISON

UTAH TH

e Av

BLADENSBURG

e or

ltim

Water Body

ore W Par ashin kwa gto n y

tim

Bal

40TH

42 RD

ND 62

Evaluation Area

EDMONSTON

B OS

M DO

RT H

A WALL

st ia

An is ol Lando

IL W

WIN UT

Ave n

R FA G RA

TI LA

orth

Ken ilw

ON RIS HAR

or im TTE AYE LAF

Ba lt

Network Gap

D LAN

Regulated Area 68T H

IS DE RHO

68T

AK GLE

COLUMBIA

Y RR OR N OT IS

ver Ro ad

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

H RTEC RIVE

Due to the highly impervious and built nature of this sector plan area, a large portion of the plan area lies outside of the green infrastructure network. The existing dominant green infrastructure network flanks the Anacostia River providing natural connectivity between the four Port Towns communities. Many of the streams in this plan area have been piped into a storm drain system that forms channelized tributaries to the Anacostia River. This plan includes strategies to address greening of the existing and proposed stormwater infrastructure and incorporating the built environment into the natural system as a benefit, and thereby mitigating the negative effects of conventional development techniques to quality of life in the area. It should be noted that the environmental resources shown on all the maps are conceptual in nature and have not been validated in the field. They are based on the best available information. Before detailed plans are developed for any property, an approved natural resource inventory is required to validate the environmental resources on site.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY CORRIDORS The Anacostia River is identified as the primary green infrastructure corridor in this plan and supports the Anacostia stream system running north to south in the center of the planning area. The Northwest and Northeast Branches are identified secondary corridors flowing into the Anacostia from the northwest and northeast respectively. All three stream systems flow into the Potomac River and eventually into the Chesapeake Bay.

Anacostia River The Anacostia River is a tributary of the Potomac River and a primary corridor within the Port Towns planning area. The preservation and restoration of the natural environment and the river’s scenic character is a priority in this plan. Much of the Anacostia watershed requires innovative policies and strategies to improve water quality. The high-to-medium density land use in the Port Towns should include policies to provide conservation methods to protect this river and its tributaries. The Anacostia also supports a stream valley greenway and trail system running between the District of Columbia and the Potomac River.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Northwest and Northeast Branches The Northwest and Northeast Branches’ stream corridors within the plan area are highly urbanized and lack a supportive green infrastructure. Because the Northwest and Northeast Branches are named as secondary corridors within the planning area, they should be managed and protected to support the environmental integrity of the area. These secondary corridors are areas where connectivity is critical to the long-term viability of the primary corridor.

WATER QUALITY The sector plan area drains, via the Anacostia River, to the larger Potomac watershed and ultimately to the Chesapeake Bay. The Port Towns area is centered on the confluence of the Northeast and Northwest Branches, forming the headwaters of the Anacostia River. Water quality assessments ranked both the Northwest and Northeast Branch as having “very poor” conditions when measured for benthic invertebrates and habitat quality.1 The degraded conditions of these streams are attributed to the high impervious surface acreage within their respective watersheds. These impervious surfaces do not allow rainfall to infiltrate back into the ground, and therefore creates an impermeable layer that causes the stormwater to flow off the land into existing stormwater management systems, which is subsequently piped to streams. Because the impervious areas lack anything to slow the water’s velocity as it travels downhill, the stream systems eventually receiving this influx of water are severely eroded due to the water’s unchecked velocity. This sector plan will address the degraded water quality of existing streams within the study area by incorporating environmentally sensitive site design into the desired development pattern. Healthy stream water habitats depend on keeping instream water temperatures relatively low. Because impervious surfaces such as asphalt hold higher heat temperatures than vegetated areas, the threat of increased stream temperature after rainfall can greatly 1

Scale includes “good,” “fair,” “poor,” and “very poor.” Prince George’s County has no streams rated “good.”

damage the fish populations in the Northeast and Northwest Branches. This plan shall propose methods to address the issue of stormwater cooling in order to reduce runoff temperatures and create healthy living conditions for fish and other aquatic life.

hydrology to determine flood discharges and to map areas of the county experiencing rapid urban and suburban growth. Ultimate conditions hydrology and mapping uses projected land-use conditions based on a community’s zoning maps and/or comprehensive land-use plans in determining flood discharges, flood Urbanization changes the hydrologic equilibrium of elevations, and corresponding areas at risk. the land surface and the receiving estuarine environments. These changes include: increases in Prince George’s County has, through The Marylandpeak flow and total volume of stormwater runoff; National Capital Park and Planning Commission, accelerated stream channel erosion; decreases in established a policy to acquire stream valley parks receiving stream baseflow; and decreases in water throughout the county. Stream valley park acquisition quality and the stream environment. Efforts to control permits public ownership of the floodplain, thus these conditions in Maryland have resulted in statewide eliminating pressure for private development and programs for erosion and sediment control, stormwater providing recreational opportunities. Stream valley management, and floodplain management.2 parks will continue to be an important component of the county’s recreation, open space, and flood management programs.3 Floodplains A floodplain is an integral part of the stream system. It provides storage capacity for high flows, helps reduce the erosive power of the stream during a flood, reduces the discharge of sediment during high flow periods, and helps flood waters to move safely downstream. Floodplains also offer opportunities for wildlife habitat, which can increase the biotic diversity of a stream. The 100-year floodplain is that land area adjoining the stream that has a one percent or greater probability of flooding in any given year. Floodplains provide streams with natural buffer and water quality benefits. It is the policy of Prince George’s County to preserve the 100-year floodplain as part of the natural system of a stream, and to further preserve it in a natural state in order to provide adequate storage for flood waters and sufficient carrying capacity to safely move flood waters downstream. Where existing structures in the 100-year floodplain cannot be protected in an environmentally sensitive and cost- effective manner, the county may offer to acquire them to reduce the potential for property damage and eliminate potential obstruction of flood water. Future development is not permitted within the ultimate 100-year floodplain. Prince George’s County has used ultimate conditions

Report on Stormwater Management Act of 2007, Environmental Matters Committee, Education, Health, and Environmental Affairs Committee, May 2008, Maryland Department of the Environment.

Wetlands Wetlands commonly receive the bulk of stormwater runoff from development sites because they are usually located at low points where runoff is directed. This can result in impacts such as sediment deposition and pollutant accumulation in wetlands, changes to wetland hydrology, and a shift in the makeup of wetland vegetative communities. These indirect impacts, although they originate outside the wetland itself, can drastically change wetland functions, such as flood control, habitat, and water quality protection.

Urban Tree Canopy The term “urban forest” includes trees that grow individually, in small groups or in forested conditions, located on public or private lands in cities and towns. Urban tree canopy provides many benefits to communities. It reduces the overall temperature of built spaces, it provides oxygen, it removes pollutants from the air and, when strategically planted or preserved, improves water quality by absorbing pollutants from stormwater runoff. Trees also provide beauty and a sense of proportion to the built environment, adding to the overall desirability of a place to live, work, and play.

http://www.co.pg.md.us/Government/AgencyIndex/ DER/ppg/floodplains.asp#flood.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

The goal set forth in the 2002 Approved General Plan is to maintain 26 percent urban tree canopy and forest cover in the Developed Tier. The lack of tree cover in the sector plan area leads to increasing environmental degradation, but can be easily slowed down and reversed. As new and redevelopment occurs in this area, planting and preserving trees should be enforced. Community tree planting efforts should also be encouraged in order to continue to add to the amount of tree canopy over time.

Watersheds

Water Resources Functional Plan Prince George’s County is developing a countywide water resources functional master plan. This new planning element addresses the relationship of planned growth to water resources for both waste disposal and safe drinking water. It is a requirement of all county and municipal governments in the state. The element must identify drinking water and other water resources adequate for the needs of existing and future development proposed in the land use element of the General Plan. It must also identify suitable receiving waters for both wastewater and stormwater management to meet the needs of existing and projected development proposed in the land use element of the comprehensive plan. Resource issues expected to be addressed in these elements include water resource protection areas, groundwater resources, water quality standards and total maximum daily loads (TMDLs). The plan will address stormwater issues on a watershed basis, addressing in particular, how much development the county’s watersheds can accept before nutrient load thresholds (i.e., the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus discharged from wastewater treatment plants and stormwater runoff) are exceeded. The water resources plan is expected to make countywide recommendations regarding stormwater management design and the use of environmentally sensitive design techniques.

Watersheds are land areas that drain surface and ground water to a downstream water body such as a river, lake, or estuary. Watershed drainage areas vary in size, but urban watershed forestry generally deals with watersheds ranging from 20 to 100 square miles or more. The principles of urban watershed forestry sets watershed-based goals for managing the urban forest as a whole, rather than managing forest resources on a site-by-site or jurisdictional basis, and provides strategies for incorporating forests into urban watershed management. Given their size, watersheds may encompass many political jurisdictions, contain a mix of land uses (forest, agricultural, rural, suburban, and urban), and have a broad range of pollution sources. Each watershed is composed of a number of smaller watersheds called subwatersheds, which, as a general rule of thumb, have a drainage area less than ten square miles and include streams ranging from The Built Environment first to third order. Portions of the plan area are proposed for redevelopment while others are to remain as they currently exist. Due Stormwater to degradation of the natural ecosystems in the area, it is Untreated stormwater runoff from urban development important to restore the ecological functions of these is a major source of pollution to local streams, rivers, systems through created infrastructure such as lowthe Chesapeake Bay, and coastal bays. To achieve impact stormwater management, sustainable building targeted reductions in nutrient and sediment loads to techniques, conservation landscaping techniques, and receiving waters and protect stream channel stability, other innovative environmentally sensitive techniques. stormwater management is required of new and redevelopment projects.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Flooding In some cases, retrofitting existing buildings or regrading a yard can help reduce the potential for flood damage to structures and their contents. Retrofitting techniques include elevating buildings above flood levels, wet or dry floodproofing (commercial structures only), and installing backflow preventers to protect floors and contents from sewer backups. A building permit may be required for retrofitting and structural projects. Flood Warning Program—The county has a comprehensive flood warning program for the Western Branch and Anacostia River that includes a state-of-the-art stream gauge network and flood warning system.

The sector plan area, as has been mentioned, is a highly urbanized area that has opportunities to redevelop using sustainable building practices. The social and economic benefits of these buildings are great, but the environmental benefits have long-term effects. Sustainable buildings are able to enhance and protect the sensitive urban ecosystems that exist, while improving air and water quality to enhance quality of life for the building occupants as well as the surrounding communities. Energy conservation through techniques that utilize water reuse or renewable resources such as solar, wind, and geothermal can provide decreased emissions of noxious gases and reduce contributions to green house gasses; a major concern for climate change. A sustainably designed building can save energy costs, decrease the amount of heat discharged in urban areas, help to reduce carbon emissions to both the air and water, and reduce the waste associated with conventional building practices.

Flood Protection Assistance—The county offers technical assistance to residents with drainage and flooding problems. In addition, a number of capital projects are undertaken to mitigate for potential flood events. Capital projects include acquisition of flood-prone structures, floodproofing, and Low-Impact Development Technology/ Environmental Site Design construction of drainage improvement projects. Development Review Activities—DER reviews Low-impact development (LID) is a cost-effective development proposals to ensure compliance with alternative stormwater management technology that relevant floodplain, stormwater management, and can be used to restore water quality of the streams in grading ordinances to protect the health, safety and urban watersheds. LID combines the following six principles to protect and restore natural watershed welfare of local residents and businesses. features and improve water quality: Maintenance of Stormwater Management Facilities— All ponds and stormwater management facilities that Conserve existing natural and topographic features. are publicly owned are maintained by the county’s Retrofit to minimize environmental impacts from Department of Public Works & Transportation cleared land and impervious surfaces. (DPW&T). Maintain or lengthen the pre-existing detention time of storm events. Green Building Increasing importance is being given to sustainable Install integrated management practices. building techniques, which seek to create structures that Reduce contaminant migration and releases to protect the occupants’ health while utilizing natural surface waterways. resources more efficiently in order to reduce the overall operating costs. These buildings, often called Provide education about simple-to-install pollution prevention measures. “green buildings,” have social, economic, and environmental benefits that seek to maintain a quality of life for future generations while incorporating the needs of today’s residents.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Noise

Air Pollution

Noise is generally defined as any form of unwanted sound. Noise is a composite of all background noises emanating from point and nonpoint sources and is transferred to a receptor or receiver. The amount of noise transmitted can vary considerably due to elevations, the existence of barriers, and project design. In general, the noise environment of the sector plan area is within the parameters set by the state of 65 dBA Ldn for residential outdoor activity areas and 45 dBA Ldn for indoor living areas in residential uses.

The negative effects of air pollution are becoming increasingly recognized and efforts to mitigate its effect are being undertaken nationwide. Air quality issues result mostly from nitrogen oxide gases (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that are mostly by-products of burning gasoline and coal. These gases combine when heated up by hot summer days and increasingly warming urban areas to create ozone, which can be detrimental to the health of humans, animals, and plants alike.

The major sources of noise in the plan area are Kenilworth Avenue (MD 201), Landover Road (MD 202), Rhode Island Avenue (Alt. US 1), and Bladensburg/Annapolis Roads (MD 450). These roads are classified as collector or arterial and generally produce noise levels above 65 dBA Ldn, the maximum state standard for residential uses. The 65 dBA Ldn noise contour extends approximately 300 feet from the centerline of the roadway as determined using a noise model. The noise model does not account for noise reductions that may be achieved by changes in topography or intervening structures and vegetation, so the actual levels of noise may vary from site to site.

Light Pollution Light pollution is defined as light that causes a glow in the night sky from artificial sources such as street lights, lights from commercial uses, and light from residential sources. Light pollution also includes “light spill-over” when one property is more brightly lit than an adjacent one. The widely accepted “Crime Prevention through Environmental Design” (CPTED) guidelines were written to address how built environments can be designed to help reduce crime. The basic principle CPTED sets out is that light levels should be kept as constant as possible from one property to the next in order to reduce the amount of time that the human eye needs to adjust to the different light levels. This lighting scheme has the ability to reduce crime by providing an even level of light across various properties. Reducing light pollution also serves to reduce overall energy costs by directing the correct light levels in the right places, thereby reducing the need for higher wattage fixtures. The main sources of light pollution in the sector plan are the existing commercial uses, in particular the autorelated uses.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Asthma, the respiratory ailment most related to air pollution, has been increasing over the last few decades. According to the Centers for Disease Control, Maryland has among the highest percentages of teenage asthma in the U.S. (over 9.8 percent), and asthma is generally higher in urban and African-American communities.4 At this level of planning, it is difficult to address the regional problem of air pollution. The Washington metropolitan area is considered a “non-attainment area” by the EPA for air quality, mainly due to high levels of ozone. One of the sources of ozone is the mixing of vehicle exhaust in the atmosphere and the heating effect of the earth. If the overall number of vehicle trips can be reduced, the amount of ozone formed can be reduced, therefore reducing overall air pollution. There are several small steps that could be taken to improve air quality in the sector plan that include reducing the overall number of vehicle miles traveled, providing a network of linkages for alternative forms of transportation and providing more opportunities for ride sharing. When combined with increases in tree canopy and the implementation of sustainable building techniques, localized air quality can be improved.

OBJECTIVES Implement the sector plan’s desired development pattern while protecting environmentally sensitive features by meeting the full intent of environmental policies and regulations. Restore and enhance water quality in areas that have been degraded and preserve water quality in areas not degraded.

Center for Disease Control statistics regarding asthma, 2006

Address, through appropriate measures, issues of Policy 2: energy consumption, light pollution, air pollution, Require new and infill development to implement and noise impacts. stormwater management techniques that minimize the Utilize environmentally sensitive design and amount and toxicity of stormwater runoff from a site. sustainable building solutions for new and redevelopment opportunities. Strategies: Require the first inch of rainfall to be controlled on-site through methods that facilitate infiltration, Restore and enhance water quality in areas that have evapotranspiration, or reuse of the stormwater been degraded and preserve water quality in areas not where appropriate. degraded. Require environmentally sensitive design stormwater techniques such as rain gardens, bioretention and Strategies: infiltration areas, innovative stormwater outfalls, Identify appropriate stormwater management underground stormwater management, green streets, strategies to alleviate the water quality impacts of cisterns, rain barrels, grass swales, and stream land development and stream channel erosion and stabilization to the fullest extent possible. assist in the attainment and maintenance of water Require the use of shared environmentally sensitive quality standards consistent with federal, state, and stormwater management facilities where county programs and regulations. appropriate. Identify highly visible, ecologically significant Require street tree plantings to be incorporated to restoration projects within the primary corridors. manage stormwater management as an element of Target mitigation efforts to include expanded both green streets and open space enhancement. vegetative buffers along streams, wetlands, and at headwaters for preservation of open space and utilize Establish maximum impervious surface percentages in urbanized areas during the evaluation of linear stormwater systems, sediment ponds, and development proposals. Disconnection of large created wetland systems as stormwater management tracts of impervious surfaces shall be achieved strategies that function as public amenities. through the use of alternative pavers, soil Implement conservation landscaping techniques that amendments and conditioning, bioretention areas, reduce water consumption and the need for rooftop gardens, and other landscaping techniques fertilizers or chemical applications. that increase infiltration. Include trash reduction and removal strategies for Design parking areas as either shared or as urban stormwater management and storm drainage structured lots. The use of parking garages and/or programs along the Northwest Branch of the underground parking shall be priorities. Anacostia River.

Policy 1:

Increase education and awareness of the trash issue throughout the Anacostia Watershed. Implement demonstration projects in open space areas that provide educational information regarding the importance of preserving water quality and explain the innovative techniques used to do so. Explore public/private partnerships to fund the relocation of the wastewater intake now on the site of Spa Spring in order to restore the area to its natural state.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Encourage the development of community-based tree planting programs and where possible direct Implement environmentally sensitive design building fee-in-lieu monies collected for conformance with techniques and reduce overall energy consumption. the Woodland Conservation Ordinance to those programs.

Policy 3:

Strategies:

Encourage a diversity of native-stock trees when Encourage the use of green building techniques as planting street, landscape, and lawn trees in order designated by the U.S. Green Building Council. to promote ecosystem health and resiliency against New building designs should incorporate the latest disease and destruction. environmental technologies in project buildings and site designs. As redevelopment occurs, the Increase the percentage of urban tree canopy by planting trees and other vegetation especially along existing buildings should be reused and redesigned roadways, in median strips, and within residential to incorporate energy and building material communities. efficiencies. Require the use of at least three green building Plant trees in strategic locations to cool buildings and mechanical equipment to reduce overall energy techniques on each new and redevelopment project, consumption. including but not limited to: Support the creation of a countywide tree management plan to ensure the adequate The use of low volatile organic compound maintenance and replacement of street trees in (VOC) materials. public spaces in order to minimize damage to Recycled and/or sustainable building materials as private property. designated by the U.S. Green Building Council. Creation of gray water reuse system.

Green roofs.

Policy 5:

Renewable/alternative energy sources such as Reduce light pollution and intrusion into residential communities and environmentally sensitive areas. wind, solar, and geothermal. Support the development of a countywide green Strategies: building program that provides incentives for reducing the overall impacts of buildings on the Encourage the use of lighting technologies for athletic fields, shopping centers, gas stations and environment and to provide cleaner, healthier vehicle sales establishments that reduce light buildings to support the health and wellness of intrusion on adjacent properties so that safe and county residents and workers. even light levels are maintained. Reduce energy consumption through the use of more effective and energy efficient indoor and Encourage the use of full cut-off optic light fixtures. outdoor lighting and air movement systems. Detailed lighting plans should be submitted for new and redevelopment proposals to ensure light is Policy 4: properly directed on a site and minimizes glare on other sites. Preserve and enhance the existing urban tree canopy.

Strategies: Require a minimum of ten percent tree canopy coverage on all new and redevelopment projects and encourage the preservation of existing specimen trees (trees 30 inches or greater in diameter at breast height).

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Policy 6:

Policy 7:

Reduce air pollution to support community health and Reduce adverse noise impacts to meet State of wellness and champion nonmotorized alternatives by Maryland noise standards. placing a high priority on transit-oriented development and transportation demand management (TDM) Strategies: projects and programs. Evaluate development and redevelopment proposals for the impacts of noise from Kenilworth Strategies: Avenue, Rhode Island Avenue, and Bladensburg Design new and redevelopment projects to Road. Each site will be evaluated for conformance with noise standards using Phase I noise studies minimize the need for motor vehicle trips and to prevent conditions that may create local air and noise models. pollution nuisances. Provide for adequate setbacks for projects located Provide an improved, continuous network of adjacent to existing and proposed noise generators sidewalks and bikeways to facilitate safe pedestrian and roadways of arterial classification or greater. use and access. Provide noise attenuation measures when noise Provide park-and-ride lots along major roads for issues are identified. carpools, vanpools, and transit users. Provide sound barriers between incompatible uses Incorporate tree planting and vegetated areas into where appropriate. redevelopment plans and encourage tree planting Restrict hours of operation for uses that produce on existing properties. excessive noise.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

TRANSPORTATION GOAL

streetscape and inadequately sized and unattractive The sector plan area contains a fully integrated connections between residential neighborhoods, multimodal network of transportation elements that commercial areas, and nearby Metro stations. are safe and reasonably facilitate the movement of As a result, the recommended transportation system for people and goods through and within the sector plan the Port Towns area needs to concentrate on corridors by viable and reliable alternative maximizing the utility of the existing transportation transportation choices that will include bus and future network and the changes that will: fixed guided transit, walking, bicycling, and driving. Improve the ability of internal roadways to safely The recommended transportation system, in a pleasant and efficiently manage the current and projected and friendly manner, will connect and provide traffic volumes. convenient access to existing and planned residential, retail, and employment areas identified by the Provide adequate accessibility to all existing and planned development and activities. recommended land use plan. Provide pleasant and direct connections to existing nearby heavy rail and planned fixed guided transit The sector plan is served by a broad transportation (FGT). network that includes residential streets, collector Define and incorporate streetscape that is pleasant streets, arterial highways, bus transit services, hiker/ and inviting and improves the visual and functional biker trails, and sidewalks. The amount of through qualities of major roadways serving the Port traffic on major roadways serving the sector plan area Towns. has resulted in relatively heavy traffic congestion mostly during the morning and afternoon peak Reduce dependency on use of automobile. commuting hours. Closely spaced business entrances Include interconnected system of crosswalks with (individual curb cuts), inadequate or missing an attractive and safe pedestrian network that pedestrian facilities (sidewalks, trails, and visible encourages walking to work, shops, schools, parks, crosswalks), numerous utility poles and overhead and transit. hanging utilities, districting signs, lack of appropriate landscaping and buffer areas, deficient nighttime The Port Towns Sector Plan area is within the 2002 pedestrian-scale street lighting, and traffic traveling at General Plan’s designated Developed Tier, therefore, unsafe speeds have resulted in a less than inviting and in addition to above listed objectives, the environment. These are among the reasons that recommended transportation infrastructure will also pedestrian movement through the area is minimal or need to: nonexistent, and the area has become highly auto Capitalize on investments in transportation and oriented. Other transportation related issues and other infrastructure. concerns that have been raised by citizens, elected officials, and planning staff are overall lack of Maintain/renovate existing public infrastructure.

BACKGROUND

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Promote transit-supporting, mixed-use, pedestrianoriented neighborhoods.

Goal

Plan an integrated bus transit, and eventually FGT, with an additional MARC station in Cottage City close Capitalize on public investment in the existing to the western gateway of the Bladensburg corridor that provide efficient and user-friendly transit service transportation system. that will supplement and, within the sector plan area, Ensure transit supportive and transit serviceable supplant the private automobile as a mobility option. development. Renew/redevelop commercial strips.

Require pedestrian-oriented and transit-oriented design.

Policy 1:

TRANSIT ELEMENT

Explore the possibility of a “Metro Connector” system that would provide a bus loop through each character area, and ultimately connect to nearby metro station(s).

BACKGROUND

The Washington Area Transit Authority (WMATA) and Strategies: the Prince George’s County Department of Public Works Explore and ensure that DPW&T, WMATA, and and Transportation (DPW&T) provide transit and bus MTA will comprehensively coordinate for planning service to the area. Although the Maryland Railroad and design for the provision of a new MARC Commuter (MARC) passes north of Annapolis/ Station in Cottage City close to the western Bladensburg Road, it does not make any stops within gateway of the Bladensburg corridor. the sector plan area. The closest MARC station that could be used by the sector plan area’s residents, Explore and ensure that DPW&T, WMATA, and MTA will comprehensively coordinate for planning workers, and visitors is the Riverdale Park Station, and design to extend the planned Rhode Island located more than 2.5 miles north of the sector plan area. Avenue FGT in the District of Columbia to connect The F1, F2, F8, T18, 84, and 85 are WMATA routes the Port Towns to the proposed Purple Line Station operating along a portion or the entire segment of at Kenilworth Avenue and East West Highway Annapolis/Bladensburg Road within the sector plan (MD 410) in Riverdale Park. area, and provide connections to the Metrorail system at the Fort Totten Station (Red Line), the West Investigate and construct additional roadways and access driveways to ensure adequate linkage Hyattsville, and the College Park Stations (Green between the planned development areas, the Line), and the Deanwood and Cheverly Stations Bladensburg Waterfront Park, the proposed FGT, (Orange Line). The WMATA’s bus route R12 operates and the planned transit center. along Kenilworth Avenue and provides connections to the Metrorail system at the College Park Station (Green Explore ways to stage the needed transit service Line) and the Deanwood Station (Orange Line). enhancement and the construction of the planned WMATA bus routes 84 and 85 serve Annapolis/ Port Towns FGT and transit center to accommodate Bladensburg Road and Edmonston Road and provide the planned development within the sector plan. connections to the Metrorail system at the Fort Totten Station (Red Line) and the New Carrollton Station Explore the feasibility of constructing a Port Towns transit center, similar to the planned Takoma(Orange Line). The county’s (TheBus) route 18 Langley Park transit center, in the vicinity of Peace services the sector plan area by operating along Cross and Bladensburg Waterfront Park. Annapolis/Bladensburg Road and providing connection to the Metrorail system at the West Ensure that planned roadways and access roads are Hyattsville Station (Green Line) and the Cheverly designed and constructed with cross sections that Station (Orange Line). Most of these routes converge can accommodate transit bus service and provide in the proximity of the Peace Cross area and the reasonable linkage between the existing and planned Bladensburg Waterfront Park. These routes together in activity nodes within the sector plan, the existing and around the sector plan area provide over 15,500 Metro stations, and the planned Port Towns MARC daily passenger trips. station. 60

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Policy 2:

and training classes regarding traffic rules and safe pedestrian behavior.

Comprehensively and aggressively plan for increased bus service including all day and weekend service with Policy 5: minimum 30-minute headways. The minimum 30-minute headway equates to at least two buses serving The sector plan recommends the establishment of a transportation demand management district (TDMD) the same route and stations during an hour. for the sector plan area, in accordance with Section 20A204 of the Prince George’s County Code. The main Strategy: purpose of the TDMD is to help implement the General Coordinate with DPW&T and WMATA to provide Plan policies for the Developed Tier by recommending unified, well-lit, accessible, attractive, durable, and timely transportation-related improvements or actions all-weather bus shelters with benches, trash cans, that will reduce, or divert to other modes, the vehicle dual language route maps and schedules, and trips generated by the preferred development for the highly visible and effective wayfindings at all bus sector plan. stops throughout the corridor, and especially along Annapolis, Bladensburg, and Edmonston Roads. ROADWAY ELEMENT

Policy 3:

GOAL

Develop a transportation system that improves existing and recommend construction of new roadways with minimal disruptions that is safe, efficient, and accessible; reduces dependency on the automobile; and Strategy: supports the sector plan’s proposed and preferred Consideration for park and ride facilities should be development and land use concept. given to the following locations: Evaluate the feasibility of constructing new park-andride facilities within the sector plan area.

BACKGROUND

At the eastern gateway of Annapolis Road and in The 2007 annual average daily traffic (AADT) volumes close proximity to the Publick Playhouse. along major roadways serving the sector plan area ranges At the Peace Cross area and in close proximity from 36,000 vehicles along Annapolis/Bladensburg Road to the Bladensburg Waterfront Park and nearby (MD 450), 33,000 vehicles along Kenilworth Avenue historic buildings and properties. (MD 201), 24,000 vehicles along Landover Road At the western gateway of the Bladensburg (MD 202), 14,000 vehicles along Baltimore Avenue (Alt. US 1), 9,000 vehicles along 38th Street (MD 208) 7,000 corridor and near the proposed MARC Station. vehicles along Edmonston Road, to 6,000 vehicles along 48th/Quincy Streets. Policy 4: Encourage transit-oriented development (TOD) within the sector plan area. All new development and redevelopment applications should incorporate and be reviewed for transit, bicycle, and pedestrian supportive design.

Strategy: Explore ways of targeting and marketing community outreach efforts both in English and Spanish on an on-going basis to ensure that all sector plan area residents and workers are aware of available transit services and to provide education

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

The Annapolis/Bladensburg Corridor, which is approximately three miles long within the sector plan area, extends from Eastern Avenue to MD 202. This road corridor serves as a “main street” for the Port Towns area, but little exists along it to create a unique identity. This corridor at present time mainly caters to the automobile, much as it has for the latter half of the twentieth century, which contributes to an unfriendly pedestrian environment. Parking lots dominate much of the retail shopping areas and discourage visitors who are unfamiliar with the Port Towns area and whose impressions are made solely on appearance.

Sidewalks are not continuous and accessible. The corridor streetscape needs upgraded amenities including well-defined crosswalks, street trees, pedestrian-scale lighting, and signage.

Kenilworth Avenue overpass; lack of a convenient pedestrian environment near the existing Publick Playhouse; and pedestrian accessibility and safety along major roadways serving the Port Towns area.

Baltimore Avenue/Alt. US 1 is currently used as a highspeed bypass road for traffic going to and from the District of Columbia. The presence of numerous unrestricted driveways along both sides of these parallel one-way roads, relatively fast and uncontrolled vehicle movements, and lack of adequate and continuous sidewalks and pedestrian crossings have resulted in an unsafe environment for all users along these roadways in the vicinity of the Peace Cross junction and Bladensburg Waterfront Park.

For planning purposes, the ratio of existing or projected daily traffic volumes to daily service volumes, typically defined over a range of operating conditions, is used to describe the congestion level or level-ofservice (LOS) experienced by drivers along a given roadway. LOS ranges from A (free flow condition with little or no congestion) to F (failure condition with stop-and-go traffic). The General Plan recommends LOS E or better, for all areas within the Developed Tier, which includes the sector plan area. Table 10 identifies the existing AADT volumes, the recommended daily service volumes, and the resulting LOS for key roadways within and serving the sector plan area.

The convergence of Annapolis and Landover Roads, two major east/west arterial roadways serving the Port Towns area, is unattractive and unsafe for the level of pedestrian activity that is present or is projected for the immediate area. The area also provides limited safe connections for vehicular and pedestrian As shown, all major roadways within the sector plan area movements between neighborhoods located to the are operating at acceptable levels of service. But, it is north and south of this area. important to note that operational problems exist during The key roadway issues for the Port Towns area that peak commuting periods at the signalized intersections need to be addressed include: the need to improve of Bladensburg Road with Baltimore Avenue and vehicular and pedestrian connections to the waterfront Annapolis Road with Landover Road, due to their area; the potential “canyon effect” and barriers created unconventional geometric layouts. The presence of by the Kenilworth Avenue overpass and the recently relatively dense residential development; extensive parking completed CSX railroad bridge between 46th and 47th lots with closely spaced business entrances (individual Streets; the lack of accessibility and visibility of the curb cuts); convergence of several local and regional bus area’s historic properties, especially near the routes; lack of adequate and continuous sidewalks, bikeways, and cross walks; poor pedestrian street

Table 10: Existing AADT, Daily Service Volumes, and Levels of Service Roadways

Route ID

Bladensburg Road

Alt. US 1

Annapolis Road Kenilworth Avenue

MD 450 MD 201

Baltimore Avenue

Alt. US 1

38th Street Edmonston Road

Countywide Master Plan Transportation Designation A-17; Arterial (4-6 lanes) A-18; Arterial (6 lanes) A-14; Arterial (6 lanes) C-224; Collector (4 lanes) C-234; Collector (2 lanes) P-205; Primary (2 lanes)

Existing Average Daily Traffic

Maximum Daily Service Volume

Existing Level of Service

36,100

53,580

33,700 32,500

80,770 80,770

B B

13,900

31,870

9,500

15,930

7,000

10,000

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

500 1,000

Municipal Boundaries

Map 13: Transit

Is la nd Av e nu e

e ns bur gR oad

Sector Plan Boundary

COTTAGE CITY

Rh od e

COLMAR MANOR

Bla d

T18

2,000 Feet

B8 / B

Fixed-g u (specif ided transit ic to be d alignment etermin ed)

MARC

Proposed

D is trict o f C o lu mb ia Prin c e Ge org e 's C o un ty

SIA

JO H

Railroad

Water Body

ve eA

e nu

Bus Transit Route B8 / B9 Bus Transit Route T18

Bus Transit Route R12 Bus Transit Route F8

8 T1

Existing MARC in Riverdale

Bus Transit Route 84

R12

EDMONSTON

BLADENSBURG

lt Ba

o re W Pa r as h i n kw a y g to n

Ba l ti m

RT H

F8 d er R oa

EN IL W O

R12

An a

r ve Ri ia

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA os t

Ke n i lw o r th A

na Ro

ven

An is ol ad v La n do

oad

den sbu rg R l)

eria

(art

Collector

Sector Plan Boundary 1ST

2,000 Feet

ollector)

Island A venue (c

COTTAGE CITY

Rhode

40TH

Freeway

cto

lle

(co

(in eet

46t

l) tria dus

ON RIS HAR

e or im T AYE LA F

Ba lt TE

Industrial

Water Body

COLUMBIA

OR N OT

Reconfigured road(s) and/or intersection

2. Proposed reconfigured intersection

BLADENSBURG

EDMONSTON

1. Proposed reconfigured road network and intersection

Baltim or Park e Washin way (free gton way)

Railroad

ltim

ve eA

Y RR

DO XE TU N O ANS

Map 14: Access and Circulation

Arterial

CE VI ER

Municipal Boundaries

JOH

500 1,000

HIL

COLMAR MANOR

Bla

TH 35 NK

39TH

o ac An

TA YL O

33 H

st ia

UTAH

B OS

District o f Columb ia Prince Ge orge's Co unty

A PE

AN D

lis (

po Ro

a nn l)

RT H

A WALL

ad ver Ro

ria

te ar

ilwo

ALLISON

rial)

arte

R FA

Lando

IL W

WIN ON

Ken

ue (

rth A ven

RA UT

DE RHO

AN ISL

TI LA

68TH

l) AK

eria NO

Hi (art GLE

68T

est tW Eas ay ghw

ad (art erial)

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

RIVE

H RTEC

lighting; and significant amount of turning traffic are Coordinate with SHA to create a signalized major contributing factors that make these intersections intersection at MD 201 and the on/off ramp along unsafe, inhospitable, and challenging especially for northbound lanes to 48th street, to allow left turns pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit passengers. to and from MD 201 southbound lanes at this location. This action would help to eliminate the The presence of existing left-turn lanes from eastbound existing left turns from westbound Bladensburg Bladensburg Road to 48th Street and from westbound Road to southbound MD 201 and from eastbound Bladensburg to the MD 201 southbound ramp, located Bladensburg Road to northbound 48th street. east of the Kenilworth Avenue overpass, create difficulty in provision of needed on-road bikeways Explore and secure the SHA authorization to install and usable sidewalks along this important segment of pedestrian-activated signals at key intersections Bladensburg Road. Pedestrians and bikers are forced along Annapolis/Bladensburg Road, especially at to use either a pair of highly unattractive, dark, and Peace Cross, Bladensburg Waterfront Park Access unsafe pedestrian tunnels located on either side of Road, Kenilworth Avenue at 48th Street and Bladensburg Road, or take unwarranted risk by Decatur Street, and Baltimore Avenue. walking or biking along the outside travel lanes of Evaluate the provision of raised sidewalks and onBladensburg Road, which is filled with a heavy mix of road bike lanes and a raised median along high-speed vehicle traffic. Bladensburg Road and under the existing MD 201 overpass between 48th Street and Baltimore Policy 1: Avenue. Utilize the complete street and context-sensitive concepts Investigate and evaluate to reconfigure and as recommended by the Preliminary Countywide Master reconstruct the MD 202 approach to Annapolis Plan of Transportation to promote walking, biking, and Road to create a three-way signalized intersection to transit along with automobile use. improve the overall traffic operation and better

Strategies: Consider the realignment, redesign, and reconstruction of the southbound Alt. US 1 south of its intersection with Rhode Island Avenue as a two-way, limited access, two-lane collector roadway with a standard three-way signalized intersection with Bladensburg Road.

accommodate the expected pedestrian activities.

Explore ways to construct a new roadway connection from Edmonston Road through the Three Brothers Shopping Center to Kenilworth Avenue. Improve its intersection with Kenilworth Avenue and Edmonston Road if deemed feasible by SHA and DPW&T.

Explore ways to reconstruct both approaches of 48th Explore how to realign, redesign, and reconstruct Street to two-lane primary streets with on-street the northbound Alt. US 1 south of its intersection parking and investigate the provision of a historicwith Rhode Island Avenue to a two-way, primary themed landscape treatment for the segment between street with two travel lanes, on-street parking, and Annapolis Road and Quincy Place to reinforce this a “waterfront main street” theme that intersects area as a special historic zone. with Bladensburg Road just west of the Bladensburg Evaluate to improve and implement parkway Waterfront Park access road intersection. characteristics along Kenilworth Avenue within Explore, and if deemed acceptable by SHA, install a the sector plan area by limiting driveway pedestrian-activated traffic signal at the intersection connections; improving streetscape with new of 46th Street/Park Access Road with Bladensburg sidewalks, plantings and median plantings; and Road to ease automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian provide lighting and safe crosswalks at Decatur access in and out of the Bladensburg Waterfront Park. and Buchanan Streets.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

500

Map 15A: Reconfigured Alt. US 1 and Annapolis Road

Feet 1,000

Section C

Section A

Section B

Upshur Street

450) Annapolis Road (MD 48th Street

Section D

t or w l i en

ue en v hA

D (M

sto mo n

1) 20

ad nR o

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Baltimore Avenue US-1

Map 15B: Reconfigured Alt US 1 and Annapolis Road Cross Sections Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

500

Map 16A: Reconfigured Annapolis Road Intersection

Newton Street

Feet 1,000

Quincy Stre

Section A

Section B

ad D

450)

Road (MD

Annapolis

Section C

57t hA ven

Map 16B: Reconfigured Annapolis Road Intersection Cross Section Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Where deemed appropriate, utilize on-street parking and traffic-calming techniques such as lane narrowing, signage, and speed bumps to discourage nonlocal vehicular traffic on residential streets. Investigate and explore ways to reconstruct the Annapolis/Bladensburg Road corridor as a four- lane divided roadway that will accommodate the planned Port Towns FGT and include attractive landscaping, raised median, on-road bike lanes, and continuous sidewalks from its intersection with MD 202 to Eastern Avenue.

Policy 2: Where considered feasible by SHA and DPW&T, provide on-street parking to slow down vehicular traffic and act as a buffer between moving vehicles and pedestrians.

Strategies: Investigate construction of Spring Street and Bostwick Place as new two-lane primary streets with on-street parking. Spring Street is proposed to connect Edmonston Road to 48th Street and Bostwick Place will extend from Annapolis Road to Quincy Place.

Policy 3: Maintain LOS E at major intersections in the area for any new or redevelopment application when required by the county’s Zoning Ordinance and subdivision regulations, unless the Port Towns area is designated as a Transportation Priority Growth District (TPGD) by the District Council. This service level requirement is consistent with the 2002 General Plan policy for the Developed Tier.

TRAILS ELEMENT GOAL Develop a comprehensive network of paved and natural surface trails, sidewalks, neighborhood trail connections, and on-road bicycle facilities for transportation and recreation use. Trails should be compatible with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and designed to accommodate hikers, bicyclists, equestrians, and mountain bikers. Communities should be designed to accommodate pedestrians and bicycles, as well as automobiles. Sidewalk and trail connections should be provided to schools, parks, activity centers, and other public facilities.

BACKGROUND: BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, AND TRAIL FACILITIES

Extend Taylor Street west as a primary residential The Anacostia Tributary Trails Network provides an street with on-street parking to Kenilworth Avenue. extensive system of stream valley park trails throughout the Port Towns and surrounding communities. The Reconstruct Edmonston Road as a three-lane concept of the Anacostia Trails Heritage Area (ATHA) collector facility with on-street parking and onManagement Plan was inspired in part by the Anacostia road bike lanes and continuous sidewalks on both Tributary Trails Network. Built by M-NCPPC along the sides such that it would also accommodate the Anacostia River and its tributaries, the system proposed Port Towns FGT to the planned Purple encompasses 25 miles of off-road trails, generally via Line station in Riverdale Park. an eight-foot-wide paved path.1 The potential exists to Extend the Crittenden Street as a primary street with extend the Paint Branch segment through Beltsville on-street parking to intersect with Edmonston Road. north to Laurel and back to Greenbelt, greatly increasing Extend 53rd Avenue as a new primary street with the size of the current system. on-street parking from Decatur Street to Emerson The M-NCPPC Department of Parks and Recreation Street to create a new street connection parallel to has completed many recent improvements to the Kenilworth Avenue. Bladensburg Waterfront Park, including a walkway along the river, playground equipment, visitor’s center,

Approved Anacostia Trails Heritage Area Management Plan, A Functional Master Plan for Heritage Tourism, 2001. Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

and a picnic shelter. A pedestrian bridge connecting the Anacostia Tributary Trails Network with the waterfront park was opened in 2006. This bridge links Bladensburg with Colmar Manor and provides access to the 25-mile Anacostia Tributary Trails Network. The Department of Parks and Recreation is currently designing and applying for permits for the extension of the Anacostia River Trail. This trail will run along the eastern side of the Anacostia River from the Bladensburg Marina south into the District of Columbia, where it will link to the Kenilworth Aquatic Garden and the planned D.C. Riverwalk.

Policy 1: Incorporate appropriate pedestrian-oriented features in all new development.

Strategies:

Develop a pedestrian/bicycle loop around the perimeter of the Bladensburg Town Center. This loop will provide for continuous pedestrian facilities around and to the town center, and provide a pedestrian alternative to the highspeed, highvolume traffic of Annapolis Road. Pedestrian improvements should include the provision of The community has identified improved pedestrian continuous standard or wide sidewalks, as well as safety and walkability as important issues to be “Share the Road with a Bike” signage, and addressed in and around the Port Towns. Sidewalks appropriate pavement markings. are fragmented or missing in many areas. Major roads and the CSX railroad tracks provide barriers to Designated bike lanes should be considered if rightof-way conditions permit. Roads proposed for pedestrian travel. Frequently, the automobile is the sidewalk and bikeway improvements on this loop only practical way to make even short trips in the Port include: Upshur Street, Tilden Road, 55th Avenue, Towns area. Quincy Street, and 54th Place. These improvements, Because of the existing and planned facilities at the in conjunction with a trail connection to the waterfront park, pedestrian access from the Anacostia River Trail and a pedestrian bridge to Bladensburg Town Center to the park was identified as Bladensburg Waterfront Park, will greatly enhance a community priority during the town center sector pedestrian accessibility throughout the town center planning. It should also be noted that the Department and to area recreation facilities. of Parks and Recreation has recently constructed a sidewalk connection along the park entrance road Accommodate pedestrian crossings with wellmarked, attractive crosswalks (See Map 17: Existing from Annapolis Road to the waterfront, thus improving and Proposed Trails). Contrasting surface materials pedestrian access within the park. should be used, and pedestrian amenities and safety The sector plan recommends that accommodations for features should be incorporated where appropriate. bicycles and pedestrians be provided throughout the These features can include benches, trash Port Towns as development occurs or as road receptacles, bus shelters, and pedestrian-scale improvements are completed. This proposed network lighting. Safety features can include curb will include trail connections, continuous standard or extensions, raised crosswalks, in-pavement wide sidewalks, and on-road accommodations, such lighting at crosswalks, pedestrian refuges or “safe as designated bike lanes, for bicyclists. As trails, havens,” and pedestrian count-down signals. sidewalks, and facilities for on-road bicyclists are provided, it will become more feasible for area Provide a wide sidewalk with landscaping and pedestrian amenities along the town center’s residents to make some trips by walking or bicycling. frontage of Baltimore Avenue and Annapolis Road. Provide sidewalks along both sides of all roads within the town center. Roads with a designation of boulevard, main-street, and local/retail street should include sidewalks 15-20 feet wide and pedestrian amenities.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Policy 2:

Policy 3:

Develop Annapolis Road as a pedestrian-friendly Develop bicycle-friendly roadways in conformance corridor with safety improvements and a main street/ with the latest standards and guidelines. boulevard streetscape.

Strategies:

Develop on-road bicycle facilities in accordance Provide a pedestrian-friendly, “main street” with the American Association of State Highway environment along Annapolis Road between 46th and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for Street and 51st Street. Improvements should the Development of Bicycle Facilities. On-road include wide sidewalks extending to the back of bicycle facilities can include designated bike lanes, the curb, a planted center median, and pedestrian wide outside curb lanes, paved shoulders, and crosswalks with pedestrian refuges or “safe haven” appropriate bikeway signage. areas. Crosswalk treatments should include visible, contrasting surface material and pavement Provide designated bike lanes along Edmonston Road and Baltimore Avenue. markings, and may also include additional signalization for timed pedestrian crossings, in- Provide on-road bicycle facilities along major pavement lighting along the crosswalk, curb roads as road improvements or road restriping extensions, and other safety features. occurs. These roads include MD 202, MD 201, Provide a pedestrian boulevard environment along MD 450, and US 1. While designated bike lanes in Annapolis Road between 51st Street and 56th conformance with AASHTO standards may not be Avenue. Improvements should include standard or feasible due to right-of-way constraints, wide wide sidewalks, a planted strip between the back of outside curb lanes should be provided to allow the curb and the sidewalk, a planted center median, additional space for bicycle traffic. and pedestrian crosswalks with pedestrian refuges Provide bikeway signage and bikeway improvements or “safe haven” areas. Crosswalk treatments should along Decatur Street west of Kenilworth Avenue. include visible, contrasting surface material and Designated bike lanes should be considered if rightpavement markings, and may also include additional of-way and on-street parking allow. signalization for timed pedestrian crossings, inpavement lighting along the crosswalk, curb Provide bikeway signage and bikeway improvements along Decatur, Edmonston, and extensions, and other safety features. Emerson Streets east of Kenilworth Avenue. Provide for safe north/south pedestrian travel Designated bike lanes should be considered if across Annapolis Road in the vicinity of the right-of-way and on-street parking allow. Landover Road and Annapolis Road intersection. Continuous sidewalks should be provided along Provide designated bike lanes or striped wide outside both sides of Edmonston and Emerson Streets. curb lanes to the extent feasible and practical due to existing conditions and right-of-way constraints. Any reconfiguration or improvements to the juncture of Baltimore Avenue, Annapolis Road, and Bladensburg Road at Peace Cross should include sidewalks, marked or contrasting crosswalks, and other pedestrian safety features and amenities.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

500 1,000

Map 17: Existing and Proposed Trails

ail

Existing Trail

Railroad

uin Q cy Ru

Trai

BLADENSBURG

EDMONSTON

Proposed Trail (one possible alignment)

Water Body

way / Bike

Northeast Bra nch Tra il

Road

Planned Trail

l) ai

Sector Plan Boundary

2,000 Feet

n te ex

t er

il ue Tra Rhode Island Aven

over

Municipal Boundaries

Anaco

f ng

l ai stia River Tr

Roa

COTTAGE CITY

COLMAR MANOR

burg

ens

Anaco

stia Ri ve ue

Blad

rC a

no e

Tr a

il (w

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA s

a Tr

nt D.C.

e sb ttl en Ba lad B g ur

Ave n

of o

Ken

ilwo rth

n An lis

Land

500

1,000

Municipal Boundaries

Map 18: Pedestrian Circulation

bur gR oad

Av e nu e

Railroad

m lti

e nu

Water Body

BLADENSBURG

monston Road Ed

e Av re

o re W Pa r as h i k wa n g t on y

Ba l ti m

Existing Streets without Sidewalks Streetscape, Lighting & Pedestrian Improvements Industrial Areas - Without Sidewalks

Sector Plan Boundary

2,000 Feet

e ns

Is la nd

COTTAGE CITY

COLMAR MANOR

Bla d

Rh od e

EDMONSTON

Existing Major Crosswalks Potential Pedestrian Crossing Improvements Potential Bus Stop Improvements

d er R oa

Existing Hard Surface Trail Informal Paths Informal Pedestrian Access Points

SIA

Dis trict o f Co lu mb ia Prin c e Ge org e 's Co un ty

JO H

RT H

EN IL W O

s co An a

o ap R

t ia

rth A ven

74 ue

enil wo

A nn lis v La n do

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Policy 4:

Ensure the development of trail construction from Lloyd Street to the Bladensburg Waterfront Park.

Provide new trail, pedestrian, and bicycle connections to the Bladensburg Waterfront Park and the Anacostia Develop a trail easement use agreement to ensure that this trail connection will require a public use Tributary Trails Network. trail easement or use agreement between M-NCPPC and WSSC. Strategies: Provide a trail connection from Baltimore Avenue Policy 5: to the existing Anacostia River Trail in the vicinity Provide new trails and improve trail connectivity. of Upshur Street. Provide a stream valley trail along the east side of Strategies: the Anacostia River north of Annapolis Road. This trail will complement the existing multiuse trail Coordinate acquisition or public use easements along a developed greenway to provide a trail along the west side of the Anacostia River. along Quincy Run within a developed greenway. Extend the Anacostia River Trail along the east (This trail will utilize existing M-NCPPC parkland side of the Anacostia River from Bladensburg and will require some additional parkland. In areas Waterfront Park into the District of Columbia. This where stream valley trail construction is not trail will extend the existing Anacostia Tributary feasible, standard or wide sidewalks should be Trails Network, provide a future connection to the utilized along adjacent roads.) planned District of Columbia riverwalk, and provide for improved trail connectivity between Link the planned sidewalk network within the Bladensburg Town Center with the western edge of Prince George’s County and the existing and the Quincy Run stream valley trail with a potential proposed trails in the District of Columbia. pedestrian bridge over Kenilworth Avenue and the Provide a pedestrian bridge over the railroad tracks CSX Railroad to the waterfront park. Provide trails to Bladensburg Waterfront Park in the vicinity of around and to the future stormwater management the town center and Quincy Run. This bridge will facilities and recreation areas of Bladensburg connect the pedestrian/bicycle loop along Quincy South Community Park. The Quincy Run Trail Street and the town center with the waterfront park, will provide the major trail connection into and the existing pedestrian bridge to Colmar Manor, through this park. and the planned extension of the Anacostia River Trail into the District of Columbia.

Policy 6:

Provide a pedestrian and bicycle connection to the New road construction and road improvement projects Bladensburg Waterfront Park that utilizes that in the Port Towns should incorporate “complete requires the following specific improvements: streets.” Accommodations should be provided for Sidepath construction along MD 201 from pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as motor vehicles. Lydell Road to 52nd Avenue. Sidewalk and bikeway improvements along Strategies: 52nd Avenue from MD 201 to the alley Provide standard sidewalks along both sides of all extension of Lloyd Street. new road construction in the Port Towns. Trail construction within or along the alley Road improvement and restriping projects should from 52nd Avenue to MD 201. comply with the AASHTO Guide for the Sidewalk and bikeway improvements along Lloyd Street from MD 201 to the WSSC Property (Parcel 80).

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Development of Bicycle Facilities.

Implement pedestrian safety measures at road crossings and trail intersections. These improvements can include curb extensions, inpavement lighting in crosswalks, raised crosswalks, road striping, additional signage and lighting, and contrasting surface materials, as deemed appropriate by the communities and road agencies.

Policy 7: Develop thematic or heritage trails that build upon the historic, cultural, and natural resources in the Port Towns area.

Strategies:

Provide trail and sidewalk connections to connect Develop the Battle of Bladensburg Trail within the Port Towns (See Map 17: Existing and Proposed land uses as opportunities become available and Trails). development occurs. Provide sidewalk construction along priority Utilize streetscape improvements along US 1 and MD 450, existing trails at Bladensburg Waterfront corridors within the Port Towns in order to provide Park, and sidewalk and trail improvements along safe routes to schools. These corridors include: 48th Street to the Bostwick House. Upshur Street, Tilden Road, 55th Avenue, Quincy Street, and 54th Place, which have already been Develop wayfinding and interpretative signage identified as needing bicycle and pedestrian along all trails, as well as route maps and more improvements in the Bladensburg Town Center detailed interpretative material. Sector Plan. Other priority corridors within the Port Towns that require sidewalk or streetscape improvements include 52nd Avenue, Crittenden Street, Buchanan Street, Tanglewood Drive, 48th Street, and 46th Street.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

PUBLIC FACILITIES GOAL

Schools with an FCI of 0-40 percent are considered to be in good condition. Schools with an FCI of 40-75 percent are considered to be in fair condition. Lastly, schools with a FCI greater than 75 percent are considered to be in poor condition. Schools constructed since 1993 were not evaluated.

Public facilities are provided in locations that serve and promote a more livable community. Schools are not overcrowded and are convenient to foster learning. Police, fire, and rescue services are located where response time is minimal and library services are located in proximity to users. Table 12 includes the FCI for public schools within the Port Towns Sector Plan study area. Four of the PUBLIC SCHOOLS schools evaluated are in fair condition and one school is good condition. Two schools were not evaluated Background because they are fairly new schools constructed since There are four elementary schools—Port Towns, 1993. Bladensburg, Rogers Heights, and Templeton— located in the immediate sector plan study area. Bladensburg High School, as well as Annapolis Road Population Projections and Their Impact on Academy Alternative High School are also within the Public Schools sector plan study area. The middle school servicing The current pupil yield rates are based on the following the area is William Wirt, which is located in Riverdale. factors: (.16) for elementary school, (.13) for middle The schools serving the children in the study area are school and (.14) for high school. Elementary schools are shown in Table 11. Each school’s name, address, 2007 built to accommodate 740 students, middle schools have enrollment, state rated capacity, percent of capacity, a capacity for 900–1,000 students, and high schools have a capacity for 1,500–2,200 students. In addition, and acreage is also identified. elementary schools have a neighborhood orientation while middle schools and high schools have a more Condition of Public School Facilities regional orientation. In May 2008, Parsons 3D/International, in association with three subcontractors, completed a facilities This plan projects an increase of 2,236 dwelling units condition assessment of public schools within the in the study area by 2030. Based on current pupil yield county. It explored the physical conditions of each factors, the dwelling unit growth is projected to yield school, both internal and external. Parsons identified 358 additional elementary school students, 291 which schools required improvements based upon age additional middle school students, and 313 additional and the cost of renovation versus the replacement of high school students. the facility. The study measured schools based upon a Table 13 shows the state-rated capacity, 2007 facilities condition index (FCI) which is a measurement enrollment, existing, and projected excess seats and of “a facility’s condition represented by the ratio of the deficit seats, pupil yield, and enrollment at buildout cost to correct a school facility’s deficiencies to the for the study area. current replacement value of the facility.” Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Table 11: Prince George’s County Pubic Schools within the Port Towns Enrollment 2007

StatePercent Building Size Site Size Rated Capacity (Square Feet) (Acreage) Capacity 650 92 62,050 12.8

School

Address

Bladensburg Elementary School

4915 Annapolis Road

596

Port Towns Elementary School

4351 58th Avenue

756

750

101

77,586

Rogers Heights Elementary School

4301 58th Avenue

619

572

108

56,588

Templeton Elementary School

6001Carters Lane

570

521

109

63,432

10.0

William Wirt Middle School

62nd Place and Tuckerman Street

814

816

100

106,318

18.5

Bladensburg High School

5610 Tilden Lane

1,774

1,923

304,000

21.4

Alternative High School

5150 Annapolis Road

117

100

117

74,807

4.2

Source: Prince George’s County Public Schools Educational Facilities Master Plan 2007-2008 * Port Towns and Rogers Heights Elementary Schools share a 14.6-acre site.

Table 12: 3DI Ranking of Prince George’s County Public Schools within the Port Towns Address

Year Constructed

2008 3DI FCI

School Condition

Bladensburg Elementary School

4915 Annapolis Road

1990

25%

Good

Port Towns Elementary School

4351 58th Avenue

2004

N/A

Rogers Heights Elementary School

4301 58th Avenue

1959

45%

Fair

Templeton Elementary School

6001Carters Lane

1968

75%

Fair

William Wirt Middle School

62nd Place and Tuckerman Street

1964

44%

Fair

Bladensburg High School

5610 Tilden Lane

1950 (Original Building) 2005 (Replacement)

N/A

Alternative High School (Bladensburg Instructional Ctr. High)

5150 Annapolis Road

1939

53%

Fair

School

Source: Parsons 3D/International, May 2008 78

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Table 13: Projected School Enrollment and Capacity Needs Schools

StateRated Capacity

2007 Enrollment

Elementary Middle High

2,493 816 1,923*

2,541 814 1,774*

Existing Excess Seats/ Deficit -48 +2 +149

Pupil Yield 0.16 0.13 0.14

Projected Needed Seats With Pupil Yield 358 291 313

Enrollment at Buildout

Projected Excess/ Deficit

2,899 1,105 2,087

-406 -289 -164

Percent Capacity With Du Growth 116 135 109

Source: Prince George’s County Planning Department, M-NCPPC, 2008 *Alternative High School capacity and enrollment was not included in determining future needs.

Large parcels of vacant developable public land are scarce within the study area. It is, therefore, Establish a standard minimum site size for new recommended that the Board of Education maintain construction, rehabilitation, and the adaptive reuse of the Alternative High School site to address planned structures for schools within urban settings. growth in the future and its associated impact on elementary schools.

Policy 1:

Strategy:

Construct urban schools on adequate sites in areas Policy 2: where schools are needed yet available developable Preserve, retain, and support existing public school land is limited. facilities and school sites.

Recommendation:

Strategies:

In the 2007 approved Bladensburg Town Center Plan, Rehabilitate the Annapolis Road Alternative High the following is stated as Policy 2 under the Annapolis School site to adaptively reuse the building or site Road subsection, Development Pattern section: as an elementary school (pre-K through 6th grade) Consider adaptive reuse of the existing Annapolis to meet the future need for an additional elementary Road Academy Alternative High School Building as a school based on the build-out of the Port Towns. possible loft/condominium complex. Consideration should be given to the There are three strategies that fall under Policy 2. They are: construction of an urban school model if adaptive reuse in not feasible. Conduct a search for an appropriate site to relocate the alternative school.

Evaluate the structural capacity of reusing the existing alternative school structure.

Locate an elementary school symbol on the land use map at the Annapolis Road Alternative School site.

Assemble parcels east and west of the alternative Convert the existing Bladensburg Elementary School into a pre-K through 8th grade school to school site to develop a central parking facility. meet the study area’s future needs for additional It is recommended that Policy 2, Strategies 1 through middle school seats. 3, be deleted through the approval of the Port Towns Locate a pre-K through 8th grade school symbol Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment. on the land use map at the Bladensburg Additionally, it is recommended that Policy 2 and Elementary School site. Strategies 1 through 3 in the 2007 approved Bladensburg Town Center Plan be replaced with the following policy and strategies. Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Renovate existing school facilities in the study area Strategy: with the greatest need based on the facilities Locate a library site symbol on the plan map at condition assessment (The facilities condition Edmonston and Annapolis Roads in the planned assessment is conducted by Parsons, 3D/ Bladensburg Town Center as identified in the June International, a consultant for Prince George’s 2007 Approved Bladensburg Town Center Sector County Public Schools). Plan and Sectional Map Amendment.

Policy 3:

PUBLIC SAFETY

Construct the appropriate number of schools in order to achieve a school system that operates at 100 percent of capacity or less at every school considering the urban setting.

The Port Towns Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment reaffirms the goals, objectives, policies and strategies identified in the March 2008 Approved Public Safety Facilities Master Plan.

Strategy:

County Police Facilities

Colocate new schools and new community center The District I Station in Hyattsville provides county facilities/parks on the same site, when appropriate. police services for the Port Towns Sector Plan study area. The District I Station is housed in the Hyattsville LIBRARY FACILITIES Justice Center located at 5000 Rhode Island Avenue. The 47,446-square-foot facility was completed as part Bladensburg Library Branch of the Hyattsville Court construction project. The Bladensburg Library Branch is located at 4820 Annapolis Road in Bladensburg. The library is a Municipal Police Facilities former school site, which was erected in 1925. The library opened at the site in 1978. The 7,300-square- The Town of Bladensburg Police Department has a foot building is on 1.25 acres. The branch has a total of 15 sworn officers and 10 civilian employees. 20,000-volume capacity and had a 2004 circulation of This police department is the largest municipal police 43,948 volumes and an increase in 2005 book department in the Port Towns study area. The Town of Cottage City and the Town of Edmonston each have 5 circulation of 48,771 volumes. sworn officers. The Town of Colmar Manor is currently Based on library standards, a library branch can in the process of starting up a new police department. generally support a population of 40,000 to 80,000. The municipal police augment the county police force. According to population data, the study area population According to the 2007 approved Bladensburg Town will be 65,334 at buildout. Because the Bladensburg Center Plan, “the consolidation of the municipal police Branch is one of the smaller branches in the county facilities is a priority redevelopment strategy for the and the structure is over 80 years of age, the Tilden Road and Edmonston Road area.” construction of a new 25,000-square-foot library or renovation and expansion of the existing library is The following public safety facility goals, objectives, recommended to provide adequate library service at policies, and strategies of the 2002 Prince George’s County Approved General Plan as it applies to police buildout. facilities are restated in the March 2008 Approved Public Safety Facilities Master Plan. These goals, Policy 1: objectives, policies and strategies reaffirm the Provide state-of-the-art library facilities that are recommendations of the Approved Public Safety convenient and will efficiently serve the existing and Facilities Master Plan. future population.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Fire/EMS Station, Company 55—is equipped with three engines, one ambulance, one medic, one ladder truck, To provide needed public facilities in locations that and a mini-pumper. Company 55 was built in 2006. efficiently serve the county’s population. The following policies and strategies reaffirm the recommendations of the Approved Public Safety Objective: Facilities Master Plan Strive to provide police facilities that meet planning guidelines and other appropriate best practices or Policy 1: guidelines. Provide fire and rescue facilities that meet the needs of the community, based upon established county Policy 1: standards and their ability to accommodate modern Efficiently provide needed public facilities. vehicles and equipment.

Goal:

Strategy:

Seek opportunities for colocation (either in single Reaffirm the Approved Public Safety Facilities buildings or single properties) of compatible and Master Plan recommendation for Bladensburg complementary facilities in future planning efforts. Fire/EMS Station as a long-term priority project:

Policy 2:

Bladensburg Fire/EMS Station—Company 9

Construct police facilities that meet the needs of the community.

PA: 69

Strategies:

Strategy: Renovate or replace facility.

Conduct a space study prior to the construction or renovation of any police facility.

Justification: The building has design issues associated with the operations of newer, larger equipment.

Include funds in all capital improvement projects for space studies prior to initiating design and construction.

Tier: Developed Tier

Staging Priority: Long-Term—the project is recommended for funding after 2021.

Upon redevelopment of the visitors center site within Policy 2: the Town of Bladensburg, a new, 5,500-square-foot, state-of-the-art municipal police facility should be Plan and provide public facilities to support and fit constructed. This will create a critical mass of public into the Developed Tier’s built environment. facilities in that area.

Strategies:

FIRE AND RESCUE FACILITIES

Place a high priority on the public sector’s provision of new or renovated public facilities needed to The Bladensburg Fire/EMS Station, Company 9, which serve existing and future development. is located at 4213 Edmonston Road, serves the study area, along with Bunker Hill Fire/EMS Station, Continue service from the Bladensburg Fire/EMS Company 55, located at 3716 Rhode Island Avenue. Station, Company 9, and the Bunker Hill Fire/ The Bladensburg Fire/EMS Station, Company 9, is a EMS Station, Company 55. volunteer-owned station built in 1956. It was rehabilitated in FY 2004. The station is equipped with two engines, two ambulances, one truck, and a tele-squirt water supply vehicle. In addition, the newest station—Bunker Hill

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

JOH

TH ILL

36 KE RH

Cottage City Municipal Police Station

rg R oad

EDMONSTON

R 43

Police Station

Water Body

Y RR

RIS

Rogers Heights Elementary School

TTE AYE LAF

Public Facilities Outside the Sector Plan Boundary that Serve the Project Area

68TH

William Wirt Middle School

Elizabeth Seton High School (private)

Library

D LAN

RIVERDALE

IS DE RHO

Riverdale Elementary School

Templeton Elementary School

HAR

Port Towns Elementary

G Fire Station k ` Municipal Police Station ^ 62

Bladensburg High School

BLADENSBURG

Annapolis Road Academy Alternative High School (proposed pre-K through 6th grade)

Bladensburg Municipal Police Station

Edmonston Municipal Police Station

Saul Schwartzbach Memorial Library

High School

Railroad

Baltim or Park e Washin way (free gton way)

lti

e Av re

Hyattsville Hyattsville Fire Station

DO XE TU N O S AN

Map 19: Existing and Proposed Public Facilities

Bladensburg Fire Station

Bladensburg Elementary School (proposed pre-K through 8th grade)

Bladensburg Branch Library

40TH

Middle School

Sector Plan Boundary T 51S

COLMAR MANOR

Colmar Manor Municipal Police Station

2,000 Feet

enue

land Av

Rhode Is

40TH

COTTAGE CITY

sbu

den

Bla

39TH

N 42

! Elementary School

CE VI ER

500 1,000

TH 35 BU N

Mount Rainier Branch Library BUNKER HILL

` ^

Municipal Boundaries

TA YL

RD 33

ac An

ve ia os t

G k

` ^

SIA

UTAH

WAL LACE

ver Ro

RT H

lis

o ap

rth A ven

ALLISON

d k oa Lando

` ^ G

IL W

enil wo

R FA G RA

` ^ #

WIN ON

68T

TI LA

! NO

! ! GLE

G ! %

G !

COLUMBIA

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

H RTEC RIVE

PARKS AND RECREATION GOAL

OBJECTIVES

High quality, safe, and convenient recreational Increase recreation level of service by renovating facilities serve all residents. These facilities, whether existing parks and changing park facilities to located in public parks or within the urban fabric of provide recreational opportunities that will attract mixed-use redevelopment sites, provide recreation, more people to use the parks. relaxation, and socialization opportunities. Recreational Develop undeveloped parks that are not located in opportunities significantly contribute to community environmentally sensitive areas. desirability and are critical to creating a preferred and Utilize outdoor recreation facilities at public livable community. elementary schools.

BACKGROUND

Encourage walking and other active pursuits by In Prince George’s County, the Department of Parks residents. and Recreation of M-NCPPC operates two basic park Create open spaces within new urban mixed- use types: (1) local parks serving neighborhood and development that will provide social and community needs (up to 200 acres in size); and (2) programmed event space for the public. regional parks (200 acres or greater in size), Link new community parks to the stream valley countywide parks, and special facilities. trail system. The towns also own and operate small playgrounds and open spaces for passive recreation. The Town of Organizations, municipalities, and agencies all contribute toward operating and maintaining Colmar Manor owns a gymnasium in the town hall places where recreational facilities and activities and programs recreational activities and events. occur. The Port Towns are blessed with approximately 568 acres of parkland under the ownership of M-NCPPC. Make wise decisions in the use of public funds towards the creation, maintenance, and operation This includes nine neighborhood parks, two of recreational facilities. community parks, Bladensburg Community Center, Edmonston Recreation Building, Bladensburg Waterfront Park, Publick Playhouse Cultural Arts Center, Peace Cross and Memorial Grove, and the Anacostia Tributary Trail System.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Policy 1:

Policy 2:

Create or renovate community parks with active Develop a variety of park and recreational facilities recreational facilities within two miles of any residence based on community needs and interests. and neighborhood parks within a ten- minute walking distance from all dwellings. Strategies: At the 20-acre Anacostia River wetlands creation area located south of the Bladensburg Waterfront Park, complete the canoe launch and educational Incorporate recreational facilities into the interpretation amenities. development of Bladensburg South Community Park. Explore private/public partnerships to fund the expansion of the Publick Playhouse. Create trail access on the south side of Bladensburg Waterfront Park to create connectivity to residential Work with the recreation councils for each Port areas east of Kenilworth Avenue. Town to make recommendations for recreation Renovate and improve park facilities in programs and improvements to recreational facilities in the parks. neighborhood parks.

Strategies:

Improve recreational facilities and visitor amenities Explore public/private partnerships to fund the relocation of the wastewater intake now on the site at Colmar Manor Community Park to enhance of Spa Spring in order to restore the area to its soccer opportunities and help create a soccer natural state. tournament destination. Conduct studies to determine feasibility of providing artificial turf fields, additional parking, and restrooms and other enclosed buildings, such as storage sheds, at this former landfill site. Create a partnership between the Board of Education and the Town of Bladensburg to support efforts to improve the ball field and other recreational facilities at elementary schools. With the reconfiguration of Alt. US 1 at Peace Cross and mixed-use redevelopment of the adjacent commercial area, create an urban green integrated within the shopping district. The recreational emphasis is toward creating a safe, attractive space for socializing, free play, and public events. In large residential redevelopment projects not located within a ten-minute walking distance of existing neighborhood park facilities, the developer should provide outdoor recreational space to accommodate a playground, a non-regulation playfield, and/or court (basketball, skate park, futsal, or tennis), and picnic area. A loop walk should be developed that utilizes existing and new park trails and paths and neighborhood sidewalks. The purpose is to provide play opportunities for youth and healthy activities for adults.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

k k k k k

± " /

2,000 Feet

Island A venue

40TH

sbu r oad

COTTAGE CITY

JOH

Recreation Center

Sector Plan Boundary T

51S

! .

ltim

e or

e Av

# 0

ore W Par ashin kwa gto n y

Playground

Railroad

BLADENSBURG

tim

Bal

40TH

Water Body

BO RN OT

Community Center

ND 62

EDMONSTON

Y RR

D XE TU ON S N A

Map 20: Parks and Recreation

39TH

Rhode

Athletic Facility

k k k

k! . PE

! . COLMAR MANOR

.XX X! ! .X ! . ad

VI ER

den

Bla

! .

Municipal Boundaries

HIL

k o

500 1,000

NK ER

TH 35 BU

TA YL

RD SH

33 M

UTAH

k k k . k!

ON RIS HAR

or im TTE AYE LAF

Ba lt

e nu eA ve

IS DE RHO

D LAN

Picnic Area

M-NCPPC Park and Recreation Property 68TH

0 # ! .# 0

! .kk kk! . XXk k kk

AN D

ver Ro

Lando

RT H

A WALL

! .XX k n An

k lis

R FA G RA

! .k

Ave n

k! .

tia

.k k ! " /k

UR ON

orth

Ken ilw

IL W

WIN

.kk k!

ALLISON

! . ! . 68T

.k XX!

I AT

X ! . NO

L AL

k kkk GLE

RIVE

k X . kk k kk ! /XX k" ! .k

/ ! .k k"

COLUMBIA

k X! kk kk . k

H RTEC

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GOAL

OBJECTIVES

The Port Towns Sector Plan area has a diverse Encourage a mix of land uses in the Port Towns that contributes to the employment and business base. employment base and residential population that create market demand for quality retail and office Retain, develop, and support the industrial employment uses. Support of strategic residential and industrial areas. “green” development opportunities within the area enhances its commercial viability and attracts new Take advantage of the river’s potential through the expansion and improvement of the waterfront area investment. by allowing for a mix of uses that create a destination at the Port Towns waterfront. BACKGROUND The historic Port Towns area features a strong industrial base, a waterfront recreational area, historical resources, a community playhouse, and easy access to and from the District of Columbia. The town contains a high percentage of residential development; most of these households are small, bungalow-style detached housing or rental apartments. The retail opportunities in Port Towns primarily serve the local population, and the socioeconomic characteristics of the locale are reflected in the goods and services offered by area merchants. The retail venues consist of mostly single-story strip malls developed for automobile access. The industrial districts provide an array of employment opportunities and make up a large portion of the land use in and around the railroad and Kenilworth Avenue. The Port Towns’ historic structures contribute to its unique and important past but currently do not contribute economically to the community. The influence and support of the Port Towns Community Development Corporation provide a platform for coordinated growth and development efforts, merging the strengths and challenges of the individual towns.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Expand residential development that creates additional market demand for future retail and office uses.

Policy 1: Encourage mixed-use development along Annapolis Road and Bladensburg Road.

Strategies: Pursue public/private partnerships, land assembly, and shared resources for mixed-use development at the waterfront and Publick Playhouse areas, as well as encourage restaurants to complement such uses. Create additional market demand for a mix of uses for the Port Towns area along the waterfront by developing a public structured parking facility that maximizes the presence of the river as a destination asset. Encourage shared parking arrangements for new medium- and higher-density, mixed-use commercial and residential opportunities along Annapolis Road to support the sustainable development of additional housing units and/or retail space.

Policy 2:

Policy 4:

Expand and modify the Port Towns’ business Maintain the Port Towns’ industrial and manufacturing environment in response to changes and gaps in the base to provide a stable employment foundation and to marketplace. contribute to the area’s economic viability.

Strategies:

Encourage high-quality, mixed-use retail development.

Strengthen existing buffers and create new buffers between manufacturing, light industry, and their Expand the Port Towns’ office space offerings to adjacent uses in order to better integrate industrial provide new space for neighborhood-serving activity. businesses and services such as banks, attorneys, accountants, real estate agents, and doctors’ offices. Consider developing improved performance standards for minimizing noise and air pollution Consider providing financial and tax incentives for impacts and for buffering outdoor storage areas. local businesses to spur private investment—such

as tax abatement—streamlined review processes, Ensure that zoning is in place to maintain a strong industrial and commercial base and further promote and facade and streetscape improvement programs a stable employment zone. to enable area businesses to improve and maintain their appearances. Encourage the clustering of auto-related services in the industrial areas. Ensure existing niche retailers have access to the business training and financing necessary to adapt Work with established industrial property owners to and succeed in the Port Towns’ changing retail to promote green industrial and manufacturing environment. buildings, products, and services.

Foster partnerships between local businesses, the Create a public/private partnership between local county and the Port Towns municipal police government and industrial/commercial property departments, and the community to enhance the centers for a green building design cluster. appeal of the area to new businesses and investment by reducing crime and the perception of crime. Policy 5: Preserve, expand, and improve housing choices and opportunities to create and sustain market demand for Utilize the riverfront to its full potential, creating a quality retail and office uses. Port Towns waterfront that will generate additional economic activity in the area. Strategies:

Policy 3:

Encourage infill development to offer new housing products and workforce housing priced for Explore opportunities that will enable developers homeownership. to qualify for federal income tax credits, state Support the preservation and renovation of existing income tax credits, and county property tax credits. single-family residences, building on the strengths Support and help market the People’s Harbor of the architectural style of the existing homes. project as a visitor destination and as a catalyst to Increase the rate of homeownership by promoting increase visitation to the Port Towns area. county, state, and federal programs designed to Create the Star-Spangled Banner National Historic assist first-time homebuyers. Trail to increase the Port Towns’ national exposure. Review residential development plans to confirm Encourage public/private partnerships to renovate consistency with sector plan goals for higher and rehabilitate the riverfront in order to provide density development. income and provide a quality community asset and Ensure residents have access to foreclosure town center. prevention programs and services.

Strategies:

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

HISTORIC PRESERVATION GOAL Significant historic properties as well as historic communities are appreciated and valued as important elements of the Port Towns’ cultural heritage. Restoration and adaptive use of historic properties and communities enhance the unique historic character of the area.

BACKGROUND Located on the Anacostia River close to the District of Columbia, the Port Towns area was the site of early and important settlement. As a result, the area includes a number of significant eighteenth and nineteenth century historic resources. In addition, the area experienced sustained development that extended well into the twentieth century with the suburbanization of the area that began in earnest at the turn of the twentieth century and continued until just after World War II. Within Cottage City, Colmar Manor, Edmonston, and Bladensburg there are a number of individual historic sites and historic resources included in the county’s 1992 Historic Sites and Districts Plan. In addition, portions of all four Port Towns communities include concentrations of historic resources and other documented historic properties that may meet historic district criteria either for local historic district designation under the Prince George’s County Historic Preservation Ordinance (Subtitle 29 of the Prince George’s County Code) or for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The National Register of Historic Places is the federal government’s list of the nation’s cultural resources that are significant at the national, state, or local level. Listing in the National Register is achieved through a federally legislated nomination process. Listing provides recognition and establishes a review process if federal or state funding or licensing would affect the property. Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Historic survey areas have been documented in Colmar Manor, Cottage City, Edmonston, and Bladensburg. In Colmar Manor and Cottage City, the survey areas focused on residential components of these communities as a unified entity. In Edmonston, two survey areas have been identified for their distinctly early twentieth century and mid-twentieth century residential character. In Bladensburg, separate survey areas include commercial and residential components. This chapter also includes maps of each community survey area with a brief description of the character of that area. The underlying concept of the county’s historic preservation program is that historic resources within communities help provide a “sense of place” and that preserving a community’s heritage involves a shared commitment from private property owners as well as the public sector. A number of the historic sites and historic resources in the plan area are owned by a municipal government or by M-NCPPC. These include: the Dueling Grounds (a historic site within an M-NCPPC-owned park in Colmar Manor), Spa Spring site (a historic resource owned by M-NCPPC in Edmonston), the Market Master’s House and Bostwick (historic sites owned by the Town of Bladensburg), Evergreen Cemetery (a historic resource owned by the Town of Bladensburg), and Peace Cross (a historic resource located within the intersection of Baltimore Avenue and Annapolis Road and owned by M-NCPPC). Although a number of these publicly owned sites, as well as privately owned ones like the George Washington House, the Hilleary-Magruder House, and St. Paul’s Baptist Church in Bladensburg, are geographically close to one another, pedestrian linkages among them require study in order to enhance interrelationships, accessibility, and visitation.

Other planning issues that should be addressed include Develop pedestrian linkages among identified historic sites to enhance interrelationships, the preservation and enhancement of community accessibility, and visitation. character through potential historic districts or conservation districts, façade improvement programs, Permanently commemorate and promote the and interpretive signage programs. The establishment significance of the role of the Port Towns area in of conservation districts may be an effective means of the War of 1812 and bicentennial celebrations of enhancing the architectural and character-defining these historic events. features of an area without the level of review associated with historic district designation.

Policy 1:

HISTORIC RESOURCES, HISTORIC SITES, DOCUMENTED PROPERTIES, AND SURVEY AREAS

Evaluate historic resources and historic survey areas for consideration as historic sites and historic districts.

Strategies:

Table 14 summarizes the status of historic properties documented by the M-NCPPC Planning Department. Support historic resource and historic community documentation as part of the update to the Historic Following the table, the accompanying community Sites and Districts Plan. description includes all identified historic sites and historic resources within each historic community in Consider whether portions of the Port Towns the Port Towns Sector Plan boundaries. It is expected communities merit designation as local historic that specific proposals regarding the evaluation and districts or conservation districts, or merit listing in designation of individual properties will be made the National Register of Historic Places based on through the update to the county’s Historic Sites and recently completed surveys of Colmar Manor, Districts Plan, initiated in November 2008. The Cottage City, Edmonston, and Bladensburg. discussion of interest in historic district proposals and conservation district proposals could begin during this Policy 2: sector plan process as well. Develop strategies to encourage the preservation and adaptive use of Bostwick Historic Site and its HISTORIC PRESERVATION environmental setting. OBJECTIVES Preserve and protect historic properties in the Port Strategies: Towns Sector Plan area. Recognize historic sites and their environmental Use the Hilleary-Magruder House and the George Washington House in Bladensburg as successful settings for their historical, archeological, and examples, for other historic sites in the Port Towns architectural significance to their communities. area, of adaptive use strategies that employ local, Identify and evaluate all historic resources, state, and federal tax incentives. documented properties, and community survey areas that meet the criteria of the Historic Encourage publicly accessible, community-based adaptive reuse of the property to enhance the Preservation Ordinance. visibility of the historic site as a local and regional Evaluate conservation district techniques for resource. potential use in these communities. Educate property owners about the history of their Policy 3: community and about appropriate maintenance, conservation, and rehabilitation of their properties. Enhance pedestrian linkages between the Port Towns communities and their historic resources to encourage Educate property owners, realtors, and others about visitation and the area’s desirability as a destination. available county, state, and federal tax credits and grant programs for rehabilitation and maintenance of historic property. 90

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Table 14: Identified Historic Resources, Historic Sites, Documented Properties, and Surveyed Areas within the Port Towns Sector Plan Area. Historic Properties By Location Colmar Manor 68-014 (Historic Site) 68-103 (Survey Area) Cottage City 68-020 (Historic Resource) 68-096 Edmonston 68-079 68-079-01(Documented Property) 68-102 (Survey Area) Bladensburg 69-001 (Historic Resource) 69-005 (Survey Area) 69-037 (Survey Area)

Property Name

Property Address

Dueling Grounds Colmar Manor Survey Area

37th Avenue

Rural Cottage at the Highlands/ Cottage City House Cottage City Survey Area

4203 Bunker Hill Road

Edmonston Survey Area Poppleton-Roberts House Edmonston Terrace Survey Area

69-005-02 (Historic Site/National Register)

Spa Spring Site Bladensburg Survey Area North Decatur Heights Survey Area Washington Suburban Homes Survey Area George Washington House

69-005-06 (Historic Site) 69-005-07 (Historic Site/National Register) 69-005-08 (Historic Site/National Register 69-005-09 (Historic Site/National Register) 69-005-16 (Historic Resource)

St. Paul’s Baptist Church Hilleary-Magruder House Market Master’s House Bostwick Peace Cross

69-010 (Historic Resource)

Evergreen Cemetery

69-036 (National Register)

Hilltop Manor Apartments

69-038 (Survey Area)

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

5104 Emerson Street

Tanglewood Drive

4302 Baltimore Avenue 4107 47th Street 4703 Annapolis Road 4006 48th Street 3901 48th Street 4500 block Annapolis Road 3600 block 52nd Avenue 5302 Annapolis Road

American forces, and marched south to the nation’s capital where they captured and burned much of the Develop interpretive signage, site-specific city.1 commemorations, and materials, such as walking tour brochures and web-based information sources, Colmar Manor is best known as the site of nineteenthfocused on local historic resources and historic century dueling grounds. The most famous duel that themes on an individual community basis, or on a took place there was between Commodore Stephen Decatur and James Barron. After a long-standing feud cross-community basis, as appropriate. between the two men, Barron challenged Decatur to a duel in 1820. Both men were wounded and Decatur Policy 4: died from his injuries. The site, now located in a small Implement the preservation goals and objectives of park near 37th Avenue and Bladensburg Road, served the Anacostia Trails Heritage Area (ATHA) Plan. as a dueling ground for at least 26 recorded fights between 1808 and 1868.2

Strategy:

Strategies:

The Martenet map of 1861 and the Hopkins map of 1878 Encourage all four Port Towns municipalities to document the limited development in the area that would distribute promotional materials on ATHA. become Colmar Manor.3 The Shreve house, constructed Evaluate the use of conservation districts to protect circa 1817, is believed to be the first house built in the community character in older historic communities. area and is noted on both mid-nineteenth-century maps. The Shreve farmhouse burned in the 1890s and is no longer extant.4 The area around Colmar Manor remained Policy 5: farm-land until the early twentieth century when part of the Explore partnerships and leveraging of resources to Shreve estate was platted and subdivided as Colmar maximize the potential of underutilized historic Manor. The name was derived from the “Col” in properties. Columbia and “Mar” from Maryland.5

Strategies: Promote county, state, and federal preservation tax credits for historic sites and National Register properties by regularly sending information about these programs to historic property owners. Encourage historic property owners to pursue financial support through mechanisms like the Prince George’s County Historic Property Grant Program.

COLMAR MANOR HISTORY The Town of Colmar Manor was established as a residential commuter suburb in the early years of the twentieth century. The town is located east of the boundary between Washington, D.C., and Prince George’s County and south of Bladensburg Road, east of Fort Lincoln Cemetery, and west of the Anacostia River. During the War of 1812 (1812-1815) the area now comprising portions of Colmar Manor was involved in a military clash between American and British forces. On August 24, 1814, during the Battle of Bladensburg, British troops quickly defeated the inexperienced 92

Colmar Manor consists of three subdivisions platted between 1918 and 1920. The first subdivision was

Alan Virta, Prince George’s County: A Pictorial History (Virginia Beach, VA: The Donning Company, 1991), 94-95.

Wanda Carr, “Town Seal of Colmar Manor Reflects History,” The Prince George’s Sentinel, 3 September 1992; “Dueling Creek: A Historical Look,” The Prince George’s Post, September 3-September 9, 1992.

Simon J. Martenet, “Atlas of Prince George’s County, Maryland, 1861, Adapted from Martenet’s Map of Prince George’s County, Maryland” (Baltimore: Simon J. Martenet C.E., 1861); G.M. Hopkins, “Atlas of Fifteen Miles Around Washington, Including the County of Prince George Maryland” (Philadelphia: G.M. Hopkins, C.E., 1878).

George Denny, Jr., Proud Past, Promising Future: Cities and Towns in Prince George’s County, Maryland (Brentwood, MD: George D. Denny, Jr., 1997), 130.

Denny, Proud Past, 131. Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

platted as Colmar Manor in 1918 by the J.W. Colmar Manor, 2005 Aerial = 2007 survey area Holloway Company.6 The Washington, D.C.-based = 2007 potential historic or conservation district development company boundary advertised lots for sale in Colmar Manor for only $59.7 That same year, the J.W. Holloway Company platted the First Addition to Colmar Manor and sold lots there for $59.8 Holloway advertised Colmar Manor as an attractive subdivision of Washington, D.C., which was “cramped for room Map 21: Colmar Manor and must expand.” Colmar Manor’s location municipal building and a new facility was constructed outside of the District of Columbia was “in the path of in 1959 to house the police department and administrative this expansion, half an hour from the center of the offices.12 In the 1950s, lots along Bladensburg Road city.” Prospective buyers were encouraged to visit were subdivided and rezoned to provide space for Colmar Manor by trolley car or by automobile, commercial development. As a result of a rapid decline demonstrating the easy commute between Washington, in the character of Colmar Manor in the 1960s, the U.S. D.C., and the new community.9 In 1920, the adjoining Department of Housing and Urban Development neighborhood of Lenox was platted, extending the authorized an urban renewal project that resulted in the grid pattern of Colmar Manor’s streets.10 The Town of community being awarded more than $8 million for Colmar Manor was incorporated in 1927 and in 1931 improvements and revitalization.13 In addition to the Lenox subdivision was added to the town.11 revitalizing the housing stock and redeveloping the After incorporation, the town continued to grow and commercial strip along Bladensburg Road, streets were residents soon appealed to the local government for improved, affordable housing was constructed, and the amenities. In the 1930s, the streets were paved, gutters Colmar Manor Park was established on the site of a were installed, and a school and a municipal building former landfill.14 were constructed. By the 1950s, the town outgrew its There is one historic site in Colmar Manor: 6

Prince George’s County Land Records, Circuit Court, Plat Book RNR 2:37.

“Lots for Sale,” The Washington Post, 7 February 1919.

Prince George’s County Land Records, Circuit Court, Plat Book RNR 2:41; “Warning!,” The Washington Post, 22 September 1918.

68-014, Dueling Grounds, 37th Avenue off Bladensburg Road There are currently no designated historic resources in Colmar Manor.

Denny, Proud Past, 131.

“Warning!,” The Washington Post, 22 September 1918.

Denny, Proud Past, 132.

Prince George’s County Land Records, Circuit Court, Plat Book RNR 2:54.

Denny, Proud Past, 131.

KCI Technologies, Inc., “Community Summary Sheet: Colmar Manor,” (October 1999), http://www.sha.state. md.us/keepingcurrent/maintainRoadsBridges/bridges/ oppe/suburbs/pg_co.pdf.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

smallest incorporated towns in Maryland.16 Cottage City is bounded by the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad A windshield survey of Colmar Manor was conducted on the northwest, the Anacostia River on the northeast, in November 2007. The survey area contains Bladensburg Road on the southeast, and 37th Avenue approximately 405 primary resources. The community on the southwest.17 contains a variety of buildings constructed from circa 1918 to the 1970s. Buildings in Colmar Manor reflect a Located near the Eastern Branch of the Anacostia variety of popular twentieth-century styles, including River, much of the area now comprising Cottage City Craftsman, Colonial Revival, Dutch Colonial Revival, was originally swamp land. In 1608, explorer John Tudor Revival, Spanish Colonial Revival, and styles Smith noted that the area was inhabited by Native from the Modern Movement. The majority of buildings Americans from the Anacostank tribe, who lived on are one-and-a-half-story bungalows with varying levels what is now called the Anacostia River.18 The first of Craftsman-style detailing. Other forms include ranch settlement in “Yarrow,” as the area around Cottage City houses, split-levels, split-foyers and other small was originally known, was established by 1697.19 During rectangular-shaped dwellings. An apartment building the early eighteenth century, a water-powered grist mill dating from the late 1930s is located at 4209 Newark was constructed in the vicinity. Moyer’s Mill (later Road and is the only multifamily dwelling in the known as Carleton’s Mill), located on property that is now community. The topography of the neighborhood is flat, bounded by Bunker Hill Road and 43rd Avenue, was the and houses are set back slightly from the road. A strip of first mill constructed in this part of Maryland.20 The mill non-historic commercial development is located along operated until the late nineteenth century and stood until its Bladensburg Road. Other building uses include demolition in the 1950s as part of the Anacostia flood religious and educational. The only public building in control project. Two of the millstones still remain as part of Colmar Manor serves as the administrative offices of the sidewalk on the 3700 block of 42nd Avenue.21 the town. However, in the immediate future, the town Cottage City was the site of military activity during plans to demolish this building and construct a new two wars. In August 1814, the Battle of Bladensburg municipal center that will house a “gymnasium, inside during the War of 1812 was fought in part at the site. track, game room, day care services, multipurpose room with a stage and room for 200 people (more than doubling current capacity), outdoor terrace, full kitchen, 16 Town of Cottage City, “Town of Cottage City Maryland: meeting space for seniors and youth outreach programs, Information Handbook” (no date), unpublished, located tutoring workspace and a computer lab.”15 in the files at M-NCPPC, Prince George’s County

Community Character in Colmar Manor

Map 21 illustrates the area surveyed and proposed boundaries for a potential historic or conservation district, should the community decide to pursue one of these options to enhance and safeguard community character.

Historic Preservation & Public Facilities, Planning Section, 1.

“Cottage City: Don’t Make Little of This Town,” Prince George’s Extra, 23 June 1999

Christian F. Feest, “Nanticoke and Neighboring Tribes,” in Handbook of North American Indians, ed. Bruce G. Trigger (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1978), 241.

COTTAGE CITY HISTORY Cottage City was established as a late-nineteenthcentury railroad suburb originally known as The Highlands. Incorporated in 1924, Cottage City, located between the City of Mount Rainier and the Town of Bladensburg near the US 1 corridor, is one of the

George Denny, Jr., Proud Past, Promising Future: Cities and Towns in Prince George’s County, Maryland (Brentwood, MD: George D. Denny, Jr., 1997), 135.

Town of Cottage City, “Town of Cottage City Maryland: Information Handbook,” 1.

“Lt. Governor Steele to Present Community Legacy Award in Bladensburg,” http://www.dhcd.state.md.us/ Website/NewsEvents/news/20050401.aspx, accessed 4 January 2008.

Bicentennial Committee, “A History of the Town of Cottage City, Maryland” (Cottage City, MD: Bicentennial Committee, May 1976), 3. Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Almost five decades later, during the Civil War (1861-1865), Camp Casey was established on farmland outside of Bladensburg in present-day Cottage City.22 The Martenet map of 1861 depicts little development in the area. The rural landscape contained a few dwellings, Carleton’s grist mill, and a tollgate at the intersection of Bladensburg Road and Georgetown Pike.23 Cottage City was originally platted in 1870 as a railroad suburb known as the “City of the Highlands” by a group of Washington, D.C., developers. The community was advertised as “Overlooking Bladensburg and Hyattsville on the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad…the future of suburban places about Washington!” Developers planned to build “cottages, villas, and dwellings,” using designs that were reminiscent of Andrew Jackson Downing’s Cottage Residences (1842).24 Despite the attractiveness of the well-planned community, the subdivision failed because there was inadequate public transportation. In 1878, the Hopkins map documents limited growth in Cottage City. The most notable change is the addition of the Highland train station. A few new dwellings constructed between 1861 and 1878 appear on the map.25 From 1886 to 1888, Colonel Gilbert Moyer began amassing land by purchasing

Cottage City, 2005 Aerial = 2007 survey area = 2007 potential historic or conservation district boundary

Map 22: Cottage City

farmland and tracts of land in the failed Highlands subdivision. In 1888, Moyer established the Highland Company and replatted the community. Moyer reconfigured the layout of the subdivision and divided many of the parcels into smaller-sized lots.26

After the economic depression of the early 1890s, the streetcar system expanded, encouraging suburban development in the greater Washington, D.C., area. In 1897, the Maryland and Washington Railway opened a line that ended at Mount Rainier.27 By 1912, the streetcar line was extended to Berwyn Heights.28 With the construction 22 Alan Virta, Prince George’s County: A Pictorial History of the streetcar system in Prince George’s County, small communities such as Cottage City, Brentwood, and Mount (Virginia Beach, VA: The Donning Company, 1991), 124. Rainier grew into active commuter suburbs. Simon J. Martenet, “Atlas of Prince George’s County, Maryland, 1861, Adapted from Martenet’s Map of Prince George’s County, Maryland” (Baltimore: Simon J. Martenet C.E., 1861).

“City of the Highlands, Prince George [sic] County, Maryland” (Washington, D.C.: 1870), located at Prince George’s County Planning Department, Historic Preservation Section, Cottage City at The Highlands File.

G.M. Hopkins, “Atlas of Fifteen Miles Around Washington, Including the County of Prince George Maryland” (Philadelphia: G.M. Hopkins, C.E., 1878).

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Virta, Prince George’s County: A Pictorial History, 192.

Bicentennial Committee, “A History of the Town of Cottage City, Maryland,” 28. 95

By 1914, the Highlands property was subdivided a third time and platted as Cottage City.29 Beginning in World War I (1914–1918), Charles M. Lightbown began constructing one-story “cottages” in Cottage City. These bungalows were primarily located on Bladensburg Road and 41st Avenue.30 By 1938, the majority of lots in the neighborhood were improved, most with modest bungalows. Today, Cottage City remains a middle-class commuter suburb in Prince George’s County.

Map 22 illustrates the area surveyed and proposes boundaries for a potential historic or conservation district, should the community decide to pursue one of these options to enhance and safeguard community character.

EDMONSTON HISTORY

The incorporated Town of Edmonston was established in the late nineteenth century as a commuter suburb There are no historic sites in Cottage City. There is located just northeast of the boundary between the District of Columbia and Prince George’s County. The one historic resource in the Cottage City area: community is bounded by the Town of Riverdale Park 68-020 on the north and east, the Town of Bladensburg on the The Rural Cottage at the Highlands south, and the City of Hyattsville on the west. 4203 Bunker Hill Road Edmonston is bisected by the Anacostia River and the Anacostia River Park.

Community Character in Cottage City

A windshield survey of Cottage City was conducted in November 2007. The survey area includes approximately 341 primary resources. The community contains a variety of buildings constructed from circa 1914 to the 1980s. Buildings in Cottage City reflect a variety of popular twentieth-century styles including Craftsman, Spanish Revival, and Modern Movement. The majority of buildings (approximately 90 percent) are one-and-ahalf-story bungalows with varying levels of Craftsmanstyle detailing. Another common building type in Cottage City is the one-story, flat-roofed Spanish Revival-style dwelling. These buildings are typically clad in stucco and have small porticos or entry porches topped by a shed roof covered with regularly laid Spanish tiles. The dwellings often feature arched openings, typical of the Spanish Revival style. Other less frequent forms include examples of ranch houses and other small side-gabled dwellings. The topography of the neighborhood is flat and houses have only small setbacks from the street. A strip of commercial development is located along Bladensburg Road. Many of these buildings are dwellings that have been adapted for commercial use. The single public building in Cottage City houses municipal administrative offices and the police department and was constructed in 1987.

Prince George’s County Land Records, Circuit Court, Plat Book BDS 1:10.

Edmonston, originally known as “East Hyattsville,” is one of many communities established outside of Washington, D.C., in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries as a commuter suburb. Early maps, such as the Martenet map of 1861 and the Hopkins’ 1878 map show little development in the Edmonston area, but they do show the developing community of Hyattsville to the west. The establishment and subsequent development of Edmonston followed that of neighboring Hyattsville, Riverdale Park, College Park, Brentwood, and Mount Rainier, the first of which began to develop in 1873. The extension of the City and Suburban Railway Company between 1899 and 1902 allowed people to move from the District of Columbia to these communities and travel to work by streetcar. Building upon the growth and development of Hyattsville, two local men began to purchase and subdivide land located east of Hyattsville, in what would soon become Edmonston.31 Edmonston was originally platted in 1903 as two subdivisions: East Hyattsville and Palestine. Several houses in Edmonston pre-date the subdivisions and were constructed in 1899 by Elisha P. Taylor. East Hyattsville was platted on approximately 70 acres of land by J. Harris Rogers of Hyattsville. The plat included 170 lots, each approximately 50 by 200 feet, resulting in very long, narrow lots. The smaller subdivision, Palestine, was platted by Dr. Charles A.

Town of Cottage City, “Town of Cottage City Maryland: Information Handbook,” 31.

The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC), Edmonston Historical Survey (Upper Marlboro: M-NCPPC, 1993), 4. Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Wells as part of his dairy, Palestine Farm. Twenty-five acres of this land was subdivided into 62 lots, each approximately 75 by 175 feet. Wells constructed approximately five houses for sale; the remainder of the lots were sold unimproved.32

incorporated as Edmonston.35 It is believed that the community was named for Captain James Edmonston of Bladensburg, who in 1742 purchased 60 acres of land near what is now Edmonston.36 Edmonston Road, named for the same family, was also an early north/ 37 The community was home to a working middle-class south route that ran between Bladensburg and Vansville. population, many of whom were employed by the Soon after the town’s incorporation, Robert Funkhouser, U.S. government as clerks, working for the a developer of Mount Rainier, purchased several large Departments of War, Treasury, and the Internal lots south of Decatur Street (formerly Wells Avenue) Revenue Service, the Printing and Engraving office, where he subdivided the land into approximately 40 the Post Office, and the Department of Agriculture. lots, each averaging 40 by 90 feet. Beginning in 1925, Still other early residents were employed by the local Funkhouser built bungalows on each lot and quickly railroads and served as engineers, telegraphers, and sold them. These bungalows were typically one-and-amotormen. Edmonston was also home to many who half stories in height with side-gabled roofs and a fullworked in the construction and building trades.33 width shed roof porch.38 As the East Hyattsville community grew, residents desired to incorporate their community in order to 35 Maryland State Archives, “Prince George’s County, provide better services. By 1920, over 103 families Maryland, Municipalities, Edmonston,” http://www. resided in 98 dwellings in the small but growing msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/37mun/edmonston/html/e. community.34 In 1924, the town was officially html accessed 7 November 2007. George D. Denny, Jr., Proud Past, Promising Future: Cities and Towns in Prince George’s County, Maryland (Brentwood, MD: Dilden Company, 1997), 159.

M-NCPPC, Edmonston Historical Survey, 7-9.

M-NCPPC, Edmonston Historical Survey, 42.

M-NCPPC, Edmonston Historical Survey, 43.

2007 survey area

2007 potential historic or conservation district boundary for Edmonston

2007 potential historic or conservation district boundary for Edmonston Terrace

Map 23: Edmonston Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

In the 1930s, development slowed in the community due to the Depression and did not actively begin again until after World War II (1941-1945), with the subdivision of Edmonston Terrace.39 Platted in 1945 by Master Builders, Inc., the nine-acre subdivision consisted of 41 lots bounded on the north by the south side of Ingraham Street, Lafayette Place on the east, Gallatin Street on the south, and 46th Avenue on the west.40 Master Builders constructed nearly identical two-story, side-gabled, brick houses on all 41 lots. The houses were marketed directly to veterans returning from the war, and featured a kitchen, living room, and dining room on the first story, and two bedrooms and one bathroom on the second story.41 With the addition of Edmonston Terrace, the population of Edmonston grew from 717 in 1930 to 1,190 in 1950.42 Today, the population of the community is approximately 1,000 residents.43 There are currently no designated historic sites or historic resources in Edmonston. However, on September 7, 2008, a historic marker was placed to commemorate Mount Rose—a community established by freed Riversdale plantation slaves, Adam and Emily Plummer, on ten acres of land that later became a part of Edmonston.44

community was previously surveyed by Prince George’s County Planning Department staff in 1992– 1993. Little has changed in Edmonston since the 1993 survey. Edmonston remains a small commuter suburb, located west of Kenilworth Avenue and east of Baltimore Avenue/Rhode Island Avenue. Buildings in Edmonston represent primarily residential use, with a few dwellings rehabilitated for commercial use along Decatur Street, and several public buildings including the Town Hall and recreation center. Buildings range in age from the late nineteenth century to the 1970s, with the majority dating from the 1890s to 1947. There is little modern infill within the community, but many buildings have been altered by additions. Building forms represented include I-houses, front-gabled structures, L-shaped plans, American Foursquares, bungalows, “minimal traditional,” and the ranch house. Architectural styles represented include vernacular interpretations of popular styles such as Queen Anne, Colonial Revival, and Craftsman, as well as the Modern Movement. There are many secondary resources in the community including garages and sheds. The topography of Edmonston is relatively flat with most houses having flat or slightly sloping lots. Houses are typically set close to the road.

Map 23 illustrates the area surveyed and proposes boundaries for a potential historic or conservation Edmonston Community Character district, should the community decide to pursue one of A windshield survey of Edmonston was conducted in these options to enhance and safeguard community November 2007. The survey area consists of character. approximately 312 primary resources. At the request of the Edmonston Town Council, the Edmonston

BLADENSBURG HISTORY

Located in western Prince George’s County, the town of Bladensburg was established in 1742 by an act 39 M-NCPPC, Edmonston Historical Survey, 50. passed by the General Assembly, establishing a town near Garrison’s Landing on the Eastern Branch, as the 40 Prince George’s County Land Records, Circuit Court, Anacostia River was then known. Originally called Plat Book BB 10:25. “Bladensburgh,” the town was named after colonial 41 “New Homes in Edmonston Terrace,” The Washington governor Thomas Bladen. The General Assembly Post, 8 June 1947. required that the town be divided into 60 lots that were to be improved within 18 months by a “tenantable 42 M-NCPPC, Edmonston Historical Survey, 50. House, with one Brick or Stone Chimney…that shall cover four Hundred square Feet of Ground” [sic]. 45 43 Maryland State Archives, “Prince George’s County, Maryland, Municipalities, Edmonston,” http://www. msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/37mun/edmonston/html/e. html accessed 7 November 2007.

Edmonston News—From the Mayor’s Desk, September 2008

Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly, 17401744, Volume 42, 413-415.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

In 1747, Bladensburg was designated as an inspection site for tobacco in Prince George’s County. In order to protect the quality of tobacco being shipped to England, all tobacco grown in Maryland had to pass through inspections sites at Nottingham, Piscataway, Upper Marlboro, or Bladensburg before it was allowed to be publicly sold.46 By 1776, Bladensburg exported more tobacco than any other Maryland port on the western shore of the Chesapeake. By the late eighteenth century, Bladensburg supported a shipyard, tannery, waterfront wharves, taverns, stores, and dwellings.47

cartographer who was traveling with General Rochambeau’s Army. The map shows a small but well-developed town on the banks of the river.50 During the War of 1812, Bladensburg was the site of a decisive battle. In August 1814, British troops traversed Prince George’s County to Bladensburg where they planned to cross the Anacostia River and enter the District of Columbia. The British quickly defeated the inexperienced American militia, and marched south to Washington, D.C., where they captured and burned the nation’s capital.51

The eighteenth-century seaport of Bladensburg has been greatly altered; however, several early buildings remain, including four structures pre-dating the American Revolution (1775-1783).48 The earliest extant building is Bostwick, a Georgian-style building constructed in 1746 by Christopher Lowndes. Lowndes also constructed the Market Master’s House in 1765, which served as the home for the port’s manager. The Hilleary-Magruder House was erected by William Hilleary between 1742 and 1746 and was visited by George Washington in 1787. The George Washington House was constructed as a store in 1760 and was part of a commercial complex that originally included a tavern and blacksmith shop.49

Despite the ultimate British success against Washington, Commodore Joshua Barney executed a defense strategy against the British using local vessels suited for operating in shoals and flats and, perhaps more importantly, manned by local people, which included slaves, free black sailors, and white sailors who were familiar with the waters and the surrounding terrain. Barney’s flotilla sustained a threat to the British that was out of proportion to its size and the British were stymied until their main force arrived from Bermuda. Only when Barney’s flotilla had been destroyed did the British march on Washington. The feeble defense of Washington in no way matched Barney’s foresighted and brave efforts on the rivers or the fight put up by him and his men on the field at Although there was little military activity in Prince Bladensburg.52 George’s County during the American Revolution, Bladensburg was documented in 1782 by a French By the mid-nineteenth century, the town of Bladensburg evolved from a bustling port to a small town that included several churches, shops, and historic dwellings. 46 Marina King, “The Tobacco Industry in Prince George’s As the Anacostia River silted up, the river became County, 1680-1940,” in Historic Contexts in Prince unnavigable for larger ships carrying tobacco and George’s County: Short Papers on Settlement Patterns, supplies. As trade and shipping in Bladensburg and Transportation and Cultural History (Upper Marlboro, other small ports decreased, Baltimore was growing as MD: Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning a port because of its accessibility to more farmers, Commission, 1991), 69-71. merchants, and larger ships. The last commercial vessel 47 Susan G. Pearl, Prince George’s County African- left Bladensburg in 1843, loaded with 60 hogsheads of American Heritage Survey, 1996 (Upper Marlboro, tobacco. When the Baltimore and Ohio (B&O) Railroad MD: Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, 1996), 37.

Alan Virta, Prince George’s County: A Pictorial History (Virginia Beach, VA: The Donning Company/ Publishers, 1984, 1991), 80-81.

Michael F. Dwyer, “Bladensburg Survey District” Maryland Historic Trust Inventory Form for State Historic Sites Survey (March 1973), 7:1.

The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission. Illustrated Inventory of Historic Sites, Prince George’s County, Maryland (Upper Marlboro: M-NCPPC, 2006), 69.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Vita, Prince George’s County: 94-95. Riverine Warfare: The U.S. Navy’s Operations on Inland Waters, Navy Department Library, Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C.

was constructed in 1835, the railroad bypassed County offered a lower cost of living and a convenient Bladensburg, effectively cutting off the town as a mid- location near the District of Columbia. The Washington, nineteenth century commercial center.53 Spa Spring, and Gretta Railroad served Bladensburg from 1910 through the early 1920s. The line started on The Martenet map of 1861 documents a small but selfFifteenth and H Streets, NE, in Washington, D.C., sufficient town. A variety of amenities were available stopped at Bladensburg, and then followed Edmonston for Bladensburg residents, including several general Road to East Riverdale and Berwyn Heights.57 From the stores, a blacksmith shop, shoe maker, cabinet maker, early twentieth century through the mid-twentieth doctor’s office, schoolhouse, and several churches, century, several subdivisions were platted on the representing Methodist, Presbyterian, and Episcopalian northeastern edges of the historic town. Notable among congregations. Two mills were located outside of the these were North Decatur Heights (1925), Washington town, one to the east and one to the west. The Female Suburban Homes (1942), and Decatur Heights (1947). Academy and Spa Spring were both located north of Bladensburg.54 Bladensburg has remained an active suburban community in Prince George’s County since the early The construction of the Alexandria Branch of the twentieth century. Although the town has undergone B&O Railroad in the 1870s spurred development in many changes, it retains a number of historic buildings Bladensburg. By 1878, the Hopkins map shows that recall the town’s character and importance from growth in the town directly related to the expansion of the colonial era to the first half of the twentieth century. the rail line. In support of this growing industry, two hotels and several new stores were constructed. The Historic sites in Bladensburg include: northern and eastern portions of the town experienced 69-005-02, George Washington House (NR), 4302 the most growth, as the town expanded closer to Baltimore Avenue neighboring communities such as Hyattsville. Many new dwellings, outbuildings, and commercial 69-005-06, St. Paul’s Baptist Church, 4107 47th Street buildings were constructed between 1861 and 1878. Three new churches appear on the map: the African 69-005-07, Hilleary-Magruder House (NR), 4703 Methodist Episcopalian, St. Paul’s Second Baptist, Annapolis Road and St. Luke’s Catholic Church. The town boasted a much larger public school and Bladensburg Academy, 69-005-08, Market Master’s House (NR), 4006 48th Street a private school.55 Although not noted on the map, a

Freedmen’s Bureau school was established in 69-005-9, Bostwick (NR), 3901 48th Street Bladensburg in 1866, and a schoolhouse for AfricanThere are three historic resources in Bladensburg: American students was constructed in 1867.56 In the early twentieth century, the expansion of the 69-001, Spa Spring Site, Tanglewood Drive

streetcar system connected Bladensburg and other 69-005-10, Evergreen Cemetery, 52nd Avenue communities to Washington, D.C., Prince George’s south of Newton Street Pearl, African-American Heritage Survey, 37.

69-005-16, Peace Cross, 4500 block of Annapolis Road There is one property in Bladensburg individually

Simon J. Martenet, “Atlas of Prince George’s County, listed in the National Register of Historic Places: Maryland, 1861, Adapted from Martenet’s Map of Prince George’s County, Maryland” (Baltimore: Simon 69-36, Hilltop Manor (NR), 4100-4112, 4200-4214 53rd Ave, 4100-4210 53rd Place, and 5300-5304 J. Martenet C.E., 1861).

G.M. Hopkins, “Atlas of Fifteen Miles Around Washington, Including the County of Prince George Maryland” (Philadelphia: G.M. Hopkins, C.E., 1878).

Annapolis Road

Virta, Prince George’s County, 205.

Pearl, African-American Heritage Survey, 37.

100

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Community Character in Bladensburg A windshield survey of the residential areas of Bladensburg was conducted in February 2008. This area includes the original subdivisions of Linwood (1911), Decatur Heights (1915), Whiteley (1919), North Decatur Heights (1925), Section 4 of Decatur Heights (1927), Washington Suburban Homes (1946), and Decatur Heights, Addition A (1947). The survey area consists of approximately 729 primary resources. The 2008 windshield survey focused on the residential areas of Bladensburg north and east of the original Bladensburg survey area. Bladensburg is a bustling community, bisected by Annapolis Road and Kenilworth Avenue. Commercial resources are largely concentrated along these major streets. Buildings in Bladensburg represent a variety of uses including residential, commercial, industrial, religious, and educational. Public buildings include the Town Hall (4229 Edmonston Road) and the Bladensburg Community Center (4500 57th Avenue). Buildings in the residential areas of Bladensburg date from the early twentieth century through the 1970s. Building forms represented include the American Foursquare, the bungalow, Cape Cod, “minimal traditional,” and the ranch house. Architectural styles present include various interpretations of the Colonial Revival, Craftsman, and illustrations from the Modern Movement. There are many secondary resources in the community, including garages and sheds. The topography of Bladensburg is relatively flat with most houses having flat or slightly sloping lots. Houses are typically set close to the road. The subdivisions of Linwood, Decatur Heights, Whiteley, North Decatur Heights, Section 4 of Decatur Heights, Washington Suburban Homes, and Addition A of Decatur Heights, comprise the larger historic residential communities of Bladensburg. Several of these subdivisions in Bladensburg illustrate the evolution of architectural styles and suburban development in Prince George’s County in the first half of the twentieth century. The most intact concentrations of early and mid-twentieth century houses are found in North Decatur Heights and Washington Suburban Homes. Individually, these two subdivisions represent distinct, cohesive, and unified communities with limited infill and intact boundaries.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

In 1925, North Decatur Heights was platted by members of the Gasch family.58 The 30 lots of the subdivision were located east of Edmonston Road, along what is now Taylor Street. The lots were irregularly shaped and ranged in size. That same year, the parcels were improved by a number of Craftsmanstyle bungalows. Advertised in the The Washington Post, the houses were described as “Charming 7 Room and Bath Bungalows At $6,100 And Several More Equally Delightful 5 Room and Bath Bungalows At $5,700.” The houses were constructed by Gasch & Gasch, Builders with modern amenities that included water, sewer, gas, and electricity. The modest houses were described as “painstakingly built under the immediate supervision of the owners.” The ad touted the location of the subdivision, convenient to Edmonston Road, the “newly-concreted state highway” and at the “terminus of the Bladensburg Bus Line, within a block of the new Defense Highway to Annapolis, and only a few squares from the Baltimore-Washington Boulevard.”59 In 1927, members of the Gasch family platted Section 4 of Decatur Heights.60 The subdivision is located on the west side of Edmonston Road, across the street from North Decatur Heights. The subdivision consists of nine lots, slightly larger than the original lots in North Decatur Heights. These lots were improved by the same bungalows that were located in North Decatur Heights. All of the one-and-a-half-story bungalows are virtually identical, with the only variation appearing to be either a front-gabled dormer or a jerkinhead dormer piercing the roof. Typical of the style, the houses all have low-pitched, side-gabled roofs that extend to shelter a full-width porch on the façade. The porches have rock-faced concrete-block piers topped by Craftsman-style wood posts. The exterior-end chimneys are all constructed of rockfaced concrete blocks. The dormers all have exposed rafter ends and originally contained paired doublehung, wood-sash windows.

Prince George’s County Land Records, Circuit Court, Plat Book SDH 3:15.

Display Ad, The Washington Post, 10 July 1925.

Prince George’s County Land Records, Circuit Court, Plat Book SDH 3:56.

101

Bladensburg, 2007 Aerial =

2008 survey area

2008 recommended HD boundary for North Decatur Heights and Section 4, Decatur Heights

2008 recommended HD boundary for Washington Suburban Homes

Map 24: Bladensburg

Washington Suburban Homes was platted in 1942 by the Graham Development Company.61 The plat consisted of eight blocks that contained approximately 204 lots on the north side of Annapolis Road. Lots were of varying sizes, but averaged 50 feet wide and 100 feet deep on long curvilinear blocks. The lots were improved by modest one-and-a-half-story Colonial Revival-style Cape Cod houses. The woodframe houses were three bays wide and two bays deep with a central entry. They were topped by a sidegabled roof that was typically pierced by two frontgabled dormers. Many houses were constructed with either a one-story, one-bay porch or a projecting, front-gabled bay on the façade. In 1946, B&G Development Company platted section two of the

Prince George’s County Land Records, Circuit Court, Plat Book BB 9:78.

102

Washington Suburban Homes subdivision.62 These lots were located northeast of the original subdivision. B&G Development also constructed Cape Cod houses, but they reflected the influence of the popular Modern Movement. The masonry houses were slightly larger in scale. The developer continued with the consistent lot size and street pattern established by the Graham Development Company in the earlier subdivision. Map 24 illustrates the area surveyed and proposes boundaries for potential historic or conservation districts, should the community decide to pursue one of these options to enhance and safeguard community character.

Prince George’s County Land Records, Circuit Court, Plat Book BB 10:74 and BB 12:22.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

COMMUNITY HEALTH AND WELLNESS GOAL

OBJECTIVES

Using sustainable design and development practices Consider community health and wellness as land that contribute to a healthy environment and thus benefit use policies are developed and implemented. the overall health and wellness of its residents. Residents Establish the public infrastructure system so that and visitors to the Port Towns have access to healthy parks, restaurants, shops, schools, libraries, and foods, reliable transportation, safe places to walk and other community resources are conveniently exercise, entertainment and recreational venues, located and physically accessible. employment opportunities, and housing options that Ensure the transportation network is multimodal promote healthy choices. and sustainable.

BACKGROUND

The Port Towns currently lack the type of compact development, pedestrian connectivity, variety of land uses, housing options, recreational opportunities, and environmental enhancements that support the heath and well-being of residents and visitors. County residents have expressed that, beyond access to highquality and affordable health care services, a community environment that fosters health and disease prevention should be a priority consideration for land use policies. This includes access to healthy foods, reliable transportation, safe places to walk and exercise, and employment and housing options that help individuals to make healthy choices. Notably, the Consumer Health Foundation, the principal private foundation concerned about health access for poor and vulnerable populations in the Washington metropolitan area, recently conducted a series of community health speakouts, out of which came the concept of wellness opportunity districts. These districts would be designated neighborhoods where incentives and policies would be provided, consistent with the smart growth philosophy, to support health and wellness within the community.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Make quality, affordable housing available in the town center. Encourage local living wage jobs and business ownership.

Policy 1: The Port Towns are a designated wellness opportunity district where land uses permitted in the Port Towns will be developed in a way that benefit the overall health and wellness of the community.

Strategy: Fast food establishments with drive-through windows are not allowed and fast food establishments without drive-through windows are encouraged to provide healthy choice offerings such as fresh fruit, vegetables, salads, etc., as their lowest priced menu items. Establish a healthy balance of liquor stores or other retailers that sell alcohol and tobacco for off-site consumption, in conformance with national best practices and, where applicable and available, introduce evidence-based approaches.

103

Healthy food options should be offered in school vending machines, inclusing: cafeteria menus, and Since the Port Towns Sector Plan area is a targeted school activity locations, (e.g., snack stands at wellness district, public schools should provide an athletic events). array of activities and choices that promote the overall health and wellness of the community.

Policy 2:

Policy 3:

Initiate a health and wellness program for the Port Increase the required number of physical education Towns Center. hours for all grade levels as a way of improving Strategies physical health. Work with Prince George’s County Board of Designate the Port Towns Center a wellness opportunity district in which incentives and Education to pursue joint use agreements to share policies would be provided, in a manner similar to indoor and outdoor facilities with schools, Maryland Smart Growth policies, to support and especially in neighborhoods that suffer a encourage health and wellness in the area. disproportionate lack of recreational and

Strategies:

community facilities.

Undertake a health impact assessment to provide unbiased information about anticipated health benefits and costs of proposed development activities for the town center area and apply the results to urban design and transportation policies.

Encourage school facility siting that establishes schools as focal points within the neighborhood that are designed utilizing Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CEPTED) principles and provide safe pedestrian and bicycle Establish health and wellness objectives and a set access. of measures and targets to gauge the progress in achieving the objectives. Work with and encourage the Prince George’s

County Board of Education to offer locally grown Make available grants or loans to support the foods in the school breakfast and lunch programs implementation of initiatives to benefit the health and to allow schools to host farmers’ markets on and wellness of the residents. weekends or after school hours. Provide incentives for developers to do health Volunteer research internship opportunities that impact assessments and provide health and will train students in the area of medical research wellness amenities as a part of development should be funded to support the Biomedical process. Sciences Program of Bladensburg High School. Develop a public education and community Transportation to and from research internships at participation process to ensure involvement in various scientific institutes in which the students making decisions that impact the health and in the program participate should be funded to wellness of its members. support the Biomedical Sciences Program of Promote walking and biking by emphasizing resources Bladensburg High School. for pedestrians and cyclists instead of automobiles, Physical education, art and music curriculums including bicycle parking, bicycle storage units, benches, should be provided as mechanisms to relieve stress, tables, and drinking fountains. elevate grades, and develop self esteem. Provide incentives for developers to include Leadership mentoring programs such as the Port shower and changing facilities for those who Towns Youth Council should be funded and commute to work on bicycles. expanded to cultivate a next generation of Encourage car share programs to establish outlets community leaders. in the town center.

104

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Integrate walking and biking into the assessment of Strategies: motor vehicle and mass transit transportation Encourage the ongoing participation of individuals, policies. organizations, and businesses in supporting Develop economic incentives to support a diverse community health and the planning process. mix of uses, affordable housing, and employment Review of new development and infill development at livable wages at and around the town center. proposals should be coordinated through pertinent Require that development proposals demonstrate county agencies and parties of record for a health their ability to provide a ready access to a variety and wellness focus such as the Health Department, of community resources, such as grocery stores, the Anacostia Watershed Society, the Port Towns parks, housing, and employment opportunities. Youth Council, the Port Towns Community Health Partnership, Mid-Atlantic Public Health Institute. Encourage development that supports a healthy economy that provides a variety of living wage jobs.

New development and infill development proposals should require a health impact assessment (HIA). Maintain land zoned for light industrial, production, http://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/hia.htm. and distribution uses in and around the town center to provide employment opportunities. Referral comments from the Public Facilities Section of the Planning Department will include Explore the option of providing density bonuses and/or coordinate HIA comments and health and for affordable housing in the town center. wellness comments of pertinent agencies and departments. Policy 4: Work collaboratively with the community to develop The Port Towns communities and the PTCHP should assist in the development of the emerging and achieve the Port Towns plan’s vision for a healthy Mid-Atlantic Public Health Institute or a similar community as articulated in the sector plan by organization and engage the Institute for review providing opportunities for participation of community and comment as development proposals are residents in the planning process. considered.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

105

106

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

FUNDAMENTAL URBAN DESIGN PRINCIPLES PEDESTRIAN-ORIENTED DESIGN

PLACE MAKING

Pedestrian-oriented design focuses attention on details that create places where people enjoy walking. The proximity of residential and civic/commercial neighborhoods; building placement on the lot; completeness and interconnectedness of sidewalks, crosswalks, supplementary paths, public transportation, and parking facilities; human-scale architecture; and the provision of comfort elements bring people onto the sidewalk and into the shops, libraries, parks, and playgrounds. The increased pedestrian traffic improves business opportunities and reduces the potential for illegitimate uses.

“Place making” means creating a sense of place. Identifiable neighborhoods are those that people enjoy living in, visiting, caring for, and protecting. People enjoy places with harmonious views, gathering places, identifiable elements, or natural beauty.

Great places are not sterile environments but are lived in, with visible evidence of those who live, work, study, and play in the area. Place making consists of gateway features, unique architecture, views, and focal points, but also requires the human elements that individuals, groups, and businesses bring to the area through participation in beautification, events, and Compact neighborhoods encourage a healthy and everyday activities. The following methods will neighborly lifestyle by enabling walking and casual contribute to developing a sense of place in the town interactions with other residents. Tree-lined streets, center. flower beds, benches, fountains, and other amenities Create lively commercial centers through a pattern welcome and delight pedestrians. of mixed-use development. Produce a street wall In mixed-use areas, the street wall formed by of continuous storefronts with retail, services, and adjoining buildings creates a sense of enclosure restaurants on the ground floor and residential, giving users the intuitive understanding of the office, and selected businesses on the upper stories. limits and boundaries of the area within eyesight Use human-scale and context-sensitive design to and increasing their security. encourage pedestrian use and longer visits. Eye-level detail such as stoops, decorative railings, storefront windows, interior and exterior lighting, Develop safe and attractive public areas to invite a variety of users and contribute to the identity and cornices, signs, and banners create a human-scale 24-hour character of town centers and major architecture that is inviting to pedestrians. corridors. The presence of windows gives users confidence

that the street and public spaces have built-in Increase the comfort of pedestrian, bicycle, and surveillance. public transportation users by providing appropriate amenities such as street furniture, decorative Sufficient sidewalk width, shade, and attractive paving, and lighting. surroundings invite pedestrians and ensure them that the place is cared for and valued. Benches and water fountains give people respite and make visitors feel welcome. Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

107

CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN (CPTED)

notice the amenity, find it convenient to use, and feel safe using it (natural surveillance). Special programming, such as arts festivals, block parties, farmers markets, and clean-up days bring people together in parks and streets and allow them to get to know each other. Legitimate public activity displaces or precludes illegitimate users and increases both natural surveillance and sense of ownership.

CPTED focuses on creating safe and comfortable areas for residents and visitors that are also unattractive to criminals. CPTED recognizes that criminals are adept at assessing risks to their enterprise. CPTED principles help design areas that appear risky to criminals for illegal activity. The CPTED tenets are territoriality, natural surveillance, activity programming, and access control. These design principles, applied in a comprehensive Access control places commercial and residential entrances and exits in plain public view, such as on manner, deter criminals from using public areas for the public sidewalk or from a visually unobstructed illegitimate activities and increase everyone else’s plaza. Multifamily development entrances are comfort and safety. restricted to two options: entrances that are Territoriality has two emphases and is based on the controlled by a concierge, or reduction of the number principle that most people will protect their own of units per entrance so residents recognize strangers territory and respect the territory of others. The who do not belong in the building. Traffic-calming first emphasis is using a low wall or fence to clearly measures change the perception that streets provide delineate the line between public areas, such as fast getaway routes and reduce the number of people sidewalks, and private areas and yards associated who use adjacent streets as criminal activity centers. with residences. Also important is the maintenance These changes in design, applied in a comprehensive of private and public property. Well-maintained, manner, deter criminals from using public areas for litter free, and quality landscaped public spaces illegitimate activities and increase everyone else’s send the message that illegitimate behavior and level of comfort and safety. activities are not tolerated. Natural surveillance is facilitated through design that allows users of public space to feel that other people can view them. Windows, storefronts, entrances, balconies, porches, outdoor activity areas, and benches increase the likelihood that a neighbor, passerby, or business owner will spot and report criminal activity. In addition, sightlines along sidewalks should be kept clear. Tree branches should be limbed up and shrubbery trimmed. Displays and signs should be cleared away from storefront windows to allow people inside to see out and those outside to see in. Uniform low-level lighting should be provided along sidewalks, pathways and service entrances/areas, parking, and alleys. These features allow for oversight of public areas and clear sightlines, make legitimate users feel safer and increase the risk to criminals. Activity programming includes the arrangement of uses through triangulation and programming, so that people using the areas in legitimate ways protect public space. Examples of such programming include placing benches near entrances and trash cans and locating a library next to a park to increase the number of people who 108

ARCHITECTURAL STYLE AREAS Existing architectural cues and the type of development proposed suggest a number of potential architectural style areas throughout the sector area. The following architectural approaches are recommended:

Port Towns Waterfront This waterfront district could take its cue from the multilevel porches and hip or gable-end roof style of the George Washington House. The design of buildings in this area should emphasize windows and porches facing Annapolis Road and Baltimore Avenue.

Bladensburg Road Gateway/Main Street The mixed-use areas envisioned along Bladensburg Road should both incorporate and respect the architectural character of the early twentieth century bungalow style, including large porches and deep overhangs. In the vicinity of the proposed MARC station, architectural character should reflect the bungalow architecture of Cottage City for residential areas and the existing early twentieth- century industrial architecture for mixed-use infill.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Bladensburg Town Center

STREET CHARACTER

All streets in the Port Towns area will function as civic places that are safe, welcoming and encourage The concentration of historic structures south of pedestrian use. Lightings, furnishing and landscaping Annapolis Road provides the framework for an will contribute to the overall street character. eighteenth-century historic area that features continuous arcades at ground level, hip or gable-end Street boundaries will be defined by buildings placed roofs, dormers, and doors and windows consistent at the build-to-line (see Building Envelope Standards) and sidewalks that extend from the back of the curb to with the scale of Bostwick House. the build-to-line. All streets feature street trees. Along The civic core should reflect the civic and public streets with parallel, on-street parking, street trees will uses of the library and town hall and incorporate be placed at regular intervals adjacent to the street. On public space in the form of greens, plazas, squares, streets without on-street parallel parking, street edges courtyards, and promenades. The associated mixed- are defined by long, continuous planted bands with use area should emphasize street front retail. trees. New streets have been designated for specific Future development to the north and west of the town categories of street design, as described in detail in the center should reinforce the architectural style of the Building Envelope Standards. existing bungalow housing in these areas.

This area lends itself to three architectural sub-areas.

Annapolis Road Gateway

SUSTAINABLE DESIGN IN MIXED-USE AREAS

Promoting sustainable design in mixed-use areas underscores a central design challenge: traditional approaches to sustainable stormwater management have both a suburban orientation and space requirements that would be overly intrusive if applied to a denser, more urban, mixed-use environment. Earlier versions of stormwater management focused on collecting and filtering runoff in large “end-ofpipe” facilities, such as retention/detention ponds, swale systems and expensive underground facilities— Edmonston Road Main Street techniques that prove incompatible with more compact The area in the vicinity of the new town center would and urban mixed-use areas, where minimal space lend itself to Mediterranean revival architecture. exists for such facilities. Consequently, the goal of Common elements might include tile roofs and stucco achieving sustainable design can potentially run arcades. counter to the principles of pedestrian-oriented design and place-making described above by disrupting important urban spaces in order to accommodate Edmonston–North Workshop stormwater management facilities. The mixed-use neighborhood envisioned in this area should take its architectural cues from the existing Fortunately, more recent approaches to stormwater early twentieth-century industrial architecture in the management offer new solutions to this dilemma. area as well as from the modern architectural character These approaches, which focus on collecting and established by recent development in the nearby filtering water as close to its source as possible, not only reduce the cost and impacts associated with the Hyattsville Arts District. “end-of-pipe” approach, but also complement more urban, mixed-use environments. A variety of such approaches exist for both the public realm and private sites, as follows. Existing Art Deco/Streamline Moderne architecture presents the opportunity for continuation of this architectural style along portions of Annapolis Road. Potential design features include brickwork compatible with that of Hilltop Manor, flat roofs with rooftop patios and/or green roof amenities, and a level of fenestration consistent with other Art Deco/Streamline Moderne buildings in the area.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

109

Public Realm

Private Sites

Street tree boxes and other tree planting alternatives— Allowing water to run into street tree boxes, as well as into specially-constructed tree root growth zones, is a technique being studied in many urban areas. Watertolerant trees such as Bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), River Birch (Betula nigra) and Red Maple (Acer rubrum) are particularly well-suited for use in this situation.

On private sites, several techniques can lessen, or even eliminate, the need for expensive underground facilities in a way that successfully captures run-off closest to its source. These approaches include:

Bio-filters along curb lines—Water caught along the curb line of a street can be directed into planted areas at the back or front of a curb along a city street. These bio-filter “gardens” can be incorporated into urban streetscapes at the back of curbs and adjacent to onstreet parking. This technique is especially appropriate for urban residential streets, but is not recommended for areas of intense pedestrian activity, such as commercial main streets. Bio-filter rain gardens in public parks and open spaces—Incorporating bio-filter “gardens” in public greens and along parkways is a creative approach to handling storm water in urban settings. These gardens should be designed without fencing to accommodate public access and can incorporate pedestrian paths, seating and other urban park amenities. Water-loving grasses and perennials can provide a rich visual counterpoint to mown lawns and paved pedestrian zones. While these areas must be carefully designed and maintained, they can reduce the need for expensive underground storage and reduce the amount of water flowing into the Chesapeake Bay.

110

Green roofs—Green roofs range in type from those that are deep and soil-intensive to the very thin and “extensive.” Green roofs help to absorb and retain rain water as well as to insulate buildings. Water collection and reuse for irrigation (cisterns)— Water is collected off roofs in cisterns and used to irrigate planted areas. Pervious paving—A variety of new pervious paving products have been developed in recent years. For example, unit pavers with built-in separation ridges allow water to move between the pavers and into filtration or detention beds. Bio-filtration at ground level internal courtyards— Water can be detained and filtered through planted courtyards in urban situations. The structure of the planted areas can take on the regular orthogonal shapes typical of urban places and still be planted with waterloving vegetation. Bio-filtration is most appropriate for internal courtyards in mixed-use areas; in the public realm, planted bio-filters could disrupt the relationship between buildings and public streets and sidewalks.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

IMPLEMENTATION INTRODUCTION The Port Towns Sector Plan will be implemented through a variety of partnerships and funding strategies involving federal, state, county, and municipal governments, community groups, citizens, and private developers. The ongoing planning and implementation process includes, but is not limited to, the FY 2009– 2015 Capital Improvement Program, the State Highway Administration’s Consolidated Transportation Program, mandatory referrals from various government agencies, revisions and additions to land development regulations, and review of and recommendations and/or action on zoning map amendment petitions, special exceptions, departures from design standards, proposals for subdivision, variances, and applications for building permits.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

The success of the plan depends upon future decisions and actions of both the public and private sectors. In the private sector, implementation is the responsibility of developers and citizens. Implementation that is motivated by a desire to realize the recommendations of the vision plan will most effectively achieve the potential of the Port Towns Sector Plan. The implementation actions listed in Table 15: Action and Phasing Plan, identify recommendations made in the plan that may be implemented through the development application process and/or public sector partnering. The table relates the plan’s recommendations to suggested action steps, the anticipated parties involved, and the timeframe in which the recommendations should be implemented.

111

Table 15: Action and Phasing Plan Proposed Project/Initiative

Potential Parties Involved

Potential Role

Bladensburg Town Center Short range (1 to 5 years) Market Master and Mango Town of Bladensburg Co-owner of site, development partner Café Site (former Roy Rogers) Aman Memorial Trust Co-owner of site, development partner Redevelopment Private developer(s) Lead developer, development partner(s) Port Towns CDC Development partner New Town Hall and Public Town of Bladensburg Development partner, end user Library Economic Development Facilitate access to funding incentives Corporation Prince George’s County Co-owner of site (library) Central Services M-NCPPC

Civic green

Redevelopment Authority Local community organizations Private developer(s)

Assist with property acquisition Identify local need for community space Development partner(s)

Bostwick House— Nonprofit/Educational Center/ Upgrade and Community Resource

Town of Bladensburg Owner of site, development partner Nonprofit and/or educational Development partner, end user institutions Private developer Bostwick Partners

Lead developer Development partner, preservation focus, property management

Edmonston Road, Annapolis Road, 48th Street— Streetscape Improvements

State Highway Administration (SHA) Dept. of Public Works & Transportation Town of Bladensburg

Design and schedule road improvements

Private developer(s) Port Towns CDC

112

Design and schedule road improvements Coordinate with developers, M-NCPPC, secure funding for streetscape improvements Implement streetscape improvements as a part of development Secure grants for streetscape improvements

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Table 15: Action and Phasing Plan Proposed Project/Initiative

Potential Parties Involved Potential Role Long Range (6+ Years) New Municipal Police Facility Town of Bladensburg Property owner on Visitor Center Site Municipal police End user Private developer Potential development partner South Bladensburg Community M-NCPPC, Department of Park—Recreational Facilities, Parks and Recreation Stormwater Management, Town of Bladensburg Trails, and Housing Private developer(s) Development Dept. of Public Works & Transportation Dept. of Environmental Resources Port Towns CDC Quincy Run Trail Plan

Former Town Hall Site Housing Development

M-NCPPC, Department of Parks and Recreation Town of Bladensburg Private property owners Developers State Highway Administration CSX

Property owner Development partner Lead developer of housing Implementation & maintenance agency Permitting agency Secure grants for community facilities, development partner of housing Property owner Development partner Allow trail easement Plan for trail easement Coordinate trail crossing of Kenilworth Avenue Coordinate trail crossing of CSX tracks

Town of Bladensburg Private Developer

Property owner, development partner Lead developer

Port Towns CDC

Development partner

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

113

Table 15: Action and Phasing Plan Proposed Project/Initiative

Potential Parties Involved

Potential Role

Port Towns Waterfront Area Short Range (1 to 5 years) Waterfront Park Entry and Parking Area

Community Watershed Education facility

M-NCPPC, Department of Parks and Recreation Crossroads Restaurant

Property owner, lead developer

Town of Bladensburg

Development partner

Economic Development Corporation State Highway Administration Port Towns CDC

Facilitate access to funding incentives

Potential development partner

Coordinate access from Annapolis Road Development partner

M-NCPPC, Department of Property owner, lead developer Parks and Recreation Anacostia Watershed Society Potential development partner Army Corps of Engineers Economic Development Corporation State Highway Administration M-NCPPC, Department of Parks and Recreation

Coordinate design in context of levee recertification Facilitate access to funding incentives

Annapolis Road crosswalk to Implement access from Annapolis Road waterfront park Anacostia River Park Property owner, lead developer Tournament Play Destination Enhancements Battle of Bladensburg Thematic M-NCPPC, Department of Property owner, lead developer Trail Parks and Recreation Long Range (6+ years) Baltimore Avenue Reconfiguration and Streetscape

State Highway Administration Town of Bladensburg

Private developer(s) Port Towns CDC

114

Study, design, schedule, and finance road improvements including crosswalks and signalization to assure safe pedestrianism. Coordinate with developers, M-NCPPC, secure funding for streetscape improvements Implement streetscape improvements as a part of development Secure grants for streetscape improvements

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Table 15: Action and Phasing Plan Proposed Project/Initiative

Potential Parties Involved

Potential Role

Annapolis Road Corridor—East End Publick Playhouse Node Short Range (1 to 5 years) Publick Playhouse M-NCPPC Owner of site, development partner Mixed-Use District Private developer(s) Lead developer, development partner(s) Town of Bladensburg Development partner Redevelopment Authority Assist with property acquisition on adjacent sites Long Range (6+ Years) Annapolis Road/Landover State Highway Study, design and schedule overpass/road Road Intersection Improvement Administration improvements Town of Bladensburg Coordinate with SHA Annapolis Road Academy Alternative High School Site Prince George’s County Owner of site Housing Development Central Services Town of Bladensburg Development partner Redevelopment Authority Assist with property acquisition Private developer(s) Lead developer, development partner(s) Bladensburg Road Corridor Short Range (1 to 5 Years) Riverview on the Anacostia Port Towns CDC Owner of site, Development Partner Mixed-Use Development Private developer(s) Lead developer, development partner(s) Port Towns Development partner(s) Revenue Authority Assist with public structured parking component Long Range (6+ Years) MARC Station on Bladensburg Maryland Transit Update 2007 transit growth plan to include Road—West End at Eastgate Administration MARC station, Gateway Node Towns of Cottage City, Establish legislative agenda Edmonston, Bladensburg, Colmar Manor, Port Towns CDC Fixed Guided Transit Route

State Highway Administration Towns of Cottage City, Edmonston, Bladensburg, Colmar Manor, Port Towns CDC

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Coordinate with District of Columbia initiative and update Consolidated Transportation Plan (CTP) Establish legislative agenda

115

Table 15: Action and Phasing Plan Proposed Project/Initiative

Potential Parties Involved

Potential Role

Edmonston Road Short Range (1 to 5 Years) Edmonston Road Town of Edmonston Municipal oversight upon annexation improvement— County DPW&T/municipal Lead developer, development partner(s) Two Lanes with Curb Lane and DPW&T Sidewalks Town of Bladensburg Development partner for portions of Edmonston Road that are in Town of Bladensburg DHCD CDBG funds for sidewalk improvements Three Brothers Mixed-Use Redevelopment Kenilworth Avenue Planted Median Improvements and Sidewalk Improvements and Crosswalk at Decatur Street

Mario Repole

Property owner interested in redevelopment

Edmonston

Development Partner

SHA, DPW&T

Study, design, and schedule improvements

Long Range (6+ Years) Annapolis Road/Landover State Highway Study, design, and schedule overpass/road Road Intersection Improvement Administration improvements Town of Bladensburg Coordinate with SHA Annapolis Road Academy Alternative High School Site Prince George’s County Owner of site Housing Development Central Services Town of Bladensburg Development partner Redevelopment Authority Assist with property acquisition Private Developer(s) Lead developer, development partner(s)

116

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

REVITALIZATION TOOLS The following incentives and techniques can be employed to remove constraints to development and build on specific opportunities created by the sector plan. They range from fairly conceptual to more specific incentives and programs to direct subsidies and assistance by the public sector. During development and redevelopment projects, these programs and incentives should be considered individually and collectively for their applicability to the project.

Tax-Increment Financing Districts Tax-increment financing (TIF) is a flexible economic development tool used by many jurisdictions. Under this technique, property tax revenues are frozen at the time a TIF district is established. This base level of revenue will continue to flow to the taxing entities over the life of the district. However, as development and redevelopment occur in the district, property tax revenues increase. This increase in property tax revenue from the base year (or the increment) is retained in a special allocation fund (TIF fund). The monies in the TIF fund are reinvested back into the TIF district. These funds can be used to purchase land and/or fund capital investment through TIF revenue bonds. Use of TIF programs can be an important source of financing joint development projects. Overall, TIF revenues ensure that the success in a given district generates revenues to support additional investment in the district. TIF does not increase property taxes. The revenues generated from the district could help support land assembly, land writedowns, and infrastructure development for target projects in the corridor area as well as the provision of amenities. However, it is important to recognize that the use of TIF restricts county access, thus making this additional tax revenue not available for county general fund purposes.

Revitalization Property Tax Credit The majority of the sector plan area is within census tracts that are eligible for the county’s revitalization property tax credit program. This program uses a diminishing county property tax credit over several years for assessable improvements made to commercial, industrial, and residential properties.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

The tax credits are intended to help enhance the financial feasibility of a project by reducing operating costs. Qualifying commercial projects receive a graduated 20 percent tax credit over five years, beginning with a 100 percent credit the first year and dropping to 80 percent in the second year, 60 percent in the third year, 40 percent in the fourth year, and 20 percent in the fifth year. Residential property taxes are abated 100 percent in the first year, 66 percent in the second year, and 33 percent in the third year.

Community Legacy Program Community Legacy, a program of the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD), is designed to assist urban neighborhoods, suburban communities. and small towns that are experiencing decline and disinvestment, but have the potential, with modest public and private investment, to be vibrant places to live and work.

Maryland Capital Access Program The Maryland Capital Access Program is a small business credit enhancement program that enables private lenders to establish a loan loss reserve fund from fees paid by lenders, borrowers, and the State of Maryland. An enrolled loan, or portion of a loan, may range from $10,000 to $1,000,000. Most Maryland small businesses, including nonprofit organizations, are eligible.

Neighborhood BusinessWorks Program The Neighborhood BusinessWorks Program (formerly named Neighborhood Business Development Program) provides flexible gap financing in the form of below-market interest rate loans to small businesses and nonprofit organizations locating or expanding in locally designated neighborhood revitalization areas. Financing ranges from $25,000 to $500,000 for up to 50 percent of a project’s total cost.

Revolving Loan Funds Community revolving loan funds are a means to offer local businesses and developers low- interest capital or to target specific properties for redevelopment. These funds offer localities and organizations the means to invest in their future and leverage outside investment. These programs extend the ability of funds to continue to circulate through the community long after the initial grant has been expended. 117

Land Readjustment Programs Also known as land consolidation or land pooling, this approach involves the private sector pooling land for the purpose of creating a larger unified development site. It allows property owners to retain the incremental value gained from the development of their land to more intensive use rather than having the benefit accrue to the developer after the land is sold. Properties are consolidated through a private corporation, landowner’s association, a public corporation, or a public agency. All owners are accorded a share relating their assessed property value as a percentage of the total value of all properties combined. The land is then planned without regard to property lines and is resubdivided and returned to individual property owners with all development requirements having been satisfied. The project can then be built out separately by several developers or by a single developer. Some lots may be sold to offset the cost of infrastructure improvements. The result is that the original property owners realize greater value for their properties by creating a larger developable site.

Flexible Parking Regulations Parking regulations that minimize the provision of onsite parking and maximize the opportunities for shared-use parking in mixed-use development areas are an incentive that can help attract new development. Accordingly, the Port Towns Sector Plan’s parking standards should support, not penalize, mixed-use development that may have a greater ratio of floor area to parking spaces. Recommended parking maximums have been developed along with parking credit reductions where shared use and structured parking is provided.

with the approval of a municipality and the direction of the County Council, may create a parking district within any municipal commercial area. A parking district collects parking fees for all public parking spaces in the district from individual users, commercial center businesses, or an alternative entity such as a business association. Initial financing would come from noncity sources, but over the long run, projected parking revenue must be sufficient to pay off the construction, financing, and maintenance.

Brownfield Ordinances Counties and municipalities may adopt local brownfield ordinances that limit the liability of property owners and can provide a list of priority brownfield sites to the State of Maryland. This will make property owners of brownfield sites eligible to apply to the Brownfield Revitalization Program of the Maryland Department of Business and Economic Development. This program offers financing for cleanup costs. The limited liability will facilitate transfer of ownership and redevelopment of potentially contaminated industrial properties.

High-Technology Growth and Development Incentive Package

The Prince George’s County Economic Development Corporation (PGCEDC) provides a high-technology growth and development incentive package. This program provides a three-part incentive for hightechnology companies expanding in or newly locating within the county. Personal property tax exemptions are also available for up to 100 percent for certain property used in research and development. Property tax credits are available for new construction, substantial renovation, or expansion of hightechnology businesses for the same amounts and time Public Parking periods as those discussed above. The third component Public parking is appropriate when a range of land of this package includes a fast track site development uses, rather than a single user, benefit from the parking. plan process. Ideally, initial shared parking lots could become the site of future structured parking when the need arises. Marketing and Promotion The Prince George’s County Revenue Authority’s There is an opportunity to capitalize on the cachet of mission is to create revenue streams for the county and historic structures in the Port Towns as well as its encourage economic development. As initial costs waterfront park. Developing logos, slogans, and a may be high, partnerships with a municipality, the campaign to promote and market these Port Towns Redevelopment Authority, a business association, or resources will help recruit specialty retailers, start-up other entity may be required. The Revenue Authority, businesses, and expanding companies. 118

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Information Clearing House

PUBLIC FACILITIES REPORT

Older commercial and business districts often lack a central source for and may have fewer promotional tools or locations for developers and local businesses to gain information on financing, activities, development processes, and legal requirements. Numerous county and state services that offer financing, tax incentives, training, and other specialized assistance such as the Main Street Program, have been very successful in the past in jump-starting town centers through information sharing and training, as well as centralized sources of expertise. Consideration should be given to developing the Port Towns Community Development Corporation as such a source.

Section 27-645(b)(1) of the Zoning Ordinance requires that before adopting or amending any preliminary plan, the Planning Board shall submit its proposals for public facilities in the plan to the District Council and County Executive to review, provide written comments, and identify any inconsistencies between the public facilities proposed in the plan and any existing or proposed state or county facilities including roads, highways, and other public facilities.

Capacity Building The Port Towns Community Development Corporation is strategically positioned to continue to lead and engage in partnerships, collaborative economic development, and community revitalization efforts for the Port Towns. As its portfolio grows, it may want to pursue capacity building activities to enhance its ability to effectively pursue new opportunities and provide new services. Sources of capacity building include the Catalyst Program—available statewide to any entity submitting a funding application to Maryland’s Department of Housing and Community Development and to partners committed to strengthening Maryland’s neighborhoods—and the Center for Nonprofit Advancement.

Table 16 identifies the proposed public facilities to serve the vision and goals of the plan. “New” indicates new or modified public facilities recommendations of the preliminary Port Towns Sector Plan. “Existing” indicates existing and proposed recommendations in current county or state funding programs or carried over from the 1994 Approved Master Plan and Sectional Map Amendment for Bladensburg-New Carrollton and Vicinity (Planning Area 69), the 1994 Approved Master Plan and Sectional Map Amendment for Planning Area 68, and the 2007 Approved Bladensburg Town Center Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment.

Foreclosure Prevention In the current economic downturn resulting in part from the previous housing cost “bubble,” Prince Georges’ County has the highest rate of foreclosures in the state. Foreclosures destabilize neighborhoods by displacing residents, reducing property values, and creating an abandoned housing stock attractive to criminal activity. A variety of programs and services exist to prevent foreclosures. These include the Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development’s Bridge to HOPE Loan Program, Lifeline Refinance Mortgage Program and Homesaver Mortgage Refinance Program and the Prince George’s County Department of Social Services’ Homelessness Prevention Program.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

119

Table 16: Public Facilities Cost Analysis and Estimates New/Existing

Recommended Public Facilities

County CIP/ State CTP

Location and Description

Estimated Cost

Transportation Facilities—Roads Existing

MD 450, Annapolis Road

MD 450, Existing/ new plan Annapolis Road recommendations.

Existing 2007 MD 450/MD sector plan 201/48th St. rec. (p. 52); New plan recommendations.

Existing 2007 Spring Street sector plan recommendation (p. 52) Existing

120

Taylor Street

Construct a CSX Railroad gradeState FY 2006Fully separated crossing and intersection 2011 CTP, STIP funded— improvements near Peace Cross in Reference PG1821 near Bladensburg. completion 2007 Bladensburg Town Center Plan State FY 2006recommends improvements to 2011 CTP, Prince Annapolis Road at MD 202 George’s County intersection (funded for concept Line 33, Item 48 development only). The Port Towns Sector Plan recommends reconfiguring the approach to MD 202 and Annapolis Road to create a three-way signalized intersection to improve the overall traffic operation and better accommodate the expected pedestrian activities. Not in CTP $2,000,0002007 Bladensburg Town Center Plan $3,000,000 recommends removing pedestrian tunnels at the Kenilworth Avenue overpass, adding pedestrian lighting and ADA ramps, and retrofitting sidewalks. The Port Towns plan recommends evaluating the provision of raised sidewalks, on-road bike lanes, and raised median along Bladensburg Road and under the existing MD 201 overpass between 48th Street and Baltimore Avenue. N/A N/A 2007 Bladensburg Town Center Plan Developer recommends a new street connecting 48th Street to Edmonston Road north funded of Annapolis Road—approximately 400 linear feet Extend Taylor Street west to N/A N/A Kenilworth Avenue, MD 201. Developer funded

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Table 16: Public Facilities Cost Analysis and Estimates Recommended Public Facilities Existing 2007 Unnamed Street sector plan recommendation (p. 52) New/Existing

Existing 2007 Bostwick Place sector plan recommendation (p. 52)

Location and Description Construct new public street connecting to Spring Street at its south end and to Edmonston Road at its north end to access proposed townhomes Create a new public street between Annapolis Road and Quincy Place

New Port Edmonston Road Towns Sector Plan recommendation

Reconstruct Edmonston Road as a three-lane collector facility with on-street parking, on-road bike lanes, and continuous sidewalks on both sides of the street such that it would also accommodate the proposed Port Towns FGT to the planned Purple Line station in Riverdale Park. New Port Alt US 1 Consider the realignment, redesign, Towns Sector and reconstruction of the southbound Plan recomUS Alt. 1 south of its intersection with mendation Rhode Island Avenue as a two-way, limited access, two-lane collector roadway with a standard three-way signalized intersection with Bladensburg Road. Investigate and explore ways to Annapolis/ New Port Towns Sector Bladensburg Roads reconstruct the Annapolis/Bladensburg Road corridor as a four lane divided Plan recomroadway that will accommodate the mendation planned Port Towns Fixed Guided Transit (FGT) and include attractive landscaping, raised median, on-road bike lanes, and continuous sidewalks from its intersection with MD 202 to Eastern Avenue. New Port Bladensburg Explore, and if deemed acceptable by Towns Sector Road/46th Street SHA, install pedestrian-activated traffic Plan recomsignal at the intersection of 46th Street/ mendation Park Access Road with Bladensburg Road to ease automobile, bicycle and pedestrian access in and out of the Bladensburg Waterfront Park.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

County CIP/ State CTP N/A

Estimated Cost N/A Developer funded

N/A

N/A Developer funded

Not in CIP

TBD County/ municipality/ developer funded

Not in CTP

Developer/ state funded southbound $4,000,000- $6,000,000 northbound N/A

Not in CTP

TBD

Not in CTP

TBD Developer/ state funded $150-200K

121

Table 16: Public Facilities Cost Analysis and Estimates Recommended Public Facilities New Port MD201/ Towns Sector 48th Street / Plan recom- Bladensburg Road mendation New/Existing

Location and Description

Coordinate with SHA to create a signalized intersection at MD 201 on/ off ramp along northbound lanes to 48th street, to allow left turns to and from MD 201 southbound lanes at this location. This action would help to eliminate the existing left turns from westbound Bladensburg Road to southbound MD 201 and from eastbound Bladensburg Road to northbound 48th street. New Port MD201/ Annapolis Explore and secure SHA authorization Towns Sector Rd/ Bladensburg to install pedestrian activated signal at Plan recom- Rd./ 48th St./Decatur key intersections along Annapolis/ St./ Baltimore Ave. Bladensburg Road, especially at Peace mendation Cross, Bladensburg Water Park access road, Kenilworth Ave. at 48th St.and Decatur St, and Baltimore Ave. New Port MD201/ Explore with SHA and DPW&T ways Towns Sector Edmonston Rd. to construct a new roadway connection Plan recomfrom Edmonston Road through the mendation Three Brothers shopping center to Kenilworth Avenue. New Port 48th Street Explore ways to reconstruct both Towns Sector approaches of 48th Street to a two lane Plan recomprimary Street with on-street parking, mendation and provide a historic-themed landscape treatment for the segment between Annapolis Road and Quincy Place to reinforce this area as a special historic zone. MD 201 from Improve and implement parkway New Port Towns Sector Buchanan St. to character along Kenilworth Avenue Plan recom- Decatur St. within the Sector plan area by limiting mendation drive-way connections, improving streetscape with new sidewalks, street trees, median plantings, lighting, and safe crosswalks at Decatur and Buchanan Streets.

122

County CIP/ State CTP Not in CTP

Estimated Cost TBD Developer/ state funded $500K-$1M

Not in CTP

TBD Developer/ state funded $300K-500K

N/A

Developer funded

N/A

Developer funded

Not in CTP

TBD/SHA

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Table 16: Public Facilities Cost Analysis and Estimates Recommended Public Facilities New Port Crittenden Street Towns Sector extended Plan recommendation New Port 53rd Street Towns Sector extended Plan recommendation New/Existing

Location and Description Extend Crittenden Street as a primary street with on-street parking to intersect with Edmonston Road. Extend 53rd Avenue, as a new primary street with on-street parking from Decatur Street to Emerson Street to create a new street connection parallel to Kenilworth Avenue.

County CIP/ State CTP N/A

Estimated Cost Developer funded

N/A

Developer funded

Transportation Facilities—Transit Existing 1994 Public Playhouse master plan Shuttle Bus recommenda- Routing tion (p. 139) Existing 2007 Waterfront Park Shuttle Bus sector plan recommenda- Routing tion (p.56)

Provide shuttle bus route along Landover Road, Quincy Street, and Kenilworth Avenue to connect the Public Playhouse to the Port Towns. Provide shuttle bus route from sector plan area and waterfront park to nearby transit stops. (West Hyattsville and Cheverly)

Not in CIP

N/A

Not in CIP

N/A

New Port Future Fixed Towns Sector Guided Transit Plan recom- (FGT) mendation

Establish FGT to connect all four Port Towns to the greatest extent feasible to the Purple Line.

Not in CTP

MTA

MARC station New Port Towns Sector Plan recommendation

Provide a MARC station stop at proposed Eastgate mixed-use development

Not in CTP

MTA

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

123

Table 16: Public Facilities Cost Analysis and Estimates Recommended Public Facilities New Port Park and Ride Towns Sector facilities Plan recommendation

County CIP/ State CTP

Estimated Cost

Provide hiker/biker trail along MD 450 through Planning Area 69

Not in CIP

$176,000

Implement planned bikeway system along Quincy Street from 52nd Street to MD 450

Not in CIP

$2,000

Implement planned bikeway system along Edmonston Road from MD 450 to MD 201

Not in CIP

$50,000

Existing 2007 CSX Railroad and Provide pedestrian crossing bridge to sector plan Kenilworth Avenue Bladensburg Waterfront Park. recommendation (p. 61)

Not in CIP

$2,000,000

Existing 2007 Quincy Street, 56th Implement hiker/biker trail from sector plan Avenue, Tilden Kenilworth Avenue east along recommenda- Road, and Upshur Quincy Street to north on 55th tion (p. 59) Street Avenue to north on 54th Place to west on Tilden Road, continue west onto Upshur Street to Kenilworth Avenue Existing 2007 South Bladensburg Implement pedestrian trail along Community Park Quincy Run from 48th Street to 56th sector plan recommenda- and Quincy Run Avenue Trail tion (p. 59)

Not in CIP

$150,000

Not in CIP

$1,000,000

New/Existing

Location and Description Consideration for park and ride facilities should be given to the following locations: • At Annapolis Road in close proximity to the Public Playhouse • At the Peace Cross area in close proximity to the Bladensburg Waterfront Park and nearby historic buildings and properties •At the western gateway of the Bladensburg corridor and near the proposed MARC Station. Transportation Facilities—Trails

Existing 1994 MD 450 Class II master plan Hiker/Biker Trail recommendation (p. 173) Existing 1994 Quincy Street master plan recommendation Existing 1994 Edmonston Road master plan recommendation

Schools

124

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Table 16: Public Facilities Cost Analysis and Estimates County CIP/ Estimated State CTP Cost Existing Approved completed county FY 20062011 CIP EC020954 Elementary School Locate an urban model school on the Not in current CIP $19,800,000 New Port Towns plan site of the Annapolis Road Academy recommendaAlternative High School to tion accommodate the 2030 population projections New Port Pre-K through 8th Convert the Bladensburg Elementary Not in curent CIP TBD Towns plan Grade School School to pre-K through 8th grade to accommodate the 2030 population recommendation projections New/Existing

Recommended Location and Description Public Facilities Bladensburg High Construct a new 304,000-square-foot School high school to replace Bladensburg Replacement High School

Public Safety Existing 2007 Municipal Police Facility sector plan recommendation

Locate a Bladensburg municipal police state t existing visitor center site on Edmonston Road

N/A

Municipally funded

Not in CIP

$5,660,000

Library Existing 2007 Public Library sector plan recommendation

Renovate or build a new library facility at Edmonston and Annapolis Roads. Parks and Recreation

Existing

Bladensburg Renovate for code compliance the Community Center Bladensburg Community Center located at 4500 57th Avenue

Approved County CIP FY 2009

$303,000

Existing

Colmar Manor Community

Extend 38th Avenue to provide access to Colmar Manor and to provide additional parking capacity.

Approved County CIP FY 2009

$80,000

Existing

Crittenden Street Neighborhood Playground

Renovate the Crittenden Street Neighborhood Playgound located at 4913 Crittenden Street in Edmonston.

Programmed County FY 2010

$160,000

Existing

Edmonston Neighborhood Mini Park

Renovate the Edmonston Neighborhood Mini Park located at 5006 47th Avenue.

Programmed County FY 2011

$125,000

Existing

Peace Cross Historic Site

Renovate the historic memorials located on Alt US 1 & MD 450.

Approved County CIP FY 2009

$100,000

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

125

Table 16: Public Facilities Cost Analysis and Estimates New/Existing Existing

Recommended Location and Description Public Facilities Anacostia Stream Construct a new canoe launch at Valley Park—52nd 52nd Avenue in Bladensburg Avenue

County CIP/ Estimated State CTP Cost Approved FY 2005 $100,000

New Port Towns plan recommendation

Anacostia River Develop thematic Battle of Not in current CIP Park and Colmar Bladensburg trail in time to celebrate Manor Community the bicentennial anniversary (August Park 2014) that links the historic, cultural, and natural resources in the Port Towns area as well as emphasizes the magnitude of the role of Commodore Joshua Barney’s Flotilla.

$1,850,000

Existing

Publick Playhouse Renovate the Publick Playhouse to & Cultural Arts meet code compliance. Center

Approved County CIP FY 2007

$835,000

Existing

Publick Playhouse Expand the Publick Playhouse & & Cultural Arts Cultural Arts Center Center Dueling Branch Provide a display at 3508 39th Neighborhood Park Avenue, Colmar Manor, marking the historic dueling grounds location.

Programmed $12,000,000 County FY 2011 Approved County $100,000 CIP FY 2005

Existing

Existing 2007 Bladensburg South Develop a park in the 5000 block of Community Park Quincy Street in Bladensburg. sector plan recommendation New Port Bladensburg Provide trail access to the Towns plan Waterfront Park Bladensburg Waterfront Park from recommenda4601 Annapolis Road to Lloyd Street tion New Port Colmar Manor Provide Colmar Manor Park with Towns plan Community Park enhancements such as additional ball recommendafields, artificial turf field, and tion restroom facilities so that it can be programmed for tournament play, and study the feasibility of vending facilities and picnic shelters.

126

Not in CIP

$1,000,000/ developer contribution

Not in CIP

$100,000

Not in CIP

$1,200,000 developer contributions per CSP-05006 West Hyattsville Commons

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Table 16: Public Facilities Cost Analysis and Estimates Recommended Location and Description Public Facilities Existing 2007 Elementary School Provide the following schools with sector plan recreational recreational improvements: Roger recommenda- improvements Heights Neighborhood Park/School tions 4301 58th Avenue; Templeton Elementary School, 6001 Carters Lane; and Bladensburg Elementary School 4915 Annapolis Road, Bladensburg. Reconfigure this park into an urban New Port Bladensburg Towns plan Balloon Historic plaza within the mixed use town recommenda- Park center. tion New Port Neighborhood park Residential development— neighborhood park development. Towns plan recommendation Existing 2007 Rosina Baldi Renovate the Rosina Baldi Park at Neighborhood 5314 Varnum Street in Bladensburg. sector plan recommendation Provide environmental interpretation Existing 2007 Anacostia River Stream Valley Park shelters and signs in the Anacostia sector plan River Stream Valley Park in the recommendavicinity of 52nd Avenue in Bladenstion burg. New/Existing

County CIP/ State CTP Not in CIP

Estimated Cost $500,000

Not in CIP

$1,000,000

Not in CIP

$350,000 developer contribution

Not in CIP

$250,000

Not in CIP

$100,000

Stormwater Management Proposed

COE County Restoration

Proposed

Environmental Plan, design, and build new or retrofit County FY 2009- $24,862,000 2014 Proposed CIP (6 year total) Protection Program existing storm water quality DV540855 management facilities.

Proposed

Environmental Use new and creative technologies to County FY 2009- $15,813,000 Protection Program monitor, model, restore and protect 2014 Proposed CIP (6 year total) the environment in highly urbanized DV541835 settings in the Anacostia and Pautuxent watersheds.

Design and construct flood control facilities within the Anacostia and Pautuxent River Watersheds.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

County FY 2009- $3,780,000 2014 Proposed CIP (6 year total) DV541685

127

Table 16: Public Facilities Cost Analysis and Estimates New/Existing

Recommended Public Facilities

Location and Description

County CIP/ State CTP

Estimated Cost

Redevelopment Authority Existing

Peace Cross Area Redevelopment

Acquire selected properties within Approved County the redevelopment area around the FY 2006-2011 Bladensburg Waterfront Park and CIP UM900043 Port Towns of Bladensburg, Colmar Manor, and Cottage City Not in current CIP New Port Alternative School Relocate alternative school and Towns Sector redevelop existing building for urban Plan rec. model school.

TBD

Revenue Authority Structured public New Port Towns Sector parking in Plan recom- waterfront mendation development

128

Partner with the Port Towns and Port Not in current CIP Towns CDC to provide funds for a public structured parking component of the mixed-use project known as Port Towns River View on the Anacostia. This is the catalyst project of three projects known as the Port Towns People’s Harbor.

TBD

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

SECTIONAL MAP AMENDMENT INTRODUCTION The zoning map amendment process is followed when an individual property owner submits an application to change the zoning on his/her property. Unlike the zoning map amendment process, comprehensive rezoning is not undertaken for individual properties. Instead, all of the zoning within a geographic area, such as a sector planning area, is examined. The result of the comprehensive rezoning process is a new zoning map for the subject area, which is called a sectional map amendment (SMA). This SMA would implement the recommendations of the Ports Town Sector Plan. The Zoning Ordinance stipulates three options that may be followed in preparing sectional map amendments. The procedure being used here is the preparation of a SMA concurrent with the preparation of the Port Towns Sector Plan. In this instance, a zoning proposal is prepared as one of the sector plan elements and is subject to a public hearing along with the sector plan. At the conclusion of the process, the District Council approves both the sector plan and the SMA, simultaneously. This sector plan area was placed into the MarylandWashington Regional District on November 29, 1949. The last comprehensive rezonings of this sector plan area took place on May 4, 1994, with the approval of the SMA for Planning Area 69 by Council Resolution CR-53-1994; on May 17, 1994, with the approval of the SMA for Planning Area 68 by Council Resolution CR-45-1994; and on June 12, 2007, with the approval of the Bladensburg Town Center Sectional Map Amendment by Council Resolution CR-39-2007.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

COMPREHENSIVE REZONING IMPLEMENTATION POLICIES The following are comprehensive rezoning implementation policies established by the Planning Board and District Council for preparation of the rezoning proposal.

Public Land Policy The established public land policy states that all public land should be placed in the most restrictive and/or dominant adjacent zone, whichever bears the closest relationship to the intended character of the area. Therefore, the zoning of both public and private land should be compatible with surrounding zones to eliminate any islands of inharmonious zoning and still provide for appropriate and preferred public uses. It should further assure compatibility of any future development or uses if the property returns to private ownership. A distinction is made where large parcels of land are set aside specifically as public open space. In these cases the O-S Zone is applied as the most appropriate zone. Although federal and state government property is not subject to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, the comprehensive rezoning process is meant to apply a zoning category to all land, including government property, without regard to its unique ownership. The R-O-S Zone is generally applied to federal and state properties, unless specific uses or intended character of the property or area should warrant another zoning category.

129

Zoning in Public Rights-of-Way Policies governing the zoning of public street and railroad rights-of-way (both existing and proposed) are contained in Section 27-111 of the Prince George’s County Zoning Ordinance. This SMA has been prepared in accordance with this section of the ordinance.

Limitations on the Use of Zones Zoning classifications proposed in a SMA are limited only by the range of zones within the ordinance available at the time of final action by the District Council. However, there are certain restrictions on when these may be applied to properties (Section 27223 of the Zoning Ordinance). Reclassification of an existing zone to a less intense zone is prohibited where: (g)(1) “The property has been rezoned by Zoning Map Amendment within five (5) years prior to the initiation of the Sectional Map Amendment or during the period between initiation and transmittal to the District Council, and the property owner has not consented in writing to such rezoning;” or (g)(2) “Based on existing physical development at the time of adoption of the Sectional Map Amendment, the rezoning would create a nonconforming use. This rezoning may be approved, however, if there is a significant public benefit to be served by the rezoning based on facts peculiar to the subject property and the immediate neighborhood.In recommending the rezoning, the Planning Board shall identify these properties and provide written justification supporting the rezoning at the time of transmittal. The failure of either the Planning Board or property owner to identify these properties, or a failure of the Planning Board to provide the written justification, shall not invalidate any Council action in the approval of the Sectional Map Amendment.” Finally, in order to clarify the extent to which a given parcel of land is protected from less intensive rezoning by virtue of physical development, the Zoning Ordinance states in Section 27-223(h) that:

130

“The area of the “property,” as the word is used in Subsection (g)(2), above, is the minimum required by the Zoning Ordinance which makes the use legally existing when the Sectional Map Amendment is approved.”

Conditional Zoning The inclusion of safeguards, requirements, and conditions beyond the normal provisions of the Zoning Ordinance that can be attached to individual zoning map amendments via “conditional zoning” cannot be utilized in SMAs. In the piecemeal rezoning process, conditions are used to: (1) protect surrounding properties from potential adverse effects that might accrue from a specific zoning map amendment; and/or (2) to enhance coordinated, harmonious, and systematic development of the regional district. When approved by the District Council, and accepted by the zoning applicant, “conditions” become part of the county zoning map requirements applicable to a specific property and are as binding as any provision of the County Zoning Ordinance (see Conditional Zoning Procedures, Section 27-157(b)). In theory, zoning actions taken as part of the comprehensive rezoning (SMA) process should be compatible with other land uses without the use of conditions. However, it is not the intent of an SMA to repeal the additional requirements determined via conditional zoning cases that have been approved prior to the initiation of a sectional map amendment. As such, it is appropriate that, when special conditions to development of specific properties have been publicly agreed upon and have become part of the existing zoning map applicable to the site, those same conditions shall be brought forward in the SMA. This is accomplished by continuing the approved zoning with conditions and showing the zoning application number on the newly adopted zoning map. This would take place only when it is found that the existing zoning is compatible with the intended zoning pattern or when ordinance limitations preclude a rezoning. Similarly, findings contained in previously approved SMAs shall be brought forward in the SMA where the previous zoning category has been maintained.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Comprehensive Design Zones Comprehensive design zones may be included in a sectional map amendment. However, the flexible nature of these zones requires a basic plan of development to be submitted through the zoning application process (zoning map amendment) in order to evaluate the comprehensive design proposal. It is only through approval of a basic plan, which identifies land use types, quantities, and relationships, that a comprehensive design zone can be recognized. Therefore, an application must be filed, including a basic plan; and the Planning Board must have considered and made a recommendation on the zoning application in order for the comprehensive design zone to be included within the SMA. During the comprehensive rezoning, prior to the submission of such proposals, property must be classified in a conventional zone that provides an appropriate base density for development. In theory, the base density zone allows for an acceptable level of alternative development should the owner choose not to pursue the full development potential indicated by the sector plan. (See Section 27-223(b); Section 27225(b)(1); Section 27-226(a)(2); and Section 27226(f)(4).)

Existing Zoning The sector plan area consists of 16 different zoning categories. A summary of these zoning categories is in the Guide to Zoning Categories. An inventory of existing and approved zoning is shown in Table 17: Cumulative Zoning Inventory.

To implement the plan’s concept, the SMA recommends six character areas: (1) Port Towns Waterfront, (2) Bladensburg Road Gateway/Main Street, (3) Bladensburg Town Center (4) Edmonston Road Main Street, (5) Edmonston North Workshop and (6) Annapolis Road Gateway. Each character area offers its unique functions and opportunities as described in the Development Pattern Elements Chapter of this plan. In the Port Towns DDOZ, new development plans and/or redevelopment plans are reviewed for compliance with development standards approved in the sector plan and the SMA. There will be no walkthrough permits in the framework character areas. For developments of four acres or more and view terminus sites (see Map 5: Proposed Land Use, for view terminus sites), detailed site plans are reviewed and approved by the Planning Board.

General SMA Applicability Within the six framework character areas of the Port Towns DDOZ, notwithstanding any other provision of the Zoning Ordinance, any existing multifamily use on land zoned for multifamily development (R-18, R-10, R-30 Zones) with valid apartment licenses issued by Prince George’s County or the applicable municipality prior to the adoption of this plan shall be deemed permitted and not nonconforming (certified or noncertified).

Comprehensive Rezoning Changes The proposed zoning for the sector plan area is shown on Map 26. The SMA recommends that a Development District Overlay Zone (DDOZ) be applied to six framework character areas of the Port Towns to achieve the plan’s goal to create a regional destination focus and sense of place celebrating the historic and environmental features of the area. The DDOZ is a mapped zone that is superimposed by an SMA over other zones in a designated development district and may modify development requirements and/or standards within the underlying zones.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

131

Table 17: Cumulative Zoning Inventory Land Area Zone

Existing Acres

Proposed Acres

Difference (+/-)

Percent Difference

O-S (Open Space) R-O-S (Reserved Open Space) R-80 (SFD) R-55 (One-Family Detached Residential) R-35 (Triplex) R-T (Townhouse) R-10 (Multifamily High-Rise Residential) C-A (Commercial Ancillary) C-O (Commercial Office) C-S-C (Commercial Shopping Center) C-M (Commercial Miscellaneous) U-L-I (Urban Light Industrial) I-1 (Light Industrial) I-2 (Heavy Industrial) M-X-T (Mixed Use) Subtotal Right-of-Way Total Source: M-NCPPC, December 2008

86.11 455.94 6.78 528.23 7.52 87.72 75.39 .40 13.12 85.76 31.81 2.37 173.11 117.59 0 1743.05 340.07 2083.52

84.56 455.94 6.78 523.28 7.52 67.72 65.99 .40 7.38 41.43 1.53 .41 146.77 117.59 126.95 1743.05 340.07 2083.52

-1.55 0 0 -5.05 0 -20 -9.4 0 -5.34 -44.33 -30.28 -1.96 -26.34 0 +126.95 0 0 0

-2.0 0 0 -1.0 0 -17.25 -12.5 0 -44.0 48.3 -96.0 -92.8 -15.3 0 100 0 0 0

132

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

500 1,000

39TH

Rhode

gR oad

ltim

e or

e Av

R-T (Townhouse) R-10 (Multifamily High Density Residential)

I-2 (Heavy Industrial) I-3 (Planned Industrial / Employment Park)

C-O (Commercial Office)

Water Body

ON RIS HAR

eA v or l Ba

R-55 (One-Family Detached Residential)

O-S (Open Space)

R-35 (One-Family Semidetached, and Two-Family Detached, Residential)

68TH

R-80 (One-Family Detached Residential) AK

R-O-S (Reserved Open Space)

RIVERDALE PARK

tim TTE AYE LAF

AND ISL DE RHO

R-18 ND (Multifamily Medium 62 Density Residential) R-18C (Multifamily Medium Density Residential-Condominium)

COLUMBIA

Map 25: Existing Zoning

C-A (Ancillary Commercial)

CHEVERLY

C-M (Commercial Miscellaneous)

I-4 (Limited Industrial)

Railroad

ore W Par ashin kwa gto n y

R 43

EDMONSTON

U-L-I (Urban Light Industrial)

C-S-C (Commercial Shopping Center)

Sector Plan Boundary

N 42

HYATTSVILLE

BLADENSBURG

tim

Bal

40TH

I-1 (Light Industrial)

51S

NORTH BRENTWOOD Island A venue

40TH

COTTAGE CITY bur

ens

Bla d

COLMAR MANOR

2,000 Feet

DO XE TU N O ANS

IC C-2RV(General Commercial, Existing)

JOH

Municipal Boundaries

TH HIL

MOUNT RAINIER

NK ER

TH 35 BU

TH 34

TA YL O

RD H

33 EP

SIA

UTAH

ad BO

WALLA

RT H

ALLISON

ap lis

W M

n An

ver Ro

Lando

IL W

O IND UT

A RR

th A ven

TI LA

68T

GLE

os t

wor

Ken il

Y RR RN OT IS

133

H RTEC RIVE

2,000 Feet

DO XE TU N O ANS

urg

ens b

Bla d ad

ALLISON

ltim

e Av re

C-O (Commercial Office)

R-55 (One-Family Detached Residential)

R-18C (Multifamily Medium Density Residential-Condominium) R-35 (One-Family Semidetached, and Two-Family Detached, Residential)

Density Residential)

Water Body

m lti TTE AYE LAF

RHO

68TH

AN ISL

M-X-T (Mixed Use Transportation Oriented)

O-S (Open Space)

R-O-S (Reserved Open Space)

R-80 (One-Family Detached Residential)

ON RIS HAR

ND 62R-18 (Multifamily Medium

COLUMBIA

Map 26: Proposed Zoning

R-T (Townhouse) R-10 (Multifamily High Density Residential)

I-2 (Heavy Industrial) I-3 (Planned Industrial / Employment Park)

U-L-I (Urban Light Industrial)

I-4 (Limited Industrial)

Railroad

ore W Par ashin kwa gto n y

EDMONSTON

I-1 (Light Industrial)

C-S-C (Commercial Shopping Center)

Sector Plan Boundary

BLADENSBURG

tim

Bal

40TH

C-M (Commercial Miscellaneous)

51S

Island A venue

COTTAGE CITY

Rhode

40TH

C-A (Ancillary Commercial)

VI (General Commercial, Existing) C-2 ER

500 1,000

TH ILL

COLMAR MANOR

NK E

36 RH

TH 35 BU

39TH

134

JOH

Municipal Boundaries

TA YL O

RD EP

UTAH

SIA

WALLA

os t

An lis

RT H

WIN

ver Ro

Lando

M DO

th A ven

R FA G RA

IL W

TI LA

wor

Ken il

68T

GLE

Y RR RN OT IS

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

H RTEC RIVE

DDOZ REZONING Change Number 1

Approved SMA/ ZAPS/SE Number Date

Area of Change

Zoning Change Superimposes DDOZ on O-S, C-S-C, C-O, C-M, I-1, R-55, R-T, R-10, U-L-I and R-18 Zones

189.08+ Ac.

200’ Scale Index Map

SMA

204NE03 205NE03 205NE04 205NE05 206NE04 206NE05

Use and Location: All properties within the Port Towns Sector Plan/SMA that were rezoned to M-X-T. Discussion: The proposed rezoning will implement the vision for the Port Towns to achieve green, healthy, and pedestrian-friendly communities and destinations that celebrate and build upon the area’s cultural diversity, strategic location, industrial base, and historic, recreational and environmental assets through targeted vertical mixed use development in accordance with form-based development standards.

Rhode Island Avenue

CC1

Blade

nsbur

Dis tric t o

f C olum b

COTTAGE CITY

CC1

g Roa

CC2

CM1

B10

rte

Ke n ilw o

rth

Av e

e La n

nu e

l is

enue

Ke nilw orth Av

B5 B3 An

EDMONSTON N

COLMAR MANOR IV

e or

CM2

ti al

ue en v A

B7 B11

BLADENSBURG to

ng hi as y W a e- w or r k im Pa

Legend DDOZ Character Areas Special Exception

900

Feet 1,800

[

Proposed Zoning Change Municipality

Sector Plan Boundary—Approved Zoning Changes Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

135

PROPOSED REZONING Change Number

Zoning Change

Area of Change

O-S to M-X-T

0.198289 Ac.

Approved SMA/ ZAPS/SE Number Date SMA

2007

200’ Scale Index Map 205NE04

Use and Location: Peace Cross War Memorial at intersection of Bladensburg Road and Baltimore Avenue (Tax Map Grid: 050C3, Parcel 67)

O-S to M-X-T R-55 to M-X-T C-O to M-X-T C-S-C to M-X-T C-M to M-X-T Total

1.365982 Ac 0.177066 Ac.. 0.478206 Ac. 2.441371 Ac. 5.639884 Ac. 10.968734 Ac.

SMA SE-1974 SE-1022

1994 & 2007

205NE04

Use and Location: Assorted commercial- and industrial-oriented uses at 4500, 4508 Annapolis Road; 4102-46th Street; 4100, 4103, 4107-47th Street, 4110, 4116, 4302, 4315, 4317, 4318, 4319, 4321, 4400, 4404, 4412, 4418, 4501, 4503, 4505, 4513, 4519 Baltimore Avenue; 4401, 4501 Upshur Street (Tax Map Grid: 050C3, Bladensburg, Lots 1, 3, 4-8, 9-19, Parcel 248, 249, 254; Frank Mace Sub, Lot 1, 2; Bladensburg-Scanlon Fleet Service Addition To, Parcel 1; Bladensburg-Maskes Addn, Parcel C, D) B3

C-S-C to M-X-T

10.142084 Ac.

SMA SE-4400

2007

205NE04

Use and Location: Assorted commercial- and industrial-oriented uses at 4728, 4800, 4808, 4810, 4826, 4918 Annapolis Road, Port of Bladensburg Shopping Center at 4930, 4940, 4950, 4960 Annapolis Road; 4102, 4103-48th Street; 4000 Edmonston Road (Tax Map Grid: 050D3, Bladensburg- Gross Addn, Lot 1; Bladensburg Lots 35, 36, 41, 42, 47, 48; Bladensburg, Town of, Pt Lt 41; Bladensburg Acreage, Parcel 101; Parcel 99, 100, 200, 300) B4

C-S-C to M-X-T

5.326223 Ac.

SMA SE-2983

2007

205NE04

Use and Location: Assorted commercial- and industrial-oriented uses at 4719, 4801, 4805, 4807; Bladensburg Shopping Center at 4815-4905 Annapolis Road; 4007-48th Street (Tax Map Grid: 050D3, Pepco Property, Parcel A; Marriott Corp. Property, Parcel B; Parthenon Sub, Parcel 1; Bladensburg Lot 43; Parthenon SubResub Pt Par 2, Parcel 3.

C-M to M-X-T C-O to M-X-T C-S-C to M-X-T Total

3.921331 Ac. 0.37686 Ac. 1.468623 Ac. 5.766814 Ac.

SMA A-9639-C

2007

205NE04

Use and Location: Self-storage and assorted commercial at 4147-67, 4199 Kenilworth Avenue; 4851 Tilden Road; 4206, 4212 Edmonston Road (Tax Map Grid: 050D3, Decatur Heights, Block A, Lot 4, 7; Parcel A, B; Parcel 239) Discussion: The proposed rezoning will implement the vision for the Port Towns to achieve green, healthy, and pedestrian-friendly communities and destinations that celebrate and build upon the area’s cultural diversity, strategic location, industrial base, and historic, recreational and environmental assets through targeted vertical mixed use development in accordance with form-based development standards. 136

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

I-2

H 49T

H 48T

I-1

P.Z

E AV

ROS

C-M

BALT IMORE

I-1

I-2

C-S-C

!!! !!

C-S-C

! ! !

! !

! !! !

!!! !

!! !

EET ST R

BALT IMORE

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !!

! !

!!!

! ! !

! ! !! !

! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!

! !! !! !

! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !

! ! !

!! !

!! !! !! !

! !

! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !

!! !

! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !!

! !

!! ! !! ! !!!

! ! ! ! !

!! ! ! !

! !

5 14

! ! !!

! !

!! !

! ! !!

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !! ! !

! !

!! !! ! ! !! ! !

! !!

! ! !!

! !

! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

! ! ! !

! !!! !!

C-S-C

I-1

!! ! !!

! !

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !

!! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !! ! !

!!! !! ! !!

I-2

! !

! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! !

! !! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !! !

!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !

! ! !!

!! ! ! !

! !

!!!

! ! !

!! !

! !

! !!

! !! !! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

!! !

! ! !

! !! ! !

! !

! !! !!

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !!

! !! ! ! ! ! !

! !!! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !!

! ! !!

! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !! ! !!

! !

C-O

38 ! !

!! !! !

! !

!! ! ! !!

! !

! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !

!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !! ! ! !

! ! !

!! !!

! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !!!!

AVEN UE

0 17

0 14

5 17

B3: C-S-C to M-X-T B4: C-S-C, C-O, R-55 to M-X-T B5: C-S-C, C-O, C-M to M-X-T

ILW KEN

5 13

B2: O-S, R-55, C-O, C-S-C, C-M to M-X-T R-55

P.278

47TH STREET

!! !! !

! !

C-M

EDMONS TON

26A

27A

28A

29A

25A

23A

22A

21A

20A

10A

19A

! !!

! !! !! ! !

175

O-S

18A

17A

14A

15A

16A

350

R-55

13A

Feet 700

[

9 10

R-55 15

VARNUM

! !

18B

12A

R-55

C-S-C

24A

C-S-C

51ST

STREET

48TH

ROS

STREET

PLACE

P.100

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA P.300 P.200

STREET

E ST R

N IL W

! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !! !!! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !!! !! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!!! !!! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !! !! !! !! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !!! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !

STREET

C S* C CS C"M " "C M" " C" CSC C S C * C*S C* * * P.92 " " 9" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " P.166 *C* * C SC C * *C-O OS C S* CS R OS R OP.88 R OS RCOMS C SC A-9639-C C M " " "C "M " " " "C "M " " "" " " " " " "" " " " " "N"UM" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " C" SC S 12 AR P.B * * TIL P.A V * * * " " " " " " " " " " " " " CSC C S C DEN C S C CM C M" " C"M " ""C " " " "P.D " " " CSC CSC CSC ROS ROS ROS ROS " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "" * * * * * " " " " " "" OS C C SC C SP.193 C SC C R OS R OS R OS RCOMS M " "C M " " CM CCSMC CCSMC C-S-C CCSC CM CM " " " " " C" 6 " " " " " R"EET " " " " " " " " " " * * * * * * * * * * 58 CSC C S C P.95 C S C CM C"M" " " "C"M" " " "C" "" " " " " " "" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " S"TC"M" " " C"M " CCSMC CCSMC CSC ROS ROS ROS ROS * * * *P.307 * I-1" " " " "C M " " C M " " " " " " " OS C * *C *P.97* * C SC C SC C SC-S-C R OS R OS R OS RCOMS C M " "C M " " C "M "" " " " P.246 CCSMC CCSMC CCSC " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " AS C C C C S C C S C C S C S S M M M M C M* * *C"M " "C M" " C" " " " " " " P.189"" "" " " " " " "" "" " " I-1 C C C C C C C ROS ROS ROS ROS * * " " " * * * * * 15 16 C-O " " " " " " " " " " " " " U"R C * *C * * * C SC C SC C SP.98 MS* * C*M* " " "C "M " " " "C "M " " "" " " " " " "" " "" " U"PS""H " "" " " "" " "" " " "" "C "M " " " "C M R OS R OS R OS RCO CCSMC CCSMC CCSC OS * P.A " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " CM C M P.239C M CM CM C ROS R O S P.58R O S R O S * * * * *C M * * * * * *S* C-O * C*M* " " "C "M " " " "C "M " " "" "" " " " " " "" "" " " " " " " " C M R OS R OS R OS RO CM CM CM C OS P.B A " " " " " " " " " " " " " " B " " " " " " " " ST " E T" " " UPSHUR * * * * * S CM CM CM CM OS OM C C"M " "C "" "" " "R E" " " "" "" " " " " " " " ROS ROS ROS ROS R-10 P.240 TAY " " " " " " " " " " R OS R OS R OS R O OSS OC SM CM CM CM CM C C M " " C "M "" " "" " " " "P.245 OS L OR " " " " " " " " " "" " " " " " " " S C CM OS OM CCSMC CCSMC CCSMC ROS ROS ROS ROS "C M" " " " " " " " " ST I-1 " " " " " " " " " P.104 R OS R OS R OS R O OSS OCSSMC C CCSMC" " " C" S"C" " " C" " " " " " " " " " " "" " " "" " " " " " " " C M CCSMC CCSMC CCSMC CCSC C SC C SC C SC CRSEC C OS ET P.A R-10 CC S C SC C-M OS OSM CC CCSMC C S "C " " " " " " " "" " " " " " " " C M CCSMC CCSMC CCSMC CSC CSC CSC CSC OS ROS RP.84 ROS ROOSS " " " " " " " " " P.A O R OS R OS R OSS O-S O R OSS O-S OCSSMC C CCSMC C SC " C " " " " " "" " "I-1 " " " " " " " C M SMC CCSMC CCSMC CCC-S-C CCSC C SC C SC C SC C SC C OS " " " " " " " " " C FINDING OS COSSC C-S-C CSC C"S "C " " " " " " " " " " " "" " " "" " " " " " " C S"C CSC C SSEE C S C(A) CSC CSC CSC CSC CSC CSC ROS ROS ROS ROOSS " " " " " " SC " " SC O O R OS R OS R OSS R OSS O SSC C C C SC C SC " C" " " " " " "" R-55 C C SC 4, C SC C SC CPAGE C SC C SC C SC P.99 C SC C SP.101 C OS CR-103-1982 " " " " " " " OS COSSC CSC C"S C " " " " " " " " "" " " " " " C S"C CSC CSC CSC CSC CSC CSC CSC CSC CSC ROS ROS ROS ROS " " " " " " " " C-S-C " " " " " " " " I-1 " " R OS R OS R OS R O OSS O SSC C C SC C SC " C" " " P.A" " " " " I-1 C SC SEE FINDING C SC (L) C SC C SC C SC C SC C SC C SC C OS "" " " " " C S"C " C SC " SC " " SC " " SC " HERD C CS C STRE C SET"C " C"S C " "C S "C " " "" " C C S C SHEP C CSC C S CPAGE 9,C S C CSC CSC CSC CSC CSC CSC ROS ROS ROS ROS CR-103-1982 " " " " " " " "" "" " " " " " " C S"C " C" SC C SC R OS R OS R OS R OS C SC C-S-C C SC C SC C SC C SC C SC C SC C SC AND CR-21-1983 C SC C SC C SC C SC C SC C SC C SC C OS MD C-S-C " " " " C-S-C " " " " " S "C CSC CSC OS COS C CSC CSC C S C " "CC-S-C CSC CSC CSC CSC CSC CSC CSC CSC CSC CSC ROS ROS ROS ROS AD C-S-C RO P.67 C SC C SC C SC OS O SSC R OS R OS R OS R OS C SC C SC CO-S C SC C SC C SC C SC C SC C SC C SC C SC C SC C SC C SC C OS OS COS C C S C AN C SNA C PO C SLIS C * * * * * * * * * CSC CSC CSC CSC CSC CSC CSC C ROS ROS ROS ROS O O CO CO CO C SC SC R OS R R C SC C SC P.1C SC C SC C SC C SC C SSC C SC C SC C SC CS C CD R C SS SA SS S OS *C*C-O* * * * * * * C SC P.A C P.B O C SC-S-C C CSC CR C C SS SS CSC CSC CSC CSC CSC C CO CO CSC CSC CSC CSC CSC-S-C CSC * * C * * * * * * * ROS ROS R R C-S-C P.3 C-S-C * * * * *C S *C* * * * C-O *C* * C*SC* * * CO CO CO C SC C SC C SC C SC C SC CS R OS R R R C SC C SC C SC C SC C SC C SC C C C SS SS SS OS QUINCY "* * " *" * "* * " *" * "* * * * * * * * * C C S S SS SS SC SC OS OS OS OS O COSSC COSSC COSSC COSSC COSSC CO S CO CO R CO R CO CSC CSC CSC CSC C" " " " " " " ROS ROS R R R-55 *" * "* * * * * * * * " CO CO CO C C C SC C SC C SC C SC" " *" * "* * R OS R R R C C C C C C C C C C OSSC OSSC OSSC OSSC OSSC OSSC OS OS OS OS OS SS SS SS SS RO R SC OS " "* * " *" * "* * " *" * * * * * * * S S S S SC SC SC SC OS OS OS OS OS O COSSC SEE FINDING COSSC (O) COSSC COSSC CO S ROS ROS R CO R CO R CO R CO CSC CSC CSC CSC "C " " " " " " C-O * * * * * * * * R-55 P.45 P.3 C C C C C C SC C SC C SC C SC" " " " " " " " " " " " " " C C C C C C C C OS OSSC OSSCPAGE 10,C OSSC OSSC OSSC OS OS OS OS OS OS SS SS SS SS R OS RO RO RO RO R SC * * * * * * * * CR-103-1982 S S S S SC SC SC SC OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS O RCOMS RCOS R CO R CO R CO R CO CSC CSC CSC CSC C" " I-1" " " " *" * * * * * * * O S " " " " " " " C C C C SC C SC C SC C SC " " " " " " *" * * * * * * * COMS C C C C OS OS OS OS OS OS OS O S P.107O S OS OS OMS SS SS SS SS R R CO R CO RO RO R SC " S S S S C SC SC SC SC OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS O RCOMS RCOS R CO R CO R CO R CO CSC CSC CS CSC C" " " " " " " " " " " "*" * * * * * * * O S P.317 COMS C C C C OS OS OS OP.BS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OMS SS SS SS SS R R CO R CO R CO R CO R CSC CSC CSC CSC CSC" " " " " " "* * * * * * * * " " " " " " *" * * * * * * * O S S S S S SC SC SC SC OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS O RCOMS RCOS R CO R CO R CO R CO CSC CSC CSC CSC "C " " " " " " COMS C C C C OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OMS SS SS SS SS R R CO R CO R CO R CO R CSC CSC CSC CSC CSC" " " " " " " " " " " " "*" * * * * * * * G (A) C-M * * * * * * * * " " " " S S S S SC SC SC SC OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS O RCOMS RCOS R CO R CO R CO R CO CSC CSC CSC CSC C" " " P.306 82 " " " " " " " COMS C C C C OS O S QUIN CO S OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OMS D R SS SS SS SS R CO R CO R CO R CO R CSC CSC CSC CSC CSC " " " " " " *" * * * * * * * Y A * * * * * * * * O " RR O S S S S S SC SC SC SC OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OSTSREE OS O ROS R CO R CO R CO R CO CSC CSC CSC CSC C" " " " " " " " " " " " " T S C M-X-T C P.45 R C C OS OS OS OS OS OS OS O OS OS O S P.162 OS B1: O SS SS SS SS ROSO-SR Cto R CO CO R CO R CSC CSC CSC CSC CSC" " " " " " " P.151 P.150

R-O-S

C-M

P.Q A-9242-C " " " " "" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " P.Y M 16 " " 15 " " " " " " " " " " " " " "C S " " " ""IND O" R O S P.249 ROS C " C"S C CSC CSC CS ROS ROS ROS ROS P.63 W R-O-S " " " " " " " " " ET" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " 1 "" " " " " " " " E P.140 10 R RCOMS RCOMS RCOMS SEE9 FINDING (M) OS R OS R OS R OS R OS C" SC" " C S"C " C SCSEE FINDING C SC (B) C SC "9 " " " " 30 " " " " " " " " "ST " " " " " " 1 1 " " " " " " " " " " " 10 PAGE 4, 24 " " " " " " 32 " " " " " " " " " " " " " " P.X" " " " " " PAGE 9, RCOMS RCOMS SC CCR-103-1982 CSC C CM 1 C " " " " " " " " " " ""1 "" " " " " 20" " " " " " " " " " " " " " "C S "C " C"S C ROS ROS ROS ROS 5 S CR-103-1982 P.254 5 RCOMS RCOMS RCOMS " " " " " " " " " " "" 3 " "" " " 17 " " " " 25 " " " " " " " P.B" " " C S"C " C" SC" " C SC OS R OS R OS R OS RCOMS C SC C1 SC P.62 " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " 14 6 CSC CSC CS CM C"M " P.C C" " " " " " " "" " " " 9" " 8 " " " " 15 16" " " " " P.T " " " " " " " C"S C " "C S"C ROS ROS ROS ROS " C M" " P.A " " " "P.158 " " " " 2 " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " 10 OS C C C C C M S S S S S R OS R OS R OS RCOMS C C C C C M M C C C P.94 " " " " " "" 1 " " " " 30 " " " " " " " " " " " " " P.90" " " "9 10 " " " " "P.D " " P.B " "" P.1 4" ER " STREET " " " " " " C"S C " "C S " " " " " " " " " " ST" " " " " " " " " C " C"S C C S C P.93C S C CS CM C M" " C"M " ""C " WEBS ROS ROS ROS ROS 24 TER 13 B WE " 32 " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "" 19 OS R OS R OS R OS RCOMS C SC C M " "C M " " " " " " " " " " " 5 " 15 " " "5 "17 " 20 " " " " " " " " " C S"C " C" SC" " C S"C " C SC CM 17 SC " C" 15 25 " " " " " " " ET S C " "C S"C CSC CSC C S16 CM C"M" " " "P.248 C"M" " " "C" "" " " P.E " " "P.280 "" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " S"TR"E " " " 27" " " " " " " "C S"C " C"P.89 ROS ROS ROS R O S3 P.92 8 1 16 UPSHUR C-S-C 15 3 P.92 " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " C * *C SC OS C S* R OS R OS R OS RCOMS C SC C SC C SC C SC 5 CM C SC C SC CM CM 12 " " 10 " " 20 " " " 10 " " " " " " " " " C-O 1" "" " " " " " " "

TANGLEWOOD

51ST

52N D

46TH 52ND ST

STREET

T 47TH ST RE E

137

Change Number

Zoning Change

Area of Change

R-T to M-X-T C-O to M-X-T C-S-C to M-X-T R-55 to M-X-T Total

1.700882 Ac. 3.159365 Ac. 3.42918 Ac. 0.351041 Ac. 8.640468 Ac.

Approved SMA/ ZAPS/SE Number Date 1994 & 2007 SMA SE-36 SE-3439

200’ Scale Index Map 205NE04 205NE05

Use and Location: Single-family detached at 5500, 5502, 5504 Quincy Street, 5309, 5423 Annapolis Road; assorted commercial at 5315, 5397-5405 (odd), 5415, 5419-21 (odd), 5427-31 (odd), 5435 Annapolis Road, 5401, 5505, 5507, 5509, 5511 Landover Road; Prince George’s Publick Playhouse at 5445 Landover Road; parking lot at 5503 Landover Road (Tax Map Grid: 050E3, Rope Walk, Parcel C, Outlot 1, Outlot 2 A Parcel A & B, Outlot 3; Cheverly Theater Co Inc, Parcel A, B, C; Villa Heights- Powells Addn, Block 4, Lot 1-11; Parcel 91, 103, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 114) Discussion: The proposed rezoning will implement the vision for the Port Towns to achieve green, healthy, and pedestrian-friendly communities and destinations that celebrate and build upon the area’s cultural diversity, strategic location, industrial base, and historic, recreational and environmental assets through targeted vertical mixed use development in accordance with form-based development standards.

Change Number

Zoning Change

C-O to M-X-T C-S-C to M-X-T Total

Area of Change

0.272163 Ac. 6.986012 Ac. 7.258175 Ac.

Approved SMA/ ZAPS/SE Number Date

200’ Scale Index Map

SMA SE-1343 SE-769 SE-1007 SE-3932 SE-3375 SE-234

205NE04 205NE05

1994 & 2007

Use and Location: Bladen Plaza Shopping Center and assorted commercial at 5416, 5439, 5455, 5457, 5458, 5459, 5462, 5463, 5464, 5465 Annapolis Road; 5500, 5502 Landover Road (Tax Map Grid: 050E3, Nam Commercial, Parcel A; Villa Heights- Powells Addn, Block 3, Lot 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11a, 11b; Washington Suburban Homes, Lot 1, 2; Parcel 118, 119, 184) Discussion: The proposed rezoning will implement the vision for the Port Towns to achieve green, healthy, and pedestrian-friendly communities and destinations that celebrate and build upon the area’s cultural diversity, strategic location, industrial base, and historic, recreational and environmental assets through targeted vertical mixed use development in accordance with form-based development standards.

138

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

139

Change Number

Zoning Change

Area of Change

C-O to M-X-T C-S-C to M-X-T Total

1.475702 Ac. 4.169094 Ac. 5.644797 Ac.

Change Number

Zoning Change

Area of Change

R-10 to M-X-T

9.400632 Ac.

Approved SMA/ ZAPS/SE Number Date

200’ Scale Index Map

Approved SMA/ ZAPS/SE Number Date

200’ Scale Index Map

SMA 1994 & 2007 205NE05 SE-428 SE-3822 SE-1371 Use and Location: Office commercial at 5632, 5634, 5636, 5650 Annapolis Road; Parkway Shopping Center at 5640-5660 (even) Annapolis Road (Tax Map Grid: 050F3, Blenheim, Block E1, Lot 2, 9, Parcel A, B; Annapolis Road Medical Center Condo, Unit 1-14) Discussion: The proposed rezoning will implement the vision for the Port Towns to achieve green, healthy, and pedestrian-friendly communities and destinations that celebrate and build upon the area’s cultural diversity, strategic location, industrial base, and historic, recreational and environmental assets through targeted vertical mixed use development in accordance with form-based development standards.

SMA

1994 & 2007

205NE05

SE-1948 SE-2436 Use and Location: The Phoenix 447 high-rise multifamily apartments at 5800, 5802, 5804, 5806 Annapolis Road (Tax Map Grid: 050F3, Parkway Center, Parcel A) Discussion: The proposed rezoning will implement the vision for the Port Towns to achieve green, healthy, and pedestrian-friendly communities and destinations that celebrate and build upon the area’s cultural diversity, strategic location, industrial base, and historic, recreational and environmental assets through targeted vertical mixed use development in accordance with form-based development standards.

Change Number B11

Zoning Change

Area of Change

Approved SMA/ ZAPS/SE Number Date

200’ Scale Index Map

R-55 to M-X-T 0.1389 Ac. SMA 1994 205NE05 C-O to M-X-T 1.927072 Ac. C-S-C to M-X-T 0.286153 Ac. Total 2.352125 Ac. Use and Location: Assorted commercial uses at 5601, 5615, 5617, 5619, 5623, 5629, 5631, 5635, 5639, 5641, 5643, 5645 Annapolis Road (Tax Map Grid: 050F3, Villa Heights, Lot 10-25; Villa Heights-Powells Addn, Lot 10) Discussion: The proposed rezoning will implement the vision for the Port Towns to achieve green, healthy, and pedestrian-friendly communities and destinations that celebrate and build upon the area’s cultural diversity, strategic location, industrial base, and historic, recreational and environmental assets through targeted vertical mixed use development in accordance with form-based development standards. 140

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

141

Change Zoning Change Number B10

Area of Change

Approved SMA/ ZAPS/SE Number Date

200’ Scale Index Map

R-55 to M-X-T 3.2567 Ac. SMA 1994 205NE05 C-S-C to M-X-T 0.608229 Ac. C-O to M-X-T 0.497375 Ac. Total 4.362304 Ac. Use and Location: Bladensburg Fire Station at 4213 Edmonston Road; Bladensburg Post Office at 4921 Tilden Road; Bladensburg Town Hall at 4229 Edmonston Road (Tax Map Grid: 050D3, Parcel 92, 166, 193, 95, 97, 307, 98). Discussion: The proposed rezoning will implement the vision for the Port Towns to achieve green, healthy, and pedestrian-friendly communities and destinations that celebrate and build upon the area’s cultural diversity, strategic location, industrial base, and historic, recreational and environmental assets through targeted vertical mixed use development in accordance with form-based development standards.

B10: C-O, C-S-C, R-55 to M-X-T

142

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Change Zoning Change Number CC1

Area of Change

Approved SMA/ ZAPS/SE Number Date

200’ Scale Index Map

C-M to M-X-T 1.159543 Ac. SMA 1994 204NE03 I-1 to M-X-T 18.122643 Ac. 205NE03 Total 19.282186 Ac. Use and Location: Assorted commercial- and industrial-oriented uses at 3308, 3320, 3342, 3434,3450, 3500, 3512, 3520, 3550, 3554, 3556, 3570, 3600, 3640 Bladensburg Road; 3702, 3708, 3702, 3704, 3706, 3708, 3710, 3712-37th Avenue (Tax Map Grid: 050A4, Cottage City, Block 1, Lot 18-27; Eastgate Industrial Center, Parcel A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, K, Lot 6) Discussion: The proposed rezoning will implement the vision for the Port Towns to achieve green, healthy, and pedestrian-friendly communities and destinations that celebrate and build upon the area’s cultural diversity, strategic location, industrial base, and historic, recreational and environmental assets through targeted vertical mixed use development in accordance with form-based development standards.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

143

Change Number

Zoning Change

Area of Change

CM1

C-S-C to M-X-T

6.743273 Ac.

Approved SMA/ ZAPS/SE Number Date

200’ Scale Index Map

Approved SMA/ ZAPS/SE Number Date

200’ Scale Index Map

Approved SMA/ ZAPS/SE Number Date

200’ Scale Index Map

204NE03 205NE03 Use and Location: The Port Towns Shopping Center at Colmar Manor at 3601 Bladensburg Road, 3933 Bladensburg Road (Tax Map Grid: 050B4, Colmar Manor-Resub, Parcel B, E, G) Discussion: The proposed rezoning will implement the vision for the Port Towns to achieve green, healthy, and pedestrian-friendly communities and destinations that celebrate and build upon the area’s cultural diversity, strategic location, industrial base, and historic, recreational and environmental assets through targeted vertical mixed use development in accordance with form-based development standards.

Change Zoning Change Number CM2

C-M to M-X-T

Area of Change

1994

SMA 1994 205NE03 SE-4072 205NE04 SE-3765 SE-1995 SE-3716 SE-3699 SE-1619 SE-1715 Use and Location: Assorted commercial uses along the entire odd side addresses of Bladensburg Road from 4103-4333; 3609, 3611, 3613-40th Place; 4001 Newark Road; 3612, 3614-41st Avenue; (Tax Map Grid: 050B4, Colmar Manor, Block 5, Parcel H; Tax Map Grid: 050B3, Lenox, Lot 2-34, 58-83) Discussion: The proposed rezoning will implement the vision for the Port Towns to achieve green, healthy, and pedestrian-friendly communities and destinations that celebrate and build upon the area’s cultural diversity, strategic location, industrial base, and historic, recreational and environmental assets through targeted vertical mixed use development in accordance with form-based development standards.

Change Zoning Change Number CC2

Area of Change

SMA 1994 205NE03 SE-1278 205NE04 SE-2614 SE-495 SE-3147 SE-3237 Use and Location: Assorted commercial uses along the entire even side addresses of Bladensburg Road from 3700-4320; 3700-40th Avenue; 3703-42nd Avenue (Tax Map Grid: 050A4, Cottage City, Parcel A, B, Block 4, Lots 21-29, Block 5, Lots 25-36, Block 8, Lots 23-31, Block 9, Lots 23-31, Block 11, Lots 23-31; Cottage City-Brunks Addn, Block A, Lots 2, 3, 32-42, Block B, Lots 1, 28-31) Discussion: The proposed rezoning will implement the vision for the Port Towns to achieve green, healthy, and pedestrian-friendly communities and destinations that celebrate and build upon the area’s cultural diversity, strategic location, industrial base, and historic, recreational and environmental assets through targeted vertical mixed use development in accordance with form-based development standards. 144

C-M to M-X-T

8.914459 Ac.

SMA

7.712442 Ac.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

145

Change Number

Zoning Change

Area of Change

Approved SMA/ ZAPS/SE Number Date

200’ Scale Index Map

U-L-I to M-X-T 1.959200 Ac. SMA 1994 206NE04 I-1 to M-X-T 8.220653 Ac. SE-3880 R-55 to M-X-T 1.03 Ac. Total 11.479853 Ac. Use and Location: Assorted industrial uses at 4600, 4606, 4607, 4608, 4610, 4703 Decatur Street; 4902-47th Avenue; 4902-06, 4908, 4909, 5000, 5010, 5012, 5014, 5016, 5024-30, 5001, 5005, 5011-13-46th Avenue (Tax Map Grid: 050C1, Home Sub, Lot 2-66; Palestine, Lot 1-9, 40-46, P/O Lot 55, 56, 57a; Hartmans Addn To Edmonston, Lot 1-3; Palestine Farm-Wells & Wells Sub, Outlot A; Palestine Farm-Resub, Lot 71) Discussion: The proposed rezoning will implement the vision for the Port Towns to achieve green, healthy, and pedestrian-friendly communities and destinations that celebrate and build upon the area’s cultural diversity, strategic location, industrial base, and historic, recreational and environmental assets through targeted vertical mixed use development in accordance with form-based development standards.

E1: U-L-I, I-1, R-55 to M-X-T

146

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Change Number

Zoning Change

Area of Change

Approved SMA/ ZAPS/SE Number Date

200’ Scale Index Map

C-M to M-X-T 8.306339 Ac. SMA 1994 205NE04 C-S-C to M-X-T 6.742041 Ac. SE-2209 206NE04 R-18 to M-X-T 2.313763 Ac. 206NE05 Total 17.362143 Ac. Use and Location: Multifamily residential Edmonston Road and Park Gardens Apartments at 5020-5118 (even) Edmonston Road; single-family detached residential at 4608, 4610, 4908, 4910, 4912, 5012, 5014, 5030 Edmonston Road, 5214 Buchannan Street, 5208 Crittenden Street; assorted commercial uses at 4202, 4204, 4206, 5000, 5016, 5020-26 Edmonston Road, 4711, 4811, 4835, 4901, 4919, 5001 Kenilworth Avenue (Tax Map Grid: 050D2, Brocks Addn To Edmonston, Lot 10, 11, 12, 13; East Hyattsville, Block L, Lot 4-9, 15; Whiteley, Block F, Lot 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10; Prince George’s Industrial Development Resub, Parcel M-M; Parcel 35; Tax Map Grid: 050E1, Hyattsville Bldg Assn Sub, Parcel A; Chamberlain Property Inc, Parcel A, B; Bresnahan Tract, Parcel B; Parcel 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22, 312; Tax Map Grid: 050E2, East Hyattsville, Lot 13, 16; Whiteley, Block F, Lot 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9; Hyattsville Bldg Assn Sub, Lot 5-7; Jules Jacquet Sub of East Hyattsville, Lot 2; Parcel 36, 37) Discussion: The proposed rezoning will implement the vision for the Port Towns to achieve green, healthy, and pedestrian-friendly communities and destinations that celebrate and build upon the area’s cultural diversity, strategic location, industrial base, and historic, recreational and environmental assets through targeted vertical mixed use development in accordance with form-based development standards.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

147

148

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT STANDARDS INTRODUCTION The Development District Overlay Zone (DDOZ) is superimposed over the Port Towns Development District to ensure that the development of land meets the sector plan goals and objectives. The Port Towns Development District development standards replace the underlying zoning regulations. The Port Towns Development District is subdivided into six character areas. Each character area has its own set of development district standards.These standards implement the concepts and recommendations for the six character areas. The standards for each character area are organized into urban streetscape standards that define the public realm based on street types. The street types are identified on the character area urban design plans. Building envelope standards for height, siting and façade elements such as fenestration, balconies, stoops, etc., are also categorized around five general building use categories—general, storefront, townhouse/small apartment building, workshop, and single-detached dwelling. Property owners and citizens consulting the standards should review the sector plan discussions of goals and recommendations for each character area.

Port Towns Waterfront Character Area

CHARACTER AREA SUMMARY

Goal: To promote a mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly boulevard that serves as a gateway to Prince George’s County and the Port Towns while also serving as the main street of Colmar Manor and Cottage City.

The sector plan envisions a Port Towns Development District that is a destination place for entertainment, recreation, dining, shopping and living. The sector plan sets goals, objectives, and urban design concepts based on this vision. The sector plan identifies six character areas: (1) Port Towns Waterfront, (2) Bladensburg Road Gateway/Main Street, (3) Bladensburg Town Center (4) Edmonston Road Main Street, (5) Edmonston North Workshop and, (6) Annapolis Road Gateway. The summary of goals and land use characteristics for the six character areas where the standards apply is provided below. Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Goal: To enhance the walkability of the Port Towns Waterfront by creating a framework for high-quality, mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented development incorporating human-scale buildings, and an attractive streetscape that emphasizes the Anacostia River. Land Use Characteristics: The Port Towns Waterfront Character Area overlays commercial uses in the vicinity of Peace Cross and the Bladensburg Waterfront Park. Development district standards emphasize the creation of a pedestrian-oriented streetscape that will welcome residents and visitors, establish a build-to line to ensure a common street wall that creates a comfortable sense of enclosure, and minimize total parking requirements while encouraging shared parking. The development character supports both a horizontal and vertical mix of uses (commercial, residential, civic, and entertainment).

Bladensburg Road Gateway/ Main Street Character Area

Land Use Characteristics: The Bladensburg Road Gateway/Main Street Character Area overlays a horizontal mix of strip and highway commercial uses. Development district standards emphasize the creation of a pedestrian-oriented streetscape that highlights the area’s history and provides easy linkages to existing park land that has been improved with facilities making it a destination. The development character supports both a horizontal and vertical mix of uses 149

(commercial, residential, civic, and entertainment) and public transit in the form of a MARC transit station and fixed guided transit (FGT).

Bladensburg Town Center Character Area Goal: To promote a mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly boulevard that serves as a vibrant and walkable civic core featuring restored and fully integrated historic resources. Land Use Characteristics: The Bladensburg Town Center Character Area overlays land for commercial retail uses located on the edge of single-family and multifamily residential neighborhoods within the Town of Bladensburg. This development character supports both a horizontal and vertical mix of uses (commercial, residential, civic, institutional, and historic points of interest) that underscores the town center as a destination.

Edmonston Road Main Street Character Area Goal: To promote a mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly main street that serves as a vibrant and walkable newly developed civic core for the Town of Edmonston and connects it across Kenilworth Avenue, which is enhanced as a landscaped parkway with safe and accessible pedestrian-activated crosswalks. Land Use Characteristics: The area is a horizontal mix of commercial, single-family, and multifamily residential uses that unfortunately lack accommodation for the level of pedestrianism that is common in the area. The development character of this area supports a vertical and horizontal mix of uses including commercial; single-family detached, attached, and multifamily residential; and civic uses.

Edmonston North Workshop Character Area Goal: To establish an identity for Decatur Street that promotes a mix of housing, commercial and employment uses that are compatible with the Town of Edmonston and its emphasis on green design and low-impact development. Land Use Characteristics: Traditional single-family residential uses, auto-related businesses, and light industrial uses are contained in close proximity to each other underscoring compatibility issues. The development character of this area supports a vertical and horizontal mix of uses for infill development and 150

redevelopment that preserve viable industrial uses, while providing a transition to other uses such as urban light industrial workshop uses. Addressing compatability issues and promoting sustainable design practices supports the Town of Edmonston’s emphasis on green design and lowimpact development.

Annapolis Road Gateway Goal: To promote a mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly eastern gateway to the Port Towns that emphasizes a cultural entertainment district focused around the Publick Playhouse. Land Use Characteristics: The Annapolis Road Gateway Character Area overlays a large concentration of strip-commercial development, small-scale retail, carry-outs, service-oriented businesses such as gas stations and auto-related businesses as well as scattered single-family and multifamily residential uses and churches. The development character of this area supports a vertical and horizontal mix of uses for infill development and redevelopment that promotes a cultural entertainment district focused on the Publick Playhouse and provides mixed-use redevelopment opportunities for underutilized properties in the area.

APPLICABILITY OF STANDARDS AND THE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS Development in the Port Towns DDOZ is subject to the development district standards of the character area within which it is located. To determine the framework character area of a site, refer to Map 2: Illustrative Framework Vision Plan. Identify the specific character area and then refer to the urban design plan for the specific character area. All new development, redevelopment, rehabilitation, and renovation of existing structures within the DDOZ shall comply with the general intent and goals of the development district standards. All applications for subdivision, permits for the construction of façade or building additions, renovations including signage, parking and loading, and fencing beyond routine maintenance and repair on these sites shall comply with the standards. A change from a lower intensity to a higher intensity use for new development, where specified in the Landscape Manual, shall also comply with the development district standards of this plan.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Site Plan Review Processes New development or development that increases the gross floor of an existing building beyond ten percent must show compliance with the pertinent character area development standards. Applicants with sites that are unable to meet the development district standards require a detailed site plan review process. Since the detailed site plan process requires a public hearing, it offers more flexibility in meeting the standards to bring developments into conformance with applicable goals, objectives, and recommendations within the plan. The Planning Board may approve modifications of the standards per Part 10A, Division 3, due to unique circumstances. Development subject to detailed site plan review will be evaluated for compliance with all the development district standards. Detailed site plan review shall be required for the following: 1. Sites over four acres in size. 2. Gateway and view terminus sites 3. Special permit uses per the use tables. 4. Unless otherwise modified by this DDOZ, special exception uses shall be considered permitted uses and are subject to a detailed site plan review process. The Planning Board shall find in its approval of the site plan that the use complies with all applicable development standards, meets the general special exception standards in Section 27-317(a) 1, 4, 5, 6 and conforms to the recommendations in the sector plan. The Planning Board may approve a detailed site plan with a condition that would regulate business hours of operation for certain businesses. The following are exemptions from the development district standards: 1. Legally Existing Development—Until a site plan is submitted, all buildings, structures, and uses that were lawful or could be certified as a legal nonconforming use on the date of SMA approval of the Port Towns Area Development District are exempt from the development district standards and from site plan review and are not nonconforming. If expansion of the use on the existing site is proposed, a site plan would be required and all expansion would need to conform in order to meet the development standards. Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

2. Legally Existing Parking and Loading—Until a development proposal is submitted, all legally existing parking and loading spaces in the development district that were lawful and not nonconforming on the date of SMA approval of the Port Towns Area Development District are exempt from the development district standards and are not nonconforming and need not be reduced. 3. Multifamily Development—An addition to a multifamily residential structure that was lawful and not nonconforming on the date of the SMA approval is exempt from the development district standards and detailed site plan review if the addition does not increase the gross floor area (GFA) by more than ten percent or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less. 4. Nonresidential Development—An addition to a nonresidential structure that was lawful and not nonconforming on the date of the SMA approval is exempt from the development district standards and DSP review if the addition does not increase the GFA by more than ten percent. 5. Parking Facilities—Resurfacing, restriping, or adding landscaping to parking facilities not required by the standards are exempt from the standards and detailed site plan review if the facilities were lawful and not nonconforming on the date of SMA approval and remain in conformance with all previously applicable regulations. 6. Nonconforming Buildings, Structures, and Uses— a. Restoration or reconstruction of a nonconforming building or structure, or a certified nonconforming use, is exempt from the standards and site plan review, if it meets the requirements of Section 27243(a)(1) of the Zoning Ordinance. b. Except for improvements listed in the following paragraph, “Miscellaneous,” a property owner may not expand a certified nonconforming use, or a use or structure that was lawful on the date of the SMA approval but does not conform to the standards, unless a detailed site plan is approved with findings that the expansion is compatible with adjacent uses and meets the goals of the sector plan.

151

7. Miscellaneous—The following are exempt from the development district standards and DSP review, if the existing or proposed use is permitted: a. Permits for alteration or rehabilitation, with no increase of the existing GFA, including existing porches or decks. b. Canopies. c. Fences for rear and side yards six feet or under and made of wood or masonry (not concrete block) are exempt. Fences and walls in the front yard that are four feet or under and made of wood or masonry (not concrete block) are exempt. d. Decks and/or porches. e. Ordinary maintenance and repair, including that on existing porches or decks.

Applicants shall submit, as relevant, the following: 1. An aerial photograph of the site and a general location map. 2. A narrative and graphic description of the proposed development including a site plan that clearly identifies: a. Location of all improvements. b. Build-to lines.

f. Changes in occupancy.

c. Overall site dimensions.

g. Changes in ownership.

d. Location of utilities.

8. Signs. a. Signs for development that do not otherwise require a detailed site plan will be reviewed in the permit review process for compliance with the development district standards. b. New and replacement signs are subject to the development district standards. c. Refacing of an existing sign is subject to the development district standards. The development district standards replace all those contained in the Zoning Ordinance and Landscape Manual. The DDOZ and the Development District Standards meet the purposes of and requirements for a conceptual site plan as set forth in Sections 27-272 and 27-273, thereby serving as the conceptual site plan for properties zoned M-X-T within the development district and satisfying the requirements of Section 27-254(d). If an aspect of the physical development of a project is not included in the development district standards, the character area goals and the intent statement of these standards most closely relating to that aspect shall apply.

Submittal Requirements Applicants are encouraged to meet with Planning Department staff while developing the project concept 152

(well in advance of final plans) to review applicable standards, obtain a preliminary evaluation of foreseeable conformance issues, and to identify review documentation required. All submittals will be reviewed for conformance with the development district standards. The recommendations of the Urban Design Section will be considered in reviewing detailed site plans.

e. Existing trees (caliper and type). f.

Landscaping.

g. Paved surfaces and type of paving material. h. Zoning, existing improvements, streets, alleys, sidewalks, and curb lines within 150 feet of the site. i.

Existing and proposed rights-of-way and existing street centerline.

3. Detailed architectural plans for all elevations, a detailed landscape and circulation plan, and a detailed lighting plan. 4. Building sections and floor plans that show floorto-ceiling heights and GFA. 5. If adjacent to a single-family residential neighborhood, submit photographs and locations of properties within 150 feet that show massing, scale, materials, and roof pitches of single-family homes. 6. Sign permit applications shall submit both sign details and a graphic representation of the location of the proposed sign on the building. 7. A parking schedule and plan. 8. Supporting documentation where requested in the development district standards (e.g., streetscape or parking provisions). Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

CHARACTER AREA URBAN DESIGN PLAN Key:

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

153

154

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

500

Feet 1,000

Map 27: Bladensburg Road Gateway/Main Street Character Area Urban Design Plan

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

155

Map 28: Annapolis Road Gateway Character Area Urban Design Plan

500

Feet 1,000

156

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

500

Feet 1,000

Edmonston Road Main Street Character Area Urban Design Plan

Map 29: Edmonston North Workshop Character Area Urban Design Plan and Edmonston Road Main Street Character Area Urban Design Plan

Edmonston North Workshop Character Area Urban Design Plan

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

157

500

Feet 1,000

Bladensburg Town Center Character Area Urban Design Plan

Map 30: Port Towns Waterfront Character Area Urban Design Plan and Bladensburg Town Center Character Area Urban Design Plan

Port Towns Waterfront Character Area Urban Design Plan

158

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

BUILDING AND SITE STANDARDS INTRODUCTION The accompanying standards establish design parameters to fulfill the vision of the Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA. These standards build on the sector plan recommendations and provide a greater level of specificity and detail in order to guide the implementation of the sector plan. These standards are based on the following guiding principles: 1. Buildings shall be aligned and close to the street. Buildings form the space of the street. 2. The street is a coherent space, with consistent building forms on both sides. Buildings facing across the street-space contribute to a clear public space and street-space identity. 3. Buildings oversee the street-space with active fronts. This overview of the street-space contributes to safe and vital public spaces. 4. Property lines are physically defined by buildings, walls or fences. Land should be clearly public or private—in public view and under surveillance or private and protected. 5. Buildings are designed for towns and cities. Rather than being simply pushed closer together, buildings must be designed for the urban situation within towns and cities. Views are directed to the streetspace and interior gardens or courtyards, not into neighboring lots. 6. Vehicle storage and parking (excluding on-street parking), garbage and recycling storage, and mechanical equipment are kept away from the street-space.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

These standards address various design elements of the built environment, including: Building Envelope Standards: The goal of these standards is the creation of a vital and coherent public realm through the creation of good street-space. The standards specify the placement and form of buildings, which frame the street-space, while allowing greater latitude behind their façades. These standards set the basic parameters governing building construction (height, siting, elements, and use), as well as certain required functional elements (colonnades, stoops, balconies, front porches, and street walls). The building envelope standards also establish the rules for development and redevelopment on private lots, unless otherwise indicated. The urban design plans identify the building envelope standards for all building sites within the six character areas. Urban Space Standards: These standards address the design of the public realm, which includes public spaces (squares, greens, plazas, parks) and the public domain between building façades, which includes the travel lanes between the curbs as well as the sidewalks and the building façades themselves. These standards contribute to pedestrian-oriented streets and the design of environments that facilitate pedestrian activity and contribute to environmental sustainability. These standards include parameters for street types, streetscapes, squares and civic greens, and trees. Architectural Standards: The architectural standards include specifications for signage to ensure that signs are clear, informative, durable, appropriately scaled and respectful of their context.

159

URBAN SPACE STANDARDS Applicability 1. The urban space standards apply to new development as well as the reconstruction of existing streets and other public (and publicly accessible) spaces. 2. The urban space standards establish the rules and standards for the public realm (including streets and sidewalks).

Intent 1. Although commonly thought of as just squares, greens, plazas, or parks, the urban space (or public realm) is much more; it includes the complete streetspace—the public domain between the building façades; the travel lanes between the curbs as well as the sidewalks; and the public plazas as well as urban parks and greens. 2. The 2002 General Plan clearly encourages pedestrian-oriented development as a high priority for the Developed and Developing Tiers and goes further to actually require pedestrian-oriented design as a goal for the designated centers and corridors. The urban space standards are directly related to that goal. Specifically: a. They establish an environment that encourages and facilitates pedestrian activity by providing streets that are comfortable, efficient, safe, and interesting. b. They ensure the coherence of the street-space, serving to assist residents, building owners, and managers with understanding the relationship between the street-space and their own lots. c. They contribute to ultimate sustainability. Native trees and plants contribute to privacy, the reduction of noise and air pollution, maintenance of the natural habitat, conservation of water, and rainwater management. 3. Frontages/façades are part of the public realm, literally the walls of the public street-space, and are, therefore, subject to more regulation than the other portions of the private property.

160

4. The private, interior portions of the lots (toward the alley or rear lot lines) allow commercial operators to utilize these spaces as efficient working environments unseen by the public and allow residents to have private (semiprivate for apartment and condominium dwellers) gardens and courtyards.

STREET TYPE SPECIFICATIONS The street type specifications illustrate typical configurations for street-spaces within the Port Towns Development District. The plans and sections specify vehicular travel lane widths, curb radii, sidewalks, tree planting areas, and on-street parking configurations. They also provide a comparative pedestrian crossing measure as a gauge of relative pedestrian crossing comfort between the various street types.

Intent 1. Streets are a community’s first and foremost public spaces and should be just as carefully designed and planned as any park or public building. The character of the street-space—both its scale and its details—plays a critical role in determining the pedestrian quality of a given location. 2. Streets must balance the needs of all forms of traffic—auto, transit, bicycle and pedestrian—to maximize mobility and convenience for all county residents and all users of an urban center district. Their character will vary depending on their location: Some streets will carry a large volume of traffic and provide a more active and intense urban pedestrian experience while others will provide a less active and more intimately scaled streetspace. 3. Transportation corridors within the Port Towns Development District are streets—not highways, arterials, or collectors—and must be developed as such to create the type of pedestrian-oriented places described in the General Plan. All neighborhood street types are designed primarily for walkability and pedestrian comfort, with automobile movement as a secondary focus.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Principles 1. The appropriate design of streets is one of the most important design elements. 2. To design for continuous free-flowing traffic creates situations where vehicles will travel at speeds greater than desirable for pedestrians. 3. With appropriate design techniques, drivers will choose slower speeds and less aggressive behavior, a feat typically not achieved through basic speed limit signage/postings. 4. Scale is a threshold design consideration for street elements (from signage to crossing distances); In an urban center or corridor it should be that of the pedestrian. 5. An interconnected street network allows traffic capacity to be diffused and maintained across numerous streets. 6. Larger vehicular corridors can be maintained/ located at the edges of the district between urban neighborhoods. 7. Emergency vehicle access must be maintained, but with an interconnected street network, there will always be at least two routes of access to any parcel. 8. Differences between “requirements” and “preferences” can be significant—increased lane width and the accompanying increased vehicle speed more often than not decrease the overall safety for pedestrians. 9. On-street parking slows passing vehicular traffic and acts as a buffer between moving vehicles and pedestrians. 10. Overall function, comfort, safety, and aesthetics of a street are more important than efficiency alone. 11. In a pedestrian-oriented area, nonvehicular traffic should be provided with every practical advantage so long as safety is not adversely affected. 12. Street design should take into consideration what is reasonably foreseeable, not every situation that is conceivably possible.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

13. Designing a street to facilitate (rather than accommodate) infrequent users may actually be the wrong design for the frequent users of the space. 14. When the street design creates a conflict between the vehicular and nonvehicular user, it should be resolved in favor of the non-vehicular user unless public safety will be truly jeopardized by the resolution.

Neighborhood Street Types These types and configurations are permitted within the boundaries of the Port Towns character area urban design plans: NST-1 NST-2 NST-3 Mid-Block Emergency Staging Area Configuration Alley-24 Alley-30 Urban neighborhoods are designed to be the ideal complement to good transit service. The neighborhood street types are not configured to provide free-flow bus service as they are not intended for through routes. That is the role of the major street types. Bus and rail transit routes should generally be between and along the urban neighborhoods. If the master planning process determines that a transit route should pass through an urban neighborhood, the prescribed curb radii for the given street may be modified at the point of entry and exit for the urban neighborhood. Within the urban neighborhoods, intersections configured as roundabouts are discouraged; however, they are encouraged at the edges and between multiple urban neighborhoods.

Maintenance The county will not maintain any areas or materials beyond the back-of-curb or beyond the travel lanes of these street types.

161

͘͘͝

NST-3

͙ǡ͘͘͘

oo kw Par

tre

* Note: Build-to lines (BTL) are measured in relation to the public right-of-way for streets as designated in the 2009 Countywide Master Plan of Transportation. During the conceptual site plan process, property owners should refer to this plan to determine the BTL along a given major street.

DDOZ Area

Sector Plan Boundary

0DS 6WUHHW 7\SHV %XLOG WR /LQHV

76’ 56’

NST-2

d Bla

u nsb

et tre rk S wa e N

66’

NST-2

Existing Street Closed

93’

NST-1

R rg

Aven ue 46th Baltimore Aven

ue (US 1) Upshur Street

nil

en Av

Annapolis Road (MD

rth

Dec atur Stre et

Ing rah am Stre et

Ed 450)

oad

02)

Road (M Annapolis do ver R

Newton Street

Quincy Street

Lan

Dec atur Stre et

Emerson Street

83’

NST-1

oa nR

Build-To Line

48th Street

ns to

Major Street *

D 450)

Street Type

hA ven u

LEGEND

57t

͙͚͞

Baltimore Avenue (US 1)

17 - 22ft Pedestrian Space.

17' 22'

11'

BTL (min.) BTL (max.)

BTL (max.) BTL (min.)

11'

Streetspace Min & Max

83' 93' CL

(A) Tree Lawn, (B) Walkway (C) Dooryard

BTL Dooryard

R= 30 ft

45'

Behind travel lane to first parking space.

38'

Comparative Pedestrian Crossing Dist.

Neighborhood Street: NST-1 STREETSPACE: 83 to 93 feet (per Regulating Plan). Sidewalk Area Elements: (A) Treelawn 6 to 8 ft, (B) Clear Walkway 9 to 10 ft, (C) DOORYARD 2 to 4 ft. Total Pedestrian Area Width, 17 to 22 ft. Travel Lanes: 2 through @ 11 feet, Center Turn Lane (Median optional): 11 feet. Design Speed 25 to 30 mph. Comparative Pedestrian Crossing Distance 38 feet. Time 10 seconds. (All dimensions to face of curb.) Note: These drawings are for illustrative purposes only. Refer to the Regulating Plan for the situation specific to your site.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA 162

163 Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

16 - 21ft Pedestrian Space.

16' 21'

10'

BTL (min.) 10'

Streetspace Min & Max 66' 76' CL

B C

BTL (max.)

BTL (min.)

BTL (max.)

(A) Tree Lawn, (B) Clear Walkway (C) Dooryard BTL Dooryard

R= 30 ft

40'

Comparative Pedestrian Crossing Dist. 26'

behind travel lane to first parking space.

Neighborhood Street: NST-2

STREETSPACE: 66 to 76 feet (per Regulating Plan). Sidewalk Area Elements: (A) Treelawn 7 to 8 ft, (B) Clear Walkway 6 to 9 ft, (C) DOORYARD 3 to 4 ft. Total Pedestrian Area Width, 16 to 21 ft. Travel Lanes: 2 through @ 10 feet. Intended Speed 20 mph. Comparative Pedestrian Crossing Distance 26 feet. Time 7 seconds. (All dimensions to face of curb.) Note: These drawings are for illustrative purposes only. Refer to the Regulating Plan for the situation specific to your site.

164 Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA 163

11 - 13ft Pedestrian Space.

11' 13'

10'

BTL (min.) BTL (max.)

BTL (max.) BTL (min.)

10'

Streetspace Min & Max 56' 62'

(B) Clear Walkway (C) Dooryard

Dooryard

R= 30 ft

45' behind travel lane to first parking space.

Comparative Pedestrian Crossing Dist. 26’ C 2008 Ferrell Madden Associates L.L.C.

Neighborhood Street: NST-3

STREETSPACE: 56 to 62 feet (per Regulating Plan). Sidewalk Area Elements: Treelawn/Parking 8 ft, (B) Clear Walkway 6 to 8 ft, (C) DOORYARD 4 to 5 ft. Total Pedestrian Area Width, 11 to 13 ft. Design Speed 20 mph or less. Travel Lanes: 2 through @ 10 feet.Comparative Pedestrian Crossing Distance 26 feet, Time 7 seconds. (All dimensions to face of curb.) Note: These drawings are for illustrative purposes only. Refer to the Regulating Plan for the situation specific to your site.

164 Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

FML:01/10/08

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA 165

Typical BTL

Varies 40 ft. Typical

Dimension Varies, Refer to Regulating Plan for Site Specific Dimension

Typical Pedestrian Space Varies

40 ft. Typical

28’

22’

30’

33 ft. Typ. Comparative Pedestrian Crossing Distance

Mid-Block Emergency Staging Area (Required for any block face more than 250 feet in length) Three Lane and Dedicated Parking Lane Configurations.

Fire and Rescue Staging Area Width 46 feet (paved surface) and 33 feet (between curb faces).

28’

37 ft. Typical

30’

22’

27 ft. Typ. Comparative Pedestrian Crossing Distance

Mid-Block Emergency Staging Area (Required for any block face more than 250 feet in length) Two (2) Lanes and Dedicated Parking Lane Configurations. Fire and Rescue Staging Area Width 35-37 feet (paved Surface) and 20-22 feet (between curb faces). Note: These drawings are for Illustrative Purposes Only. Refer to the Regulating Plan for the Situation Specific to your Site.

166

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

167

Alley: 30 ROW:30 feet. (A) Paved Area 14-22 feet, (B) Pervious Side Areas 4-8 feet (turf or pervious paving).Throat Width (at ROW) 18 feet, Curb Radius 12 feet. Curb extends to the sidewalk. Utility easements shall be provided for the entire alley area. Comparative Pedestrian Crossing Distance 18 feet. Time 6seconds. (All dimensions to face of curb.)

Note: These drawings are for illustrative purposes only. Refer to the regulating plan for the situation specific to your site.

Alley: 24 ROW: 24 feet. (A) Paved Area 10-18 feet, (B) Pervious Side Areas 3-7 feet each. Throat Width 15 feet (at ROW), Curb Radius 10 feet. Curb extends to the sidewalk. Utility easements shall be provided for the entire alley area. Comparative Pedestrian Crossing Distance 16 feet. Time 4 seconds. (All dimensions to face of curb.)

STREETSCAPE STANDARDS General Provisions

a. Soil surface area shall not be less than 90 square feet per isolated tree or 60 square feet per tree for connected (tree lawn) situations.

1. All plant material (including trees) shall pass any inspections required under state regulations.

b. No dimension of the soil surface area may be less than 5 1/2 feet.

2. All plant material within the street-space shall be irrigated and maintained by the adjoining property owner.

c. These requirements may be met through the use of bridged slab, structural soil, or other techniques that clearly exceed these standards in the fostering of vital and long-lived street trees.

3. All turf grass shall be solidly sodded at installation—not seeded, sprigged, or plugged. Vegetative groundcovers may be used in place of turf grass. 4. In addition to the lot, the owner must maintain the following areas: a. The portion of the street-space between their lot line and the back of the curb. b. The portion of the alley between the lot line and the edge of the alley pavement. Mechanical and electrical equipment including, but not limited to, air compressors, pumps, exterior water heaters, water softeners, private garbage cans (not including public sidewalk waste bins), and storage tanks may not be stored or located within any streetspace. (Water pumps not visible are not included in this prohibition. Temporary placement of private garbage cans within the street-space may be allowed to accommodate scheduled pick-up.)

Street Trees 1. Each street-space must have street trees planted along the street tree alignment line (generally 3 to 3½ feet from the back of the curb unless otherwise specified in the urban design concept plan) at an average spacing not greater than 30 feet on center (calculated per block face). Where necessary, spacing allowances may be made to accommodate curb cuts, fire hydrants, and other infrastructure elements; however, at no location may spacing exceed 45 feet on center. Required tree planting area configurations are specified in the Street Type Specifications Section and below. 2. Required tree planting area minimum specifications are as follows:

168

3. Street tree planting areas shall be at grade or not greater than six inches in height above or below the sidewalk. 4. At planting, street trees shall be at least three inches in diameter (at six feet above grade) and at least ten feet in overall height. Species must be selected from the street tree list (see Tree Lists). Any unpaved ground area shall be planted with groundcover, flowering vegetation, or climbing vines, not to exceed 12 inches in height. Street trees must be “limbed up” as they gain appropriate maturity so as to not interfere with pedestrian or truck travel (minimum seven feet clear over the sidewalk and 14 feet over the travel lanes of the street) and to maintain visibility.

Streetscape Elements 1. Street lights shall be installed on both sides of streets along the street tree alignment line and unless otherwise designated on the urban design concept plan, at intervals of not more than 80 feet, measured parallel to the street. 2. Street lights shall be between 9 and 16 feet above ground in height. At the time of development, the developer is responsible for the installation of street lights on each side of the street-space being developed. 3. At the time of development, the developer is required to install sidewalks as illustrated in the Street Type Specifications Section. 4. Sidewalks not otherwise designated in the urban design concept plan or Street Type Specifications Section hall be a minimum of six feet wide and be constructed to meet all county (and ADA) specifications.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

5. Street furniture is an element of the overall streetscape design—not an afterthought. Street furnishings should be simple, functional, and durable.

On-Street Parking 1. On-street parking spaces shall count toward parking requirements 2. The parking space/tree planting pattern may be interrupted by existing or new driveways, streets, alleys, and transit stops designated in the urban design concept plans, but at no time may the spacing exceed 45 feet on center. 3. Parking spaces must be constructed in a manner that allows proper drainage (generally a “W” profile, having a gutter pan between the travel and parking lanes). 4. If on-street bicycle parking is provided forward of the dooryard area, the racks shall be located along the street tree alignment line. (The “U” rack is recommended as the standard rack.)

SQUARES AND CIVIC GREENS Intent 1. Squares, civic greens and plazas should be situated at prominent locations within each urban neighborhood and should be dedicated to important events or citizens. The green plants and trees of squares and civic greens provide a landscape and civic architecture that complement the surrounding private building architecture. 2. Squares are active pedestrian centers. Civic greens are spaces intended for less intensive foot traffic. Surface treatment is regulated accordingly. 3. Pervious paving materials (to allow oxygen for tree roots and absorb stormwater run-off) are encouraged in both squares and civic greens, and the percentage of impervious paving material is limited (see Materials and Configurations ). 4. Parks are not permitted within a urban neighborhood. Parks are generally natural areas or active recreation areas such as ball fields and courts. They are encouraged at the periphery of an urban center district or between urban neighborhoods. Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

5. These standards apply to those spaces that are either publicly owned or publicly accessible, if such spaces are being used to meet the minimum public space requirements of this code (see Part 3. Districts and Urban Design Concept Plans)

Standards Squares and civic green must be designed, planted and maintained according to the following requirements: 1. Squares and civic greens shall have at least 60 percent of their perimeter fronting rights-of-way and both types of spaces should be surrounded by street trees. Their dimensions may be no narrower than a 1:5 ratio and no square or civic green width or breadth dimension may be less than 25 feet. 2. Appropriate to their high (pedestrian) traffic level they must be designed with a higher percentage of paved surface area. 3. A clear view through the square or civic green (from two to eight feet in height) is required, both for safety and urban design purposes. 4. Squares and civic greens may not include active recreation structures such as ball fields and courts.

Materials and Configurations General 1. Street trees shall be planted along the street tree alignment line in accordance with Sec. 27A-504.B. Street Trees. They may be of a different species than the connecting street. 2. The ground surface level elevation must be between 0 and 18 inches above the top of the adjacent curb. 3. The maximum slope across any square or civic green may not exceed ten percent. 4. Except for tree trunks, street lights, civic buildings, public art, or monuments, there must be a clear view between two and eight feet above grade. The foliage of newly planted trees may intrude into this area until the tree has sufficient growth to allow such a clear trunk height. 5. Trees within a square or civic green may also be selected from the public space tree lists (see Tree List). 169

6. Asphalt is prohibited within a square or civic green. Squares Appropriate to their high (pedestrian) traffic level, squares shall be designed with a higher percentage of paved surface area. Surface treatment and materials (within the area back-of-curb to back-of-curb, excluding any civic building, public art or monument footprint) shall be a minimum 20 percent and a maximum 35 percent unpaved pervious surface (turf, groundcover, gravel, soil or mulch). Civic Greens Appropriate to their less intensive character, greens shall be designed with a lower percentage of paved surface area. Surface treatment and materials (within the area back-of-curb to back-of-curb excluding any civic building, public art, or monument footprint) shall be a minimum 50 percent unpaved pervious surface area (turf, groundcover, gravel, soil or mulch). Pedestrian Pathway The area within a pedestrian pathway must be a public access easement or public right-of-way. The easement width for these pathways must not be less than 20 feet with a paved walkway not less than ten feet wide and must provide an unobstructed view straight through its entire length, except where otherwise specified on the urban design concept plan.

TREE LISTS General 1. The following lists contain all approved tree species for use in an urban center district. The lists include native and acceptable adapted species. Other species may be used for planting within a private lot. 2. Invasive exotic species may not be used anywhere on private lots or other areas within an urban center district.

170

Street Trees 1. Species in the street tree list are for placement as shown in the Street Type Specifications, or as specified in the urban design concept plan for placement along the street tree alignment line. The use of alternate species may be permitted, but only if approved at staff level review 2. Street trees are part of an overall street-space plan designed to provide both canopy and shade and to give special character and coherence to each street-space. The desired aesthetic must be achieved through the use of native and/or proven hardy adapted species. Appropriate street tree list species may expand and change over time. Inclusion in this list must be based on the following criteria: a. Structural—Street trees shape and subdivide the street-space, increasing pedestrian comfort and adding (literal) value to the street/ community. “Canopy shade tree” species grow to heights in excess of 60 feet and have a broad canopy—enabling them to clear auto traffic and pedestrians, form a ceiling-like enclosure, and open a clear view of the streetspace and shopfronts at eye-level. b. Pragmatic—Life as a street tree is nasty, brutish, and typically short. Few species are tough enough to survive to an appropriate height. Appropriate species have special tolerance to salt and soil compaction. Street tree planting techniques and configurations provide a healthy environment in which the tree can thrive; This will ensure that the trees increase the community value as they grow. c. Design—Species are planted consistently along a given street-space to provide form and character. Provide species diversity by planting different streets with different trees.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Street Tree List (Large Canopy Trees— Mature height above 70 feet)

Tilia cordata ‘Greenspire’ (Greenspire Littleleaf Linden) Tilia euchlora (Crimean Linden)

Acer platanoides ‘Columnare’ (Norway Maple)

Tilia tomentosa (Silver Linden)

Acer platanoides ‘Summershade’ (Norway Maple)

Ulmus hollandica ‘Groenveldt’ (Groenveldt Elm)

Acer rubrum (Red Maple)

Ulmus parvifolia (Chinese/Lacebark/Drake Elm)

Betula nigra (River Birch) Celtis occidentalis (Common Hackberry)

Public Space Trees

Cercidiphyllum japonicum (Katsura Tree)

In addition to the preceding trees, the following trees may be placed within a squares or civic greens:

Fraxinus americana ‘Autumn Purple’ (White Ash)

Acer palmatum cultivars (Japanese Maple)

Fraxinus excelsior (Blue Ash)

Cerus canadisis (Redbud)

Fraxinus pennsylvanica ‘Marshall’s Seedless’ (Green Ash)

Cornus florida cultivars (Dogwood)

Ginkgo biloba Ginkgo (male only) Gleditsia triacanthos var. inermis Thornless (Honey Locust) Koelreutaria paniculata (Golden Raintree) Liquidambar styracifolia (Sweetgum) Platanus acerifolia ‘Bloodgood’ (London Plane tree) Platanus occidentalis (Sycamore) Quercus acutissima (Sawtooth Oak) Quercus coccinea (Scarlet Oak) Quercus falcata (Southern Red Oak) Quercus muhlenbergii (Chinquapin Oak) Quercus palustris (Pin Oak) Quercus phellos (Willow Oak) Quercus rubra (Red Oak) Quercus velutina (Black Oak)

Cornus kousa (Kousa Dogwood) Lagerstroemia indica (Crepe Myrtle) Magnolia spp. (Magnolia) Malus spp. (improved varieties) (Crabapple) Prunus spp. (Flowering Cherry and Plum) Taxodium distichum (Bald Cypress) Acer nigrum (Black Maple) Carya illinoinensis (Pecan) Carya laciniosa (Shellbark Hickory) Carya ovata (Shagbark Hickory) Ilex vomitoria (Yaupon Holly) Juglans nigra (Black Walnut) Liriodendron tulipifera (Tulip Poplar) Pistacia chinensis (Chinese Pistache) Taxodium ascendens (Pond Cypress)

Sophora japonica ‘Regent’ (Japanese Pagoda Tree) Tilia Americana (Basswood/American Linden)

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

171

BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS Intent 1. The goal of the building envelope standards (BES) is the creation of a vital, and coherent public realm through the creation of good street-space. The intent of these form standards is to shape the street-space—the specific physical and functional character—of the Port Towns Development District Plan (PTDDP). The placement and form controls on building frontages work together to frame the street-space while allowing greater latitude behind the building façades. The building envelope standards aim for the minimum level of control necessary to meet this intent. 2. The BES set the basic parameters governing building construction, including the building envelope (in three dimensions) and certain required or permitted functional elements, such as colonnades, stoops, balconies, front porches, and street walls. 3. The BES establish the rules for development and redevelopment on private lots, unless otherwise indicated on the Character Area Urban Design Plan. 4. The Character Area Urban Design Plan identifies the building envelope standards for all building sites within a specific character area.

General Provisions The following apply to all BES, unless expressly stated otherwise within an individual BES or otherwise designated on PTDDP character area urban design plans. Transitions When the BES designation shown on the PTDDP character area urban design plans changes along a property’s build-to line (BTL), that property owner has the option, for his property’s street frontage only, of applying either BES for a maximum additional distance of 50 feet in either direction. Façade Composition 1. For each block face within the urban neighborhood, façades along the BTL shall present a complete and discrete vertical façade composition (i.e., integral architectural articulation to maintain and protect a human-scale for the street-space) at an average street frontage length of no greater than 60 feet for 172

storefront frontage sites; 75 feet for general and small apartment/townhouse frontage sites; and 100 feet for workshop and detached frontage. 2. Each façade composition shall include a functioning street entry door. This requirement may be satisfied through the use of liner shops for large floor-plate buildings. Individual infill projects on lots with frontage of less than 100 feet are exempted from the overall façade composition requirement, but shall still include a functioning street entry. 3. “Façade composition” is the arrangement and proportion of façade materials and elements (windows, doors, columns, pilasters, and bays). “Complete and discrete” is like a new façade, much as for new buildings. To achieve Paragraph 2, above, within a building frontage, a minimum of one of the items listed below and two additional items are required: a. Clearly different ground story façade composition (both framing materials and fenestration proportions). b. Window proportions (minimum difference 20 percent). c. Façade composition (clearly different ‘bay’ rhythm, e.g. “ABA”—“ABBA”—“BAAB”— “ABCBA”). d. Wall Material (clearly different external wall material—color changes do not suffice). e. Change in fenestration percentage (minimum difference 12 percent; ground floor façades are not included). Building Size The maximum building floor-plate (footprint) for a building is 25,000 square feet; beyond that limit a departure from design standards is required in accordance with Subtitle 27, Part 3, Division 5, Subdivision 4, Departures from Design Standards. Grocery use sites designated on the PTDDP character area preferred urban design plans are exempted from this standard. Neighborhood Manners For any BES frontage except detached and small apartment/townhouse, the following rules apply: 1. Where a site has a common lot line with a singlefamily residential property, there shall be a 40foot setback for any structure. Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

2. Where a site abuts a single-family residential property, a garden wall/street wall, 4 to 6 feet in height, shall be constructed within one foot of the common lot line or alley. 3. Where a site is located within 50 feet of an existing single-family residential zoning district, the maximum eave or parapet height for that portion of the site shall be 32 feet. This requirement supersedes the minimum story height requirement. Height 1. The height of all buildings is measured in stories, unless otherwise designated herein. 2. An attic story is not included as a story in the height measurement. 3. If an individual story exceeds the maximum floorto-floor height, it shall be counted against another story, so that no individual building height may exceed the sum of all stories at their maximum height in feet per story. 4. Where a parking structure is within 40 feet of any building (constructed after approval of the PTDDP character area preferred urban design plan) that portion of the structure shall not exceed the building’s primary ridge or parapet height. 5. Mezzanines that have a floor area greater than one-third of the floor area of the story in which they are located shall count as an additional full story in the story height measurement. Siting 1. The building façade shall be built to the BTL within 30 feet of a block corner. 2. A street wall shall be required along any BTL frontage that is not otherwise occupied by a building. The street wall shall be located not more than eight inches behind the BTL. 3. The BTL designated on PTDDP character area urban design plans is an absolute line that incorporates an offset area (or depth) of 18 inches beyond that line (into the buildable area) allowing for jogs, façade articulation, etc. ,unless otherwise designated herein. 4. Buildings may only occupy that portion of the lot specified as the buildable area—the area behind the BTL as designated by the BES. Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

5. No part of any building may be located outside of the buildable area except overhanging eaves, awnings, or balconies. 6. There is no required setback from alleys. On lots without alley access, there shall be a minimum 25foot setback from the rear lot line. 7. There are no side yard setbacks, except as specified in “Neighborhood Manners” (above) or in the BES. 8. The parking setback line is 30 feet behind the BTL unless otherwise indicated on the character area urban design plan. Vehicle parking shall be located behind the parking setback line, except where parking is provided below grade, on-street, or otherwise indicated on PTDDP character area preferred urban design plans. 9. Corner lots and through lots shall satisfy the requirements of these standards in accordance with the character area urban design plans for all their designated frontages, unless otherwise specified. Elements 1. Fenestration is measured as a percentage of the façade between floor levels. 2. No window may face or direct views toward a common lot line within 25 feet unless: a. That view is contained within the lot (e.g., by a privacy fence or garden wall), or b. The sill is at least six feet above its finished floor level. 3. Balconies and stoops shall not project within five feet of a common lot line. 4. No part of any building except overhanging eaves, awnings, balconies, bay windows, stoops, and shopfronts as specified by the code may project beyond the BTL. 5. Privacy fences may be constructed along that portion of a common lot line not otherwise occupied by a building. Civic Use Buildings When designated on the PTDDP character area preferred urban design plans, civic use buildings are exempt from the BES standards, excepting any provisions that concern adjacent single-family detached uses residential areas. 173

GENERAL BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS FOR HEIGHT Buildings shall be at least four stories in height, but no greater than ten stories in height.

Ground Story Height: Commerce Uses 1. The average ground story finished floor elevation shall be equal to the exterior sidewalk elevation in front of the building to a maximum finished floor elevation of 18 inches above the sidewalk. 2. The ground story shall have at least 15 feet of clear interior height (floor to ceiling) contiguous to the BTL frontage for a minimum depth of 25 feet. 3. The maximum ground story height is 22 feet, measured from the sidewalk to second story floor.

Ground Story Height: Residential Units 1. The average finished floor elevation shall be no less than three feet above the exterior sidewalk elevation at the BTL. 174

2. The ground story shall have an interior clear height (floor to ceiling) of at least nine feet and a maximum sidewalk to a second story floor height of 22 feet.

Upper Story Height 1. The maximum clear height (floor to ceiling) for stories other than the ground story is 12 feet. 2. At least 80 percent of each upper story shall have an interior clear height (floor to ceiling) of at least nine feet.

Street Wall Height A street wall not less than six feet in height or greater than 12 feet in height shall be required along any BTL frontage that is not otherwise occupied by a building on the lot.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

GENERAL BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS FOR SITING Street Façade

Garage and Parking

1. On each lot the building façade shall be built to the BTL for at least 75 percent of the BTL length.

1. Curb cuts or driveways shall be located at least 75 feet away from any block corner or another garage entry on the same block face. These requirements are not applicable along alleys.

2. The ground floor façade, within seven feet of the block corner, may be chamfered to form a corner entry.

Buildable Area

2. Openings in the BTL for parking garage entries shall have a maximum clear height no greater than 16 feet and a clear width no greater than 22 feet.

A contiguous private open area equal to at least ten percent of the total buildable area shall be preserved on every lot. Such contiguous open area may be located anywhere behind the parking setback, at or above grade.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

175

GENERAL BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS FOR ELEMENTS Fenestration 1. Blank lengths of wall exceeding 20 linear feet are prohibited on all BTLs. 2. Ground story façade fenestration shall comprise between 40 and 90 percent of the façade. 3. Upper story façade fenestration shall comprise between 20 and 60 percent of the façade area per story.

Building Projections 1. Awnings shall project a minimum of six feet to a maximum of: a. Within one foot of back of curb where there are no street trees, or b. One foot into the tree lawn (where there are street trees).

176

2. Awnings that project over the sidewalk portion of a street-space shall maintain a clear height of at least ten feet. 3. Awnings may have supporting posts at their outer edge provided they: a. Have a minimum of eight feet clear width between the façade and the support posts or columns of the awnings, and b. Provide a continuous clear walkway at least four feet wide running adjacent and parallel to the awning columns/posts.

Street Walls One vehicle entry gate no wider than 20 feet and one pedestrian entry gate no wider than five feet shall be permitted within any required street wall.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

GENERAL BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS FOR USE Ground Story The ground story may only house commerce or residential uses. See height specifications above for specific requirements unique to each use.

2. No commerce use is permitted above a residential use. 3. Additional habitable space is permitted within the roof where the roof is configured as an attic story.

Upper Stories

Specific Use Requirements

1. The upper stories may only house residential or commerce uses. No restaurant or retail sales uses shall be allowed in upper stories except restaurant uses may be permitted in a vew terminus site within the PTWF or BBRD character areas to maximize views of the Anacostia stream valley and river, or unless they are second story extensions equal to or less than the area of the ground story use.

Refer to Use Table for specific use requirements.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

177

STOREFRONT BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS FOR HEIGHT Building Height

Upper Story Height

1. The building shall be at least four stories in height, but no greater than ten stories in height.

1. The maximum clear height (floor to ceiling) for stories other than the ground story is 12 feet.

Ground Story Height

2. At least 80 percent of each upper story shall have an interior clear height (floor to ceiling) of at least nine feet.

1. The average ground story finished floor elevation shall be equal to the exterior sidewalk elevation in front of the building to a maximum finished floor elevation of 18 inches above the sidewalk. 2. The ground story shall have at least 15 feet of clear interior height (floor to ceiling) contiguous to the BTL frontage for a minimum depth of 25 feet.

Street Wall Height A street wall not less than six feet in height or greater than 12 feet in height shall be required along any BTL frontage that is not otherwise occupied by a building on the lot.

3. The maximum ground story height is 22 feet, measured from the sidewalk to second story floor.

178

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

STOREFRONT BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS FOR SITING Street Façade

Garage and Parking

1. On each lot the building façade shall be built to the BTL for at least 80 percent of the BTL length.

1. Curb cuts or driveways shall be located at least 75 feet away from any block corner or another garage entry on the same block face. These requirements are not applicable along alleys.

2. The ground floor façade may, within seven feet of the block corner, be chamfered to form a corner entry.

Buildable Area

2. Openings in the BTL for parking garage entries shall have a maximum clear height no greater than 16 feet and a clear width no greater than 22 feet.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

179

STOREFRONT BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS FOR ELEMENTS

Fenestration 1. Blank lengths of wall exceeding 20 linear feet are prohibited on all BTLs. 2. Ground story façade fenestration shall comprise between 60 and 90 percent of the façade. 3. Upper story façade fenestration shall comprise between 20 and 60 percent of the façade area per story.

Building Projections 1. Awnings shall project a minimum of six feet to a maximum of: a. Within one foot of back of curb where there are no street trees, or b. One foot into the tree planting area (where there are street trees).

180

2. Awnings that project over the sidewalk portion of a street-space shall maintain a clear height of at least ten feet. 3. Awnings may have supporting posts at their outer edge provided that they: a. Have a minimum of eight feet clear width between the façade and the support posts or columns of the awnings, and b. Provide a continuous clear walkway at least four feet wide running adjacent and parallel to the awning columns/posts.

Street Walls One vehicle entry gate no wider than 20 feet and one pedestrian entry gate no wider than five feet shall be permitted within any required street wall.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

STOREFRONT BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS FOR USE

Ground Story The ground story may only house commerce uses.

Upper Stories 1. The upper stories may only house residential or commerce uses. No restaurant or retail sales uses shall be allowed in upper stories except restaurant uses may be permitted in a vew terminus site within the PTWF or BBRD character areas to maximize views of the Anacostia stream valley and river, or unless they are second story extensions equal to or less than the area of the ground story use.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

2. Additional habitable space is permitted within the roof where the roof is configured as an attic story.

Specific Use Requirements See Use Table for specific use requirements.

181

TOWNHOUSE/SMALL APARTMENT BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS FOR HEIGHT Building Height

Upper Story Height

1. Each building shall be at least two stories in height, but no greater than four stories in height.

1. The maximum clear height (floor to ceiling) for stories other than the ground story is 12 feet.

2. A side wing or ancillary structure shall be no higher than 18 feet, measured to its eaves or parapet.

2. At least 80 percent of each upper story shall have an interior clear height (floor to ceiling) of at least nine feet.

Ground Story Height

Street Wall Height

1. The average finished floor elevation shall be no less than three feet and no more than eight feet above the exterior sidewalk elevation at the BTL.

A street wall not less than four feet in height or greater than eight feet in height shall be required along any BTL frontage that is not otherwise occupied by a building on the lot.

2. At least 80 percent of the ground story shall have an interior clear height (floor to ceiling) of at least nine feet. 3. The maximum ground story floor to ceiling story height is 16 feet.

182

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

TOWNHOUSE/SMALL APARTMENT BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS FOR SITING Street Façade

Garage and Parking

1. On each lot the building façade shall be built to the BTL for at least 70 percent of the BTL length.

1. Curb cuts or driveways shall be located at least 75 feet away from any block corner or another garage entry on the same block face. These requirements are not applicable along alleys.

2. For buildings with front porches, the dooryard/ clear walkway line shall serve as the BTL and the front porch shall be built to the dooryard line. For this situation only, the façade will sit behind the BTL, as determined by the required front porch depth. 3. The building façade (or as per 2 above) shall be built to the BTL within 20 feet of a block corner.

Buildable Area A contiguous private open area equal to at least 20 percent of the total buildable area shall be preserved on every lot. Such contiguous open area may be located anywhere behind the parking setback, at grade.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

2. Garage doors/entries shall not be permitted on the BTL/façade.

Frontage Widths 1. The minimum lot width is 18 feet. 2. Although there are no individual side lot setbacks, no building façade may exceed 120 feet of continuous building frontage. A gap of 10 to 20 feet is required between each such structure.

183

TOWNHOUSE/SMALL APARTMENT BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS FOR ELEMENTS Fenestration

Building Projections

1. Blank lengths of wall exceeding 15 linear feet are prohibited on all BTLs.

1. Each lot/ground story unit shall include:

2. Ground story façade fenestration shall comprise between 30 and 70 percent of the façade. 3. Upper story façade fenestration shall comprise between 20 and 60 percent of the façade. 4. No window may face or direct views toward a common lot line within 20 feet unless: a. That view is contained within the lot (e.g., by a privacy fence/garden wall) or, b. The sill is at least six feet above the finished floor level.

184

a. A stoop of not more than five feet deep and six feet wide (not including steps), or b. A front porch, between eight feet and ten feet deep with a width not less than 12 feet, at the dooryard/clear walkway line behind the BTL.

Doors/Entries Each BTL/façade ground story unit shall provide a functioning entry door with direct street access.

Street Walls One vehicle entry gate no wider than 18 feet and one pedestrian entry gate no wider than five feet shall be permitted within any required street wall.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

TOWNHOUSE/SMALL APARTMENT BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS FOR USE Ground Story

Accessory Unit

The ground story may only house residential uses except restaurant uses may be permitted in a view terminus site within the PTWF or BBRD character areas to maximize views of the Anacostia stream valley and river.

1. One English basement unit or one accessory unit is permitted per lot.

Upper Stories 1. The upper stories may only house residential uses. 2. Additional habitable space is permitted within the roof where the roof is configured as an attic story.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

2. Parking and accessory unit (maximum 650 square feet) uses are permitted in the buildable area at the rear of the lot.

Specific Use Requirements See Use Table for specific use requirements.

185

Street Walls req’d on unbuilt BTLs

WORKSHOP BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS FOR HEIGHT Building Height

Upper Story Height

The building shall be at least one story or 20 feet to the eaves or parapet in height, but no greater than four stories in height.

1. The maximum floor-to-floor story height for stories other than the ground story is 12 feet.

Ground Story Height 1. The average ground story finished floor elevation shall be equal to the exterior sidewalk elevation in front of the building to a maximum finished floor elevation of 18 inches above the sidewalk. 2. The ground story shall have at least 11 feet of clear interior height (floor to ceiling) contiguous to the BTL frontage for a minimum depth of at least 25 feet.

2. At least 80 percent of each upper story shall have an interior clear height (floor to ceiling) of at least eight feet.

Street Wall Height A street wall not less than six feet in height or greater than 12 feet in height shall be required along any BTL frontage that is not otherwise occupied by a building on the lot.

3. The maximum story height for the ground story is 25 feet. 186

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

WORKSHOP BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS FOR SITING Street Façade

Alleys

1. On each lot the building façade shall be built to the BTL for at least 70 percent of the BTL length.

There is no required setback from alleys, except as provided by the boundary line.

2. The ground floor façade, within seven feet of the block corner, may be chamfered to form a corner entry.

Garage and Parking

Buildable Area 1. No part of any building, except overhanging eaves, or awnings shall occupy the area behind the boundary line. The area may be used for loading, circulation and/or as a work yard.

Driveways shall be located at least 75 feet away from any block corner or another driveway or garage entry on the same block. This requirement does not apply along alleys.

2. A garden/street wall or privacy fence is allowed behind the boundary line.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

187

WORKSHOP BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS FOR ELEMENTS Fenestration

Doors/Entries

1. Blank lengths of wall exceeding 35 linear feet are prohibited on all BTLs.

At least one functioning pedestrian entry door shall be provided along each ground story BTL façade at intervals not greater than 80 linear feet.

2. Fenestration on façades shall comprise between 20 and 70 percent of the façade.

Building Projections 1. Awnings shall project a minimum of six feet and a maximum of:

Street Walls One vehicle entry gate no wider than 25 feet and one pedestrian entry gate no wider than five feet shall be permitted within any required street wall.

a. Within one foot of back of curb where there are no street trees, or b. One foot into the tree lawn (where there are street trees). 2. Awnings that project over the sidewalk portion of a street-space shall maintain a clear height of at least ten feet.

188

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

WORKSHOP BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS FOR USE Ground Story The ground story may only house workshop or commerce uses.

Upper Stories The upper stories may only house workshop or commerce uses. No restaurant or retail uses shall be allowed in upper stories.

Specific Use Requirements See Use Table for specific use requirements.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

189

DETACHED DWELLING BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS FOR HEIGHT Building Height

Upper Story Height

1. Each building shall be at least two stories in height, but no greater than three stories in height.

1. The maximum floor-to-floor story height for stories other than the ground story is 12 feet.

2. A side wing or ancillary structure shall be no higher than 18 feet, measured to its eaves.

2. At least 80 percent of each upper story shall have an interior clear height (floor to ceiling) of at least nine feet.

Ground Story Height 1. The average finished floor elevation shall be no less than 30 inches and no more than 60 inches above the exterior sidewalk elevation at the BTL.

Front Yard Fence A front yard fence is required with a minimum height of 30 inches and a maximum height of 40 inches.

2. At least 80 percent of the first story shall have an interior clear height (floor to ceiling) of at least nine feet. 3. The maximum ground story floor to floor height is 16 feet.

190

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

DETACHED DWELLING BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS FOR SITING Street Façade

Front Yard

1. On each lot the front porch shall be built to the BTL for at least 33 percent of the building width.

The front yard/dooryard shall not be paved.

2. Within 20 feet of a block corner the building façade shall be eight to ten feet behind the BTL.

Buildable Area A contiguous open area equal to at least 25 percent of the total buildable area shall be preserved on every lot. Such contiguous open area may be located anywhere behind the parking setback, at grade.

Side Lot Setbacks The minimum side lot setback is five feet or as otherwise designated on the character area urban design plan.

Garage and Parking

Lot Size

1. Curb cuts or driveways shall be located at least 75 feet away from any block corner or another garage entry on the same block face. These requirements are not applicable along alleys.

1. Each lot has a minimum width at the BTL of 24 feet and a minimum depth of 90 feet.

2. Garage doors shall not be located on the BTL/ building façade.

2. Each lot has a maximum width of 75 feet or twothirds of the width of the existing fronting lots, whichever is greater. The maximum depth is 120 feet. Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Alleys There is a three-foot required setback from alleys.

191

DETACHED DWELLING BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS FOR ELEMENTS Fenestration 1. Blank lengths of wall exceeding 15 linear feet are prohibited on all BTLs. 2. Fenestration on all façades shall comprise at least 25 percent, but not more than 70 percent, of the façade. 3. No window may face or direct views toward a common lot line within 20 feet unless: a. That view is contained within the lot (e.g., by a privacy fence/garden wall), or b. The sill is at least six feet above the finished floor level.

Building Projections 1. Each lot shall include a front porch at the BTL, between eight and ten feet deep with a width not less than 33 percent of the building width. 192

2. No part of any building except porch roof (overhanging eaves) and steps may encroach beyond the BTL.

Doors/Entries At least one functioning entry door shall be provided along the ground story façade of each building.

Street Walls and Fences 1. There is no street wall requirement. 2. A front yard fence is required within one foot of the clear walkway/dooryard line parallel to the BTL. 3. A privacy fence may be constructed along a common lot line behind the BTL.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

DETACHED DWELLING BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS FOR USE Ground Story

Accessory Uses

The ground story may only house residential uses.

Parking and accessory unit (maximum 650 square feet) uses are permitted in the buildable area at the rear of the lot.

Upper Stories 1. The upper stories may only house residential uses. 2. Additional habitable space is permitted within the roof where the roof is configured as an attic story.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Specific Use Requirements See Use Table for specific use requirements.

193

KENILWORTH AVENUE (LIMITED ACCESS HIGHWAY) General Intent 1. This section provides for the unique circumstance of the street frontage along a limited access highway where, if designated on the character area urban sign design plan, certain relaxations and exceptions to elements of this code may be granted. 2. The exemptions allow building façades that face limited access highway frontages to respond to the roadway at an appropriate scale. They provide more leeway for signage and allow non-‘streetwall’ buildings above the ground story level (including curved and/or open courtyard/“alphabet” configurations). 3. Frontages on streets intersecting with the limited access highway frontage are subject to the full standards for those street frontages.

Blocks/Alleys 1. There are no requirements to provide throughaccess along block faces via an alley, access easement, or pedestrian pathway. 2. There are no limits on curb cuts on the frontage road. Architectural Standards Windows and Doors 1. Materials: The requirements for upper story window light transmission do not apply. 2. Configurations and Techniques: The requirements for upper story windows do not apply. Signage 1. For upper stories: a. Wall signs are allowed anywhere above the second story floor level. b. There is no limit on lettering size.

Building Envelope Standards

c. There is no limit on the size and location of blade signs.

Height

d. Marquee signs are permitted.

The height limit may be increased by 33 percent. Siting The minimum build-to may be reduced to 50 percent (street wall requirements still apply). Elements 1. The requirements for upper story fenestration do not apply. 2. The ground story minimum fenestration requirement may be reduced to 20 percent.

194

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS Signage Applicability Where clearly visible from the street-space. Intent 1. Signs along commercial frontages should be clear, informative to the public and should be durable. 2. Signs should be scaled for mixed-use, pedestrianoriented areas with slow-moving automobile traffic. 3. Signage that is glaring or too large creates distraction, intrudes into or lessens the urban center experience, and creates visual clutter should be prohibited. These are provided as illustrations of intent. The illustrations and statements on this page are advisory only and do not have the power of law. Refer to the standards on the following pages for the specific prescriptions and restrictions of the building envelope standards.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

195

General Design And Materials 1. Wall signs are permitted within the area between the second story floor line and the first floor ceiling, within a horizontal band not to exceed two feet in height. In no case may this band be higher than 18 feet or lower than 12 feet above the adjacent sidewalk. 2. Letters may not exceed 18 inches in height or width and three inches in relief. Signs may not come closer than two feet to an adjacent common lot line. 3. Company logos or names may be placed within the horizontal sign band or placed or painted within ground floor or second story office windows. Company logos or names may not be larger than a rectangle of eight square feet in size. 4. A masonry or bronze plaque bearing an owner’s or building’s name may be placed in the building’s cornice/parapet wall or under the eaves and above the upper story windows. Any such plaque may be no larger than a rectangle of 18 square feet in size. 5. Blade signs (not more than 18 inches vertical by three feet horizontal with a minimum nine feet clear height above the sidewalk) may be hung below the second story level, perpendicular to the build-to line or from an overhang or awning. 6. Prohibited Signs: Billboards, free-standing pole signs, monument signs, marquees, any kind of animation, roof signs, and signs painted on the exterior walls of buildings are prohibited. No internally lit, flashing, traveling, animated, or intermittent lighting may be on the exterior of any building whether such lighting is of temporary or long-term duration. Portable or wheeled signs and advertising devices located outside any building shall not be permitted, pursuant to county regulations. 7. Limited access highway frontage sites, as designated on the urban design concept plan, are exempted from some of the standards above (see Kenilworth Avenue [Limited Access Highway] ).

196

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Awnings/Overhangs 1. Any overhangs shall have a minimum of ten feet clear height above the sidewalk and be a minimum of six feet deep from the building façade (maximum to curb or tree lawn, whichever is closer). 2. Only the following materials are permitted: canvas or equivalent (no shiny or reflective materials), metal, or glass. 3. Internal illumination through the awning/overhang shall not be permitted. 4. Lettering on awnings shall be limited to six inches in height on the vertical face of the curb side of the awning. 5. One-quarter cylinder configurations are not permitted. These are provided as illustrations of intent. The illustrations and statements on this page are advisory only and do not have the power of law. Refer to the standards on the following pages for the specific prescriptions and restrictions of the building envelope standard.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

197

PARKING AND LOADING STANDARDS Bus or Trolley Transit Intent 1. Promote a “park once” environment that shall enable people to conveniently park and access a variety of commercial and civic enterprises in pedestrian-friendly environments by encouraging shared parking and providing street and parking connectivity between ownership parcels. 2. Reduce fragmented, uncoordinated, inefficient, reserved single-purpose parking. 3. Avoid adverse parking impacts on neighborhoods adjacent to urban centers and corridor nodes. 4. Maximize on-street parking. 5. Provide flexibility for redevelopment of small sites.

Other Applicable Regulations 1. The requirements of Sec. 27-551, Permitted Use of Parking Lots and Loading Areas, apply to all parking and loading areas under this code. 2. The requirements of Subtitle 27, Part 11 B, Division 3, Subdivision 2, Design Standards, apply to all parking areas under this code, except that: Compact parking spaces shall not be permitted in surface parking lots; Speed bumps shall not be permitted; and Pervious surfaces approved by the Planning Director or designee are encouraged for surface parking lots.

Required Parking Spaces The minimum surface parking spaces shall be 80 percent of the minimum required parking and loading as stated by Section 27-568(a) of Par 11 of the Zoning Ordinance.

The Planning Director or designee may approve a ten percent reduction in the number of required parking spaces for uses with a main entrance within a 600-foot walking distance of an improved bus or trolley transit stop providing both shade and seating. This reduction shall be granted only where a rail transit station is not available.

Measurement of Walking Distance Walking distance is measured from the primary entrance of the use to the rail platform (or in the case of an underground station, the top of the nearest elevator, stair or escalator leading to the rail platform), entrance to a public parking facility, or the nearest bus boarding location.

Shared Parking Applicants wishing to use shared parking as a means of reducing the total number of required spaces shall submit a shared parking analysis using the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking Model (2005 edition). The study shall be provided in a form established by the Planning Director or designee. Reductions in the total number of required spaces for shared parking shall not be permitted unless the Planning Director or designee determines a reduction is appropriate on a case-by-case basis through the use of the ULI Shared Parking Model (2005 edition). Uses providing shared parking shall have either mutually exclusive or compatibly overlapping normal hours of operation. The Planning Director or designee shall determine whether hours of operation are compatibly overlapping on a case-by-case basis through the use of the ULI Shared Parking Model (2005 edition).

Car-Sharing Program

The maximum number of surface parking spaces shall be equal to the minimum required by required parking and loading as stated by Section 27-568(a) of Part 11 of the Zoning Ordinance.

The Planning Director or designee may approve a reduction in the number of spaces for a residential project or a mixed-use project with a residential component.

The maximum number of structured parking shall be equal to 115 percent of the minimum required parking and loading per 27-568(a) of the Zoning Ordinance.

The total number of required parking spaces for residential units may be reduced where an active carsharing program is made available to residents and

198

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

where cars for the program are available on the site or within a 700-foot walking distance of the site and within the same urban neighborhood.

The agreement shall ensure that maneuvering space for required parking spaces in both parking areas is preserved.

The Planning Director or designee may reduce parking requirements by up to five spaces for each car-share vehicle available.

The use of joint parking does not by itself authorize a reduction in the number of required spaces.

Employer Transportation Demand Management The Planning Director or designee may approve up to a 25 percent reduction in the number of spaces for uses that institute and commit to maintain a transportation demand management (TDM) program, considering information the applicant submits that clearly indicates the types of TDM activities and measures proposed.

On-Street Parking A parking space located on a public street may be included in the calculation of parking requirements for every 22 feet of linear space along the street edge adjacent to the building site where the use is located. Each on-street parking space may only be counted for one use, except that an on-street parking space may be used to reduce the combined total parking requirement of a mixed-use project.

There is no limitation on the types of TDM activities for which reductions may be granted. The following measures serve as a guide to potential transportation management activities that may be used in combination to reduce parking demand. The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Director or designee that a specific reduction shall occur.

Off-Site Parking

Appropriate TMD measures by the occupant/s of the use may include: (1) appointment of an employee to act as transportation coordinator with responsibility for disseminating information on ride-sharing and other transportation options for which documentation of reduced parking needs is maintained; (2) documentation of employees that telecommute, job share, ride transit, car pool, or van pool; (3) documentation of the availability of an emergency ride home for those with family, medical, or other similar emergencies may be cause for a reduction in otherwise applicable parking requirements. The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Director or designee that a specific reduction shall occur.

Tandem Parking

Special Parking Standards

All new nonresidential development shall provide a minimum of four bicycle parking spaces (installed as two high-quality inverted “U” racks).

Joint Parking Uses abutting one another shall physically connect their surface parking areas at the lot line to create connecting drive aisles where such surface parking areas lie within 50 feet of one another, provided a mutual access easement acceptable to the Planning Director or designee has been executed.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Off-site parking shall be located within a walking distance of 700 feet from the use served by the off-site parking. The off-site parking shall be located within a Port Towns urban design character area. Tandem parking is allowed for single-family projects and multifamily projects and the residential component of mixed-use projects. Two parking spaces in tandem shall have a combined minimum dimension of 9 feet in width by 36 feet in length. Up to 85 percent of the total off-street parking spaces provided for residential projects may incorporate tandem parking. For residential projects, both tandem spaces shall be assigned to the same dwelling unit. Tandem parking may not be used to provide guest parking. Bicycle Parking

Nonresidential development providing more than 20 vehicle parking spaces shall be required to install six bicycle parking spaces per 100 vehicle parking spaces. A maximum of 24 bicycle parking spaces shall be required under this standard.

199

Surface Parking Lot Plantings New Development The edge of any surface parking lot adjacent to a single family (detached or attached) zoning district shall be planted with canopy shade trees per Sec. 27A-507, Tree Lists, planted at an average distance not to exceed 40 feet on center and aligned three to seven feet behind the common lot line. Surface parking lot edges along a common lot line shall have a street wall or garden wall or be planted with shrubs at least two feet high at time of planting with a maximum spacing of 2½ feet on center. Landscaping shall be hardy and able to withstand salt, soot and gas fumes. Loading facilities are not required in any Port Towns urban design character area. Where loading facilities are provided, they shall meet the design standards in Subtitle 27, Part 11, Division 3, Loading Facilities, except that loading facilities shall only be located to the rear and side of buildings. Loading facilities shall in no case be visible from the street space.

200

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

DEFINITIONS The following terms are defined for the purpose of this code. Terms not defined here may be defined elsewhere in the Prince George’s County Zoning Ordinance. In such case, the definition contained in the Zoning Ordinance shall be used. Certain terms in this code are used in very specific ways, often excluding some of the meanings of common usage. Where there is an apparent conflict or contradiction, the definition herein shall prevail.

Bay or Bay Window. Generally, a U-shaped enclosure extending the interior space of the building outward of the exterior building wall/build-to line (along its street-space side). The minimum interior clear width at the main wall shall be four feet. Bay windows shall not project more than 36 inches beyond the build-to line; and walls and windows shall be between 90 degrees (perpendicular) and 0 degrees (parallel) relative to the primary wall from which they project.

Accessory Unit. A building (maximum footprint of 650 square feet—or the footprint of the main structure for English basement-type accessory units) that is not the primary structure on a lot, that can be used as additional residential or home occupation space.

Block. An increment of land comprising lots, alleys, and tracts circumscribed and not traversed by streets (pedestrian pathways excepted). Blocks shall be measured at the frontage lot lines (in most cases this is the build-to line).

Accessory Use. Uses that are incidental or found in association with a principal use that it serves, does not change the character of the principal use, and conforms to the development standards of the urban design concept plan.

Block Corner. The outside corner of a block at the intersection of any two streets. Inside corners, where the resulting angle formed by the block face is less than 180 degrees (concave) are not considered block corners for the purposes of this code.

Alley/Alley Access Easement. The public right-of-way

Boundary Line. A line delineating the outer edge of the buildable area, generally to the rear of a lot away from the build-to line. Where designated on the urban design concept plan, this shall supersede the building envelope standards’ minimum setbacks.

Arcade. See Colonnade.

Buildable Area. The area of the lot that building(s) may occupy, which includes the area of the lot behind the build-to line as designated by the building envelope standard. The buildable area sets the limits of the building footprint now and in the future—additions shall be within the specified buildable area.

or easement for vehicles and pedestrians within a block that provides access to the rear of buildings, vehicle parking (e.g., garages), utility meters, and recycling and garbage bins. Awning. A cantilevered, projected, or suspended cover over the sidewalk portion of the street-space. Also a roof-like coverings, usually of canvas or metal, and often adjustable, placed over the sidewalk, windows, or doors to provide protection from sun and rain. Awnings shall have a minimum clear height of ten feet. Balcony. An exterior platform attached to the upper floors of the building façade (forward of the build-to line).

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Building Corner. The outside corner of a building where the primary building mass is within an angle less than 180 degrees. Inside corners, where the exterior space of the building mass forms an angle of more than 180 degrees are not considered building corners for the purposes of this code. 201

Building Envelope Standards (BES). The part of this code that establishes basic parameters regulating building form, including the envelope (in three dimensions), placement and certain permitted/required building elements, such as storefronts, balconies, and street walls. The building envelope standards establish both the boundaries within which things may be done and specific things that must be done. The applicable building envelope standards for a site is determined by its street frontage as per the urban design concept plan. This produces a coherent street-space and allows the building greater latitude behind its street façade. Building Face. See Façade. Build-To Line (BTL). A line or plane indicated on the urban design concept plan, defining the street frontage that extends vertically and generally parallel to the street, at which the building shall be placed. The façade shall occur on the build-to line—this is a requirement, not a permissive minimum. The minimum length and height of frontage that is required at the build-to line is shown on the appropriate building envelope standard. Center, Community. The smallest of the designated urban centers. Its businesses are intended to be predominantly smaller-scale businesses that complement and serve the surrounding neighborhoods. As described in the General Plan, these centers are concentrations of activities, services, and land uses that serve the immediate community near these centers. This may include mixed-use and higher intensity redevelopment in some communities. These centers should also be served by mass transit. Center, Metropolitan. A large-scale, mixed-use area, comprising multiple urban neighborhoods and a primary target for employment in the county. As described in the General Plan, these centers have a high concentration of land uses and economic activities that attract employers, workers, and customers from other parts of the metropolitan Washington area. Highdensity residential development may also be located in or very near these centers and they can effectively be served by mass transit. Center, Regional. A moderately-scaled, mixed-use area, comprising one or more urban neighborhoods. As described in the General Plan, these centers are locations for regionally marketed commercial and retail centers and office and employment areas. Educational and recreational complexes that primarily 202

serve Prince George’s County and high-density residential development may also be possible. These centers should be served by rail or bus mass transit. Center, Urban. See Urban Centers and Corridors. Civic Green or Square. A public open space designated on the urban design concept plan. The term square is generally used to describe spaces that have more paved surface area. The term civic green is generally used to describe a formally configured small public lawn or park that is primarily unpaved. Civic greens and squares do not include active recreation structures such as ball fields and courts. See the urban space standards for the specific controls on squares and civic greens. Civic Use Buildings. Those buildings that house strictly civic uses located on sites designated on the urban design concept plan. Civic use buildings and publicly owned public art are not subject to the building envelope standard prescriptions of this code. Clear Walkway. An area within the sidewalk that must allow public passage and remain clear of obstructions. The clear walkway width is designated in the street type specifications. Colonnade (Arcade). A roofed or built structure, extending beyond the build-to line and over the sidewalk or square, open to the street-space except for supporting columns, piers, or arches. Residential or office units may occupy the space over the colonnade. Where a colonnade is built the requirement for street trees is waived for that street frontage. (See also Covered Sidewalk.) Common Lot Lines. Lot lines shared by adjacent private lots. Comparative Pedestrian Crossing. The measured distance, shown on the street type specifications, that a pedestrian would be within an automobile travel lane while crossing a street. A crossing time is calculated based on a pedestrian speed of 3.7 feet per second (a generally accepted average). This distance/time is calculated in order to provide a relative gauge of the pedestrian crossing comfort level. Conservation Line. A line established to guarantee the preservation of the designated urban center’s natural areas. Land beyond the conservation line shall not be built upon paved, driven on, regraded or otherwise disturbed, except as specified in an urban center sector plan. Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Corner Lot. A lot in which one side lot line is adjacent to a street. Special building placement, fencing and landscape requirements may apply. Corridor Node. A concentrated urban mixed-use location along a specified corridor, to be developed in a mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented form. As described in the General Plan, these areas contain a higher intensity of residential and nonresidential land uses. The development at these nodes should be planned as transit-oriented development. Covered Sidewalk. A roofed or built structure attached to the façade and extending beyond the buildto line and over the sidewalk or square, open to the street-space except for supporting columns, piers, or arches. Covered sidewalks shall have a minimum clear height of 13 feet (signage or lighting may encroach) and a minimum clear width (from façade frontage or build-to line) to inside column face of ten feet. The area within a covered sidewalk shall include a clear walkway. (See building envelope standards for complete specifications.) Dooryard. The area within the street-space between the façade of the building (generally the build-to line) and the clear walkway area of the sidewalk. Stoops, balconies, and for appropriate commerce uses, café seating, and other encroachments as specified during staff level review may be placed within the dooryard area. The dooryard area is designated in the street type specifications. Dormers. Roofed ancillary structures with windows providing light and air to habitable space within the roof. Dormers are permitted and do not constitute a story (for height measurement purposes) so long as: they do not break the primary eave line, are individually less than 15 feet wide, and are collectively not more than 60 percent of their build-to line façade length. Eave Height. Eave height shall be measured at the bottom of the top layer of roofing material at its outermost point from the building wall. English Basement. A habitable floor level below the first floor that is partially above and below grade. The ceiling of an English basement is at least three feet above grade with windows and an entry with direct street space access. Equivalent or Better. A building material or construction technique that has been determined to be Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

equivalent or better (in appearance, durability, etc.) than those expressly permitted herein. Façade (Building Face). The building elevation facing the street-space or build-to line. Building walls facing private interior courts, common lot lines, and alleys are not façades. Fenestration. Openings in the building wall, including windows and doors, allowing light and views between interior and exterior. Fenestration is measured as glass area (excluding mullions and similar window frame elements with a dimension greater than one inch) for conditioned space and as open area for parking structures or other unconditioned, enclosed space. First Floor. See Ground Story. Front Porch. The ground floor platform attached to the front or build-to line side of the main building. Required front porches, where specified in the building envelope standards, must be roofed and enclosed by balustrades (railings) and posts that extend up to the roof and shall not be otherwise enclosed, above a height of 42 inches, except with insect screening. A front porch may have a single ground floor platform or two platforms stacked at the ground and second story levels. Front Yard. An open space required by certain building envelope standard types extending across the entire width of the lot between the façade and the sidewalk. Where double frontage or corner lots exist, any required front yard shall be provided on both streets. This area is contiguous with the street, and includes any front porch. Front Yard Fence. The wood (picket) or wrought iron fence or masonry wall, between 30 and 40 inches in height, located along and surrounding the front yard (generally one foot behind and parallel to the dooryard/ sidewalk area of private lots and also along common lot lines to a point at least ten feet back from the buildto line. Garden Wall. A masonry wall defining a property line or delineating a private area. Shall be set back (or forward) not more than eight inches from the specified build-to line in the urban design concept plan or building envelope standards. (For height and gate specifications, see the building envelope standards.) A garden wall may serve as a front yard fence. 203

Ground Story. The first habitable level of a building at or above grade. For commerce uses, at least twothirds of the finished floor elevation within 30 feet of the build-to line shall be within 18 inches of the adjacent fronting sidewalk level. When a residential use occupies the ground floor, the finished floor elevation shall be at least three feet above the fronting sidewalk elevation, unless otherwise specified in the building envelope standards. The next story above the ground story is the second floor. Minimum Employment Threshold. A threshold established in order to provide for or reserve space for a significant employment base in each urban center district, now and in the future, as recommended by the General Plan. The threshold is expressed as a net lot area or demonstrated gross floor area of employment uses. Open Area See Private Open Area. Parapet Height. Where used to limit building height in this code, parapet height shall be measured at the top of the parapet, including any coping. An additional three feet in height by 12 feet in width or 15 percent of the façade, whichever is greater, is permitted for a section of the parapet to emphasize the building’s primary street entry or a block corner. Parking Setback Line. A line or plane indicated on the urban design concept plan that extends vertically and is generally parallel to the build-to line. The parking setback is typically 30 feet behind the build-to line unless otherwise designated on the urban design concept plan. All parking shall be set-back behind this line, excepting where it is below grade. The parking setback line is a permissive minimum distance from the build-to line and parking may be placed anywhere within the lot behind this line, except where otherwise specified in this code. Pedestrian Pathway. An interconnecting paved way that provides pedestrian and bicycle passage through blocks running from a street-space to another streetspace, an alley, or an interior block parking area. The area within a pedestrian pathway shall be a public access easement or public right-of-way. The easement width for these pathways shall not be less than 20 feet with a paved walkway not less than ten feet wide, except where otherwise specified on the urban design concept plan, and shall provide an unobstructed view straight through its entire length. 204

Principal Use. Sec. 27A-804, Use Categories. Privacy Fence. An opaque fence made of wood or masonry (not chain link or any other type of rolled fence) along alleys and common lot lines (where more than ten feet behind the build-to line). See the building envelope standards for height specifications. Private Open Area. The area within the buildable area and behind the parking setback line, accessible only to occupants of the particular building or site, and (primarily) open to the sky. Additional specifications for the open area may be included in each building envelope standard. Private open area shall not be built upon, parked or driven upon (except for emergency access). Sidewing. The portion of a building extending along a side lot line toward the alley or rear of the lot. Stoop. An entry platform on the build-to line frontage of a building. Stoops may be roofed, but they shall not be enclosed. (See the individual building envelope standards for specifications.) Story (Story Height). That space within a building and above grade that is situated between one floor level and the floor level next above, or if there is no floor above, the ceiling or roof above. Story height parameters are as specified by the appropriate building envelope standard. Street Frontage. That portion of the lot or building that is coincident with the build-to line as required by this code. Street Light. A luminaire installed on both sides of streets, along the street tree alignment line, unless otherwise designated on the urban design concept plan. Street lights shall be between 9 and 16 feet above ground in height. Lighting standards for street-spaces and alleys should be developed to meet the minimum standards of the Illumination Engineering Society, with the design criteria giving equal weight to the lighting of the pedestrian areas and the automobile areas. Street-Space. All space between fronting build-to lines (streets, squares, plazas, pedestrian pathways, civic greens, sidewalks, and parks)—including any transit service operator passenger platform—but not garage entries or alleys.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Street Tree. A tree required per this code and listed in the Street Tree List located in the urban-space standards that is of a proven hardy and droughttolerant species and large enough to form a canopy with sufficient clear trunk to allow traffic to pass under unimpeded. Street trees shall be planted at an average no greater than 30 feet on center (measured per block face). Where necessary, spacing allowances may be made to accommodate curb cuts, fire hydrants, and other infrastructure elements; however, at no location shall spacing exceed 45 feet on center. Street Tree Alignment Line. A line along which street trees are to be planted and street lights and other such infrastructure are to be placed. The street tree alignment line generally identified in the street type specifications as “A.” It is parallel with the street rightof-way and, unless otherwise specified in the urban design concept plan, is: for tree lawns of seven feet or less, three feet from the back-of-curb and for tree lawns greater than seven feet, four feet from the backof-curb or the tree lawn centerline, whichever is closer to the street-space centerline. The street tree alignment line for center medians is their centerline. Street Wall. A masonry wall set back not more than eight inches from the build-to line that assists in the definition of the street-space in the absence of a building. See the building envelope standards for height and gate specifications. Tree Lawn. A continuous strip of soil area—typically covered with grass, other vegetation, bridging pavement, or sometimes porous pavers—located between the back of curb and the sidewalk, and used for planting street trees and configured to foster healthy street tree root systems.

Urban Design Concept Plan. The implementing plans for the development of urban centers and corridors under this code. Urban design concept plans allocate the building envelope standards and street types within each urban neighborhood/center and provide specific information for the disposition of each building site. The urban design concept plan also shows how each site relates to adjacent street-spaces, the overall urban neighborhood, and the surrounding neighborhoods. Urban Neighborhood. A defined area of buildings around a framework of interconnected blocks, streets, squares, and civic greens within a designated urban center. They are mixed-use neighborhoods of 20 to 100 contiguous acres with an urban intensity and character, bounded and physically defined by largescale streets or conservation areas. Smaller urban neighborhoods may exist due to unique topographical conditions. Where Clearly Visible from the Street-Space. Many requirements of this code apply only where the subject is “clearly visible from the street-space.” (Note that the definition of street-space includes squares, civic greens, parks, and all public space except alleys and common drives.) A building element more than 35 feet from the build-to line or street-space is by definition not clearly visible from the street-space (such as elements facing a common lot line more than 35 feet away from a build-to line or street). Also, common or party walls are by definition not clearly visible from the street-space. This does not exempt vehicle parking lots or parking structures from any building envelope standards requirements.

Urban Centers and Corridors. Those areas designated as centers and corridors in the Prince George’s County General Plan for development as mixed-use, pedestrian- and transit-oriented districts of moderate to high density and intensity. Urban centers comprise of one or more urban neighborhoods. Corridors have specified corridor-nodes targeted for mixed-use development.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

205

206

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

PERMITTED USES The letter P indicates that the use is permitted in the character area. The letters DSP indicate that the use is permitted through a detailed site plan process. The letter X indicates that the use is prohibited. If the use is not listed in the table, it is prohibited. It should be noted that this table controls the underlying uses listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Uses that have an adverse impact upon the character area due to scale, traffic, noise or other elements while permitted in the underlying zones are listed in the table, as prohibited (X) or requiring a detailed site plan (DSP) by the Port Towns Development District Overlay Zone (DDOZ). Uses that are prohibited in the underlying zone remain prohibited in the Port Towns DDOZ since the DDOZ does not permit that uses can be added in an underlying zone where they are prohibited in that zone. This limitation of the DDOZ to add uses to the underlying zone has resulted in recommended zoning changes to the M-X-T Zone since it allows a broad range of uses that carry out the vision for the Port Towns DDOZ.

In general, the six character areas: Port Towns Waterfront (PTWF), Bladensburg Road (BBRD) Gateway/Main Street, Bladensburg Town Center (BBTC), Annapolis Road Gateway (ARG), Edmonston Road Main Street (ERMS), and Edmonston North, (EDNW) contain a number of commercial, residential, and industrial zones that support a mix of uses of varying scale and intensity. Certain uses have been limited as disruptive and out of scale with the character area. Uses incompatible with either pedestrianorientation or vertical mix use aspects of character areas have been similarly limited.

Legend: PTWF Port Towns Waterfront BBRD Bladensburg Road Gateway/Main Street BBTC Bladensburg Town Center ARG

Annapolis Road Gateway

ERMS Edmonston Road Main Street EDNW Edmonston North-Workshop

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

207

208

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

P P X P P P P P P P X P DSP P X P P P

PTWF BBRD

X P DSP P X P

P P

P P P

P P

X P DSP P X P

P P

P P P

P P

X P DSP P5 X P

P P

P P P

P P

X x DSP P X P

P P

P P P

P P

Character Areas BBTC ARG ERMS EDNW

Since the Port Towns Sector Plan is a targeted wellness zone, fast food establishments with drive-through windows are not allowed. Auto sales and maintenance uses are not permitted except in the EDNW character area north of Gallatin Street. This category of use less than 2,500 square feet is permitted by right; those greater than 2,500 square feet require a detailed site plan review. Dry cleaning pick-up/drop-off is permitted but laundromats are only permitted in the ERMS character area. May include the sale and installation of tires with no outside storage of new or old tires in the ERMS character area.

(1) C ommercial : All Types Offices and Research Bank, savings and loan association, or other savings or lending institution Bulk Retailing (CB-83-2006) Data processing facilities Eating or Drinking Establishments1 Offices (may include a private spa in a medical practitioner’s office or medical clinic) Research, development, and testing laboratory (may include testing facilities and equipment), medical or dental laboratory Services and Trade (Generally Retail)2: Barber or beauty shop Blue printing, photostating, or other photocopying establishment Book (except adult book store), camera, gift, jewelry, music, souvenir, or other specialty store not specifically listed (CB-63-1992) Buying of items within guest rooms or vehicles, pursuant to Section 27‑115(a)(2) Department store Pet grooming establishment (CB-63-1992)3 Dry cleaning or laundry establishment4 Drug paraphernalia display or sales, pursuant to Section 27-115(a) Drug store Food or beverage store (CB-63-1992) Gas station: (A) With or without a service center for minor repairs (placed underground or in a wholly enclosed structure)

Use

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

209

(B) With or without a service center, and may include a car wash (CB-63-1992) Hardware store (CB-63-1992) Hobby shop Pet (sales) shop, provided all animals are confined to the interior of the building and adequate measures are taken to control noise and odor (CB-63-1992) Photographic supply store Seafood market (CB-49-1987) Seasonal decorations display and sales as a temporary use, in accordance with Sections 27-260 and 27-261 Studio for artistic practice Repair shops for small items (such as bicycles, watches, clothing, and shoes) (CB-63-1992) Valet shop Variety or dry goods store Veterinary clinic (CB-63-1992) Waterfront Entertainment/Retail Complex (CB-44-1997) (2) I ndustrial : Manufacturing, fabrication, assembly or repair of the following, from materials or parts previously produced elsewhere: Artist’s supplies and equipment Business machines Drafting supplies and equipment Electrical and electronic equipment and component parts for radio, television, telephone, computer, and similar equipment Jewelry and silverware Musical instruments Optical equipment and supplies Photographic developing and processing establishment Photographic equipment and supplies Scientific and precision instruments, devices, and supplies Small electrical household appliances (including televisions, but excluding refrigerators and the like) Surgical, medical, and dental instruments, devices, and supplies

Use X P P DSP P P P P P P P DSP P P P P P P P P P P P P P P

X P P DSP P P P P P P P DSP P P P P P P P P P P P P P P

P P P P P P

P P P

P P DSP P

P P

DSP

P P

P P P P P P

P P P

P P DSP P

P P

DSP

P P

P P P P P P

P P P

P P DSP P

P P

DSP

P P

P P P P P P

P P P

P P DSP P

P P

DSP

P P

Character Areas PTWF BBRD BBTC ARG ERMS EDNW

210

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

P6 P P DSP DSP P P P X DSP DSP P X P P P X P P P P

X DSP DSP DSP DSP P P P X DSP DSP P X P P P X P P P P

PTWF BBRD P P P P P P

P P

P X P P

X DSP DSP

DSP DSP P P

P P

P X P P

X DSP DSP

DSP DSP P P

P P

P X P P

X DSP DSP

DSP DSP P P

X P

P P

X DSP X

DSP

DSP DSP P DSP

DSP

Character Areas BBTC ARG ERMS EDNW P P P P P P P P P P P P

Permitted in the Eastgate industrial areas located west of Dueling Creek, east of Eastern Avenue, north of Bladensburg Park, and south of the railroad tracks.

Toys, sporting and athletic equipment (excluding ammunition, firearms, and fireworks) Watches, clocks, and similar timing devices Wearing apparel Where not otherwise specifically permitted, any use allowed in the I-1 Zone (excluding those permitted by special exception) (CB-6-2007) (3) I nstitutional /E ducational : Adult day care facility (CB-63-1992) Assisted Living Facility, subject to the requirements of Section 27-464.04 (CB-26-2002) Church or similar place of worship, convent, or monastery (CB-23-1988) Day care center for children (CB-23-1988) Eleemosynary or philanthropic institution (excluding hospital) Family day care Modular classroom as a temporary use, in accordance with Sections 27-260 and 27-261 (CB106-1989) Nursing or Care Home (CB-26-2002) School, private or public, all types (which may include private spas) Small group child care center (CB-131-1993) (4) M iscellaneous : Accessory structures and uses Cemetery, accessory to a church, convent, or monastery (CB-11-1991) Home occupations (except in multifamily dwellings) Metro Planned Community (CB-35-1998) Mixed Use Planned Community; list of permitted uses is the same as in the M-X-T Zone (CB-13-2002) Mobile home, with use for which amusement taxes collected Other uses of appropriate size, which can be justified as similar to one of the uses listed in this section Real estate subdivision sales office as a temporary use, in accordance with Sections 27-260 and 27-261 Regional Urban Community (CB-29-2008) Signs, in accordance with Port Towns DDOZ standards

Use

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

211

Temporary contractor’s office (must include sanitary facilities), construction yard, construction shed, or storage building, in connection with a construction project on the same property; provided no item stored or assembled there is offered for sale at the location, and in accordance with Sections 27-260 and 27-261 (5) P ublic /Q uasi P ublic : Library Post office Public building and use, if not otherwise specified (CB-63-1992) Sanitary Landfill or rubble fill (CB-63-1992) Volunteer fire, ambulance, or rescue station (6) R ecreational /E ntertainment /S ocial /C ultural : Community building Convention center Exhibition halls and facilities Golf course or country club (CB-63-1992) Indoor theater or recital hall Marina: (A) In accordance with Sections 27-371.01(a) and 27-548.01.01 (B) All others (CB-72-1987; CB-34-1989) Museum, art gallery, aquarium, cultural center, or similar facility (noncommercial) Outdoor exhibition, displays, entertainment, or performance Park, playground, or other outdoor recreational area Private club or service organization Recreational or entertainment establishment (commercial or noncommercial) Reducing/exercise salon or health club Skating facility (CB-89-1994) Spa, community Spa, private Spa, public, accessory to hotel, motel, reducing/exercise salon, health club, or swimming pool Swimming pool (indoor or outdoor) commercial or noncommercial (CB-63-1992) Tennis, basketball, handball, or similar court (indoor or outdoor) commercial or noncommercial (CB-63-1992) Tourist home (CB-63-1992)

Use P

P P X X P P P P X P P X P P P P P P P P P P P P DSP

P P X X P P P P X P P DSP P P P P P P P P P P P P DSP

DSP

P X P P P P P P P P P P P

P P P X P

P P X X P

DSP

P X P P P P P P P P P P P

P P P X P

P P X X P

DSP

P X P P P P P P P P P P P

P P P X P

P P X X P

DSP

X X X X X X X X X DSP DSP DSP DSP

X X X X X

P P X X P

Character Areas PTWF BBRD BBTC ARG ERMS EDNW

212

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

(7) R esidential /L odging : Country inn (CB-63-1992) Dwellings, all types (except mobile homes) (CB-56-1996) Flag lot development, subject to the provisions of Section 24-138.01 of Subtitle 24 (CB-252002) Group residential facility for up to 8 mentally handicapped dependent persons Hotel or motel (8) T ransportation /P arking /C ommunications /U tilities : Heliport Helistop (CB-63-1992) Parking lot or garage, or loading area, in accordance with Part 11 Parking of mobile home in public rights-of-way Parking of mobile home not otherwise provided for Passenger transportation station or depot (such as rapid transit station, bus stop, taxi or auto rental stand) Public utility use or structure: (A) Railroad yard, round house, car barn, and freight station (B) All others Radio or television broadcasting studio Satellite dish antenna, in accordance with Section 27-541.02: (A) Up to 10 feet in diameter, to serve only 1 dwelling unit (B) Over 10 feet in diameter, to serve only 1 dwelling unit (C) All others (CB-19-1985) Storage of any motor vehicle which is wrecked, dismantled, or not currently licensed, except where specifically authorized (CB-4-1987) Telegraph or messenger service Tower, pole, or antenna (electronic, radio, or television, transmitting or receiving), except a public utility structure or a satellite dish antenna: (A) Maximum of 150 feet (B) Exceeding 150 feet (CB-123-1994; CB-103-1997)

Use DSP P X DSP P DSP DSP DSP X X P X P P P DSP DSP X P P DSP

DSP P X DSP P DSP DSP DSP X X P X P P P DSP DSP X P P DSP

PTWF BBRD

P DSP

P DSP DSP

X P P

DSP DSP DSP X X

DSP P

P DSP

P DSP DSP

X P P

DSP DSP DSP X X

DSP P

P DSP

P DSP DSP

X P P

DSP DSP DSP X X

DSP P

P DSP

P DSP DSP

X P P

DSP DSP DSP X X

DSP DSP

Character Areas BBTC ARG ERMS EDNW

APPENDIX I

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

213

APPENDIX II: GUIDE TO ZONING CATEGORIES RESIDENTIAL ZONES 1 R-O-S: Reserved Open Space—Provides for permanent maintenance of certain areas of land in an undeveloped state, with the consent of the property owners; encourages preservation of large areas of trees and open space; designed to protect scenic and environmentally sensitive areas and ensure retention of land for nonintensive active or passive recreational uses; provides for very low density residential development and a limited range of public, recreational, and agricultural uses. Minimum lot size 20 acres* Maximum dwelling units per net acre 0.05 *Except for public recreational uses, for which no minimum area is required. O‑S: Open Space—Provides for areas of low-intensity residential (5 acre) development; promotes the economic use and conservation of land for agriculture, natural resource use, large‑lot residential estates, nonintensive recreational use. Standard lot size Maximum dwelling units per net acre

5 acres 0.20

R‑A: Residential‑Agricultural—Provides for large‑lot (2 acre) residential uses while encouraging the retention of agriculture as a primary land use. Standard lot size Maximum dwelling units per net acre

2 acres 0.50

R‑E: Residential‑Estate—Permits large‑lot estate subdivisions containing lots approximately one acre or larger. Standard lot size Maximum dwelling units per net acre Estimated average dwelling units per acre 0.85

40,000 sq. ft. 1.08

R‑R: Rural Residential—Permits approximately one-half‑acre residential lots; subdivision lot sizes depend on date of recordation; allows a number of nonresidential special exception uses. Standard lot size Maximum dwelling units per net acre Estimated average dwelling units per acre

214

20,000 sq. ft. 15,000 sq. ft. if recorded prior to February 1, 1970 10,000 sq. ft. if recorded prior to July 1, 1967 2.17 1.85

Definitions: Minimum or Standard lot size: The current minimum net contiguous land area required for a lot. Average dwelling units per acre: The number of dwelling units which may be built on a tract--including the typical mix of streets, public facility sites and areas within the 100-year floodplain--expressed as a per-acre average. Maximum dwelling units per net acre: The number of dwelling units which may be built on the total tract--excluding streets and public facility sites, and generally excluding land within the 100-year floodplain--expressed as a per-acre average. Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

R‑80: One‑Family Detached Residential—Provides for variation in the size, shape, and width of subdivision lots to better utilize the natural terrain and to facilitate planning of single‑family developments with lots and dwellings of various sizes and styles. Standard lot size Maximum dwelling units per net acre Estimated average dwelling units per acre 3.4

9,500 sq. ft. 4.5

R‑55: One‑Family Detached Residential—Permits small‑lot residential subdivisions; promotes high density, single‑family detached dwellings. Standard lot sizes Maximum dwelling units per net acre Estimated average dwelling units per acre 4.2

6,500 sq. ft. 6.70

R‑35: One‑Family Semidetached, and Two‑Family Detached, Residential—Provides generally for single‑family attached development; allows two‑family detached; detailed site plan approval required for lots served by private rights-of-way. Standard lot sizes Maximum dwelling units per net acre Estimated average dwelling units per acre 8.5

3,500 sq. ft. for one‑family, semi-detached 7,000 sq. ft. for two-family, detached 12.44

R‑T: Townhouse—Permits one‑family detached and attached, two‑family, and three-family dwellings; promotes the maximum amount of freedom in the design of attached dwellings and their grouping and layout; detailed site plan approval required for attached dwellings. Standard lot size per attached dwelling Maximum dwelling units per net acre Minimum area for development

1,800 sq. ft. Three‑family dwellings—9 Two-family dwellings—8 Other attached dwellings—6 2 acres

R‑20: One‑Family Triple‑Attached Residential—Permits single‑family detached, semidetached and triple‑attached and townhouse development. Detailed site plan approval required for townhouses. Standard lot sizes Maximum triple‑attached dwellings per net acre Maximum townhouses per net acre Estimated average triple-attached dwelling units per net acre

3,200 sq. ft. for end lots 2,000 sq. ft. for interior townhouse lots 16.33 6.0 (same as R-T) 11

R‑30: Multifamily Low Density Residential—Provides for low density garden apartments; single‑family detached; single-family attached, two‑family and three‑family dwellings in accordance with R‑T Zone provisions; Detailed site plan approval required for multifamilly and attached dwellings. Standard lot size Two-family dwellings Other attached dwellings

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Garden apartments–14,000 sq. ft. 1,500 sq. ft. 1,800 sq. ft.

215

Maximum dwelling units per net acre

Garden apartments—10 Three-family dwellings—9 Two-family dwellings—8 Other attached dwellings—6

R‑30C: Multifamily Low Density Residential‑Condominium—Same as R‑30 above except ownership must be condominium, or development in accordance with the R‑T Zone; detailed site plan approval required for multifamily and attached dwellings. Standard lot size Maximum dwelling units per net acre

Garden apartments—14,000 sq. ft. Two-family dwellings—1,500 sq. ft. Other attached dwellings—1,800 sq. ft. Garden apartments—12 Three-family dwellings—9 Two-family dwellings—8 Other attached dwellings—6

R‑18: Multifamily Medium Density Residential—Provides for multiple family (apartment) development of moderate density; single-family detached; single‑family attached, two‑family and three‑family dwellings in accordance with R‑T Zone provisions; detailed site plan approval required for multifamily and attached dwellings. Standard lot size Maximum dwelling units per net acre

Apartments—16,000 sq. ft. Two-family dwellings—1,500 sq. ft. Other attached dwellings—1,800 sq. ft. Garden apartments and 3-family dwellings—12 Mid-rise apartments (4 or more stories with elevator)—20 Three-family dwellings—9 Two-family dwellings—8 Other attached dwellings—6

R‑18C: Multifamily Medium Density Residential-Condominium—Same as above except ownership must be condominium, or development in accordance with the R‑T Zone; detailed site plan approval required for multifamily and attached dwellings. Standard lot size Maximum dwelling units per net acre

Apartments—1 acre Two-family dwellings—1,500 sq. ft. Other attached dwellings—1,800 sq. ft. Garden apartments—14 Mid rise apartments (4 or more stories with elevator)—20 Three‑family dwellings—9 Two-family dwellings—8 Other attached dwellings—6

R-H: Multifamily High-Rise Residential—Provides for suitable sites for high density, vertical residential development; also permits single-family detached dwellings; detailed site plan approval required for multifamily dwellings. Minimum lot size Maximum dwelling units per net acre

216

5 acres 48.4

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

R‑10: Multifamily High Density Residential—Provides for suitable sites for high density residential in proximity to commercial and cultural centers; also permits single-family detached dwellings. Detailed site plan approval required for buildings 110 feet in height or less; special exception required for buildings over 110 feet in height. Minimum lot size Maximum dwelling units per net acre

20,000 sq. ft. 48

R‑10A: Multifamily, High Density Residential-Efficiency—Provides for a multifamily zone designed for the elderly, singles, and small family groups. Detailed site plan approval required for buildings 110 feet in height or less; special exception required for buildings over 110 feet in height. Minimum lot size Maximum dwelling units per net acre

2 acres 48 plus one for each 1,000 sq. ft. of indoor common area for social, recreational, or educational purposes.

MIXED USE/PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONES M‑X‑T: Mixed Use-Transportation Oriented—Provides for a variety of residential, commercial, and employment uses; mandates at least two out of the following three use categories: (1) Retail businesses; (2) Office/ Research/Industrial; (3) Dwellings, hotel/motel; encourages a 24‑hour functional environment; must be located near a major intersection or a major transit stop or station and will provide adequate transportation facilities for the anticipated traffic or at a location for which the applicable master plan recommends mixed uses similar to those permitted in the M‑X‑T Zone. Lot size and dwelling types Maximum floor area ratio

No restrictions 0.4 without optional method; 8.0 with optional method (provision of amenities)

M-X-C: Mixed Use Community—Provides for a comprehensively planned community with a balanced mix of residential, commercial, light manufacturing, recreational and public uses; includes a multistep review process to assure compatibility of proposed land uses with existing and proposed surrounding land uses, public facilities and public services; mandates that each development include residential uses, community use areas, neighborhood centers and an integrated public street system with a variety of street standards. Minimum tract size Lot size and dwelling types Maximum dwelling units per gross acre Maximum floor area ratio for commercial uses

750 gross acres No restrictions 2 0.4

M-U-TC: Mixed-Use Town Center—Provides for a mix of commercial and limited residential uses which establish a safe, vibrant, 24-hour environment; designed to promote appropriate redevelopment of, and the preservation and adaptive reuse of selected buildings in, older commercial areas; establishes a flexible regulatory framework, based on community input, to encourage compatible development and redevelopment; mandates approval of a development plan at the time of zoning approval, that includes minimum and maximum development standards and guidelines, in both written and graphic form, to guide and promote local revitalization efforts; provides for legally existing buildings to be expanded or altered, and existing uses for which valid permits have been issued to be considered permitted uses, and eliminating nonconforming building and use regulations for same.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

217

M-U-I: Mixed-Use Infill—Promotes Smart Growth principles by encouraging the efficient use of land, public facilities and services in areas that are substantially developed. These regulations are intended to create community environments enhanced by a mix of residential, commercial, recreational, open space, employment and institutional uses in accordance with approved plans. The infill zone may only be approved for property located in a transit district overlay zone or a development district overlay zone. R‑P‑C: Planned Community—Provides for a combination of uses permitted in all zones, to promote a large‑scale community development with a full range of dwellings providing living space for a minimum of 500 families; encourages recreational, commercial, institutional, and employment facilities within the planned community; requires conformance with an official plan identifying zoning subcategories, that has been adopted by the Planning Board following approval of a final plan by the District Council at the time of rezoning, and for certain R‑P‑C Zones, approval of a detailed site plan prior to development. Lot size and dwelling types Maximum dwelling units per gross acre

Varied 8

R‑M‑H: Planned Mobile Home Community—Provides for suitable sites for planned mobile home communities, including residences and related recreational, commercial, and service facilities, subject to detailed site plan approval. Minimum lot size Maximum mobile homes per acre

4,000 sq. ft. 7

COMPREHENSIVE DESIGN ZONES (These zones require three-phase development plan review, the first of which is basic plan approval at the time of rezoning that establishes general land use types, land use relationships, and minimum land use quantities. In zones providing for density and intensity ranges, increases in base density and intensity within the limits prescribed are allowed in return for public benefit features provided by the developer.) R-L: Residential Low Development—Provides for low-density residential development in areas recommended by a master plan for alternative low- density development techniques. The zone allows a mixture of residential types and lot sizes generally corresponding to single-family development; provides for limited commercial uses necessary to serve the dominant residential uses. Minimum tract size Low .5 Low 1.0

Generally 100 adjoining gross acres Base density (dwelling units per gross acre)—.5 Maximum density—.9 Maximum mixed retirement development density - 8 du/gross acre Base Density (dwelling units per gross acre)—1.0 Maximum density—1.5 Maximum mixed retirement development density—8 du/gross acre

R‑S: Residential Suburban Development—A mixture of residential types within the suburban density range generally corresponding to low‑density single‑family development; provides for limited commercial uses necessary to serve the dominant residential uses. Minimum tract size Suburban 1.6

218

Generally 25 adjoining gross acres Base density (dwelling units per gross acre)—1.6 Maximum density—2.6 Maximum mixed retirement development density—8 du/gross acre

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Suburban 2.7

Base density (dwelling units per gross acre)—2.7 Maximum density—3.5 Maximum mixed retirement development density—8 du/gross acre

R‑M: Residential Medium Development—A mixture of residential types with a medium‑density range; provides for limited commercial uses necessary to serve the dominant residential uses. Minimum tract size Medium 3.6 Medium 5.8

Generally 10 adjoining gross acres Base density (dwelling units per gross acre)—3.6 Maximum density—5.7 Maximum mixed retirement development density—8 du/gross acre Base density (dwelling units per gross acre)—5.8 Maximum density—7.9 Maximum mixed retirement development density—8 du/gross acre

R‑U: Residential Urban Development—A mixture of residential types generally associated with an urban environment; provides for limited commercial uses necessary to serve the dominant residential uses. Minimum tract size Urban 8.0 Urban 12.0

Generally 5 adjoining gross acres Base density (dwelling units per gross acre)—8.0 Maximum density—11.9 Maximum mixed retirement development density—8 du/gross acre Base density (dwelling units per gross acre)—12.0 Maximum density—16.9 Maximum mixed retirement development density—8 du/gross acre

L‑A‑C: Local Activity Center—A mixture of commercial retail and service uses along with complementary residential densities within a hierarchy of centers servicing three distinct service areas: neighborhood, village, and community. Neighborhood Minimum tract size Base resid. density Max. resid. density Base comm. intensity Max. comm. intensity Max. mixed retirement development density Village Minimum tract size Base resid. density Max. resid. density Base comm. intensity Max. comm. intensity Max. mixed retirement development density Community Minimum tract size Base resid. density Max. resid. density Base comm. intensity Max. comm. intensity Max. mixed retirement development density Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

4 adjoining gross ac. 8 du/gross resid. ac. 12.1 du/gross resid. ac. 0.16 FAR 0.31 FAR 8 du/gross ac. 10 adjoining gross ac. 10 du/gross resid. ac. 15 du/gross resid. ac. 0.2 FAR 0.64 FAR 8 du/gross ac. 20 adjoining gross ac. 10 du/gross resid. ac. 20 du/gross resid. ac. 0.2 FAR 0.68 FAR 8 du/gross ac. 219

M‑A‑C: Major Activity Center—A mixture of uses which serve a regional residential market or provide concentrated employment, arranged to allow easy pedestrian access between uses; two types of functional centers are described: major metro and new town or corridor city. Minimum tract size Metro Center Base residential density Max. residential density Base commercial intensity Max. commercial intensity Min. residential floor area Max. mixed retirement New Town or City Corridor Center Base residential density Max. residential density Base commercial intensity Max. commercial intensity Min. residential floor area Max. mixed retirement

Generally 40 adjoining gross acres 48 du/gross resid. ac. 125 du/gross resid. ac. 1.0 FAR/gross commercial ac. 2.7 FAR/gross commercial ac. 20% of total at time of full development 8 du/gross ac. development density 10 du/gross resid. ac. 47.9 du/gross resid. ac. 0.2 FAR/gross commercial ac. 0.88 FAR/gross commercial ac. 20% of total at time of full development 8 du/gros ac. development density

E‑I‑A: Employment and Institutional Area—A concentration of nonretail employment and institutional uses and services such as medical, manufacturing, office, religious, educational, recreational, and governmental. Minimum tract size Minimum open space improved by landscaping

Generally 5 adjoining gross acres 20% of net lot area

V-L: Village-Low—Provides for a variety of residential, commercial, recreational, and employment uses within a traditional village setting surrounded by open space; mandates the following land use area categories: (1) Village Proper; (2) Village Fringe; (3) Residential Areas; (4) Village Buffer; and (5) Recreational Areas. Land use areas are arranged to allow a sense of community with linkage via a pedestrian network to a core which contains commercial, civic, community, and residential uses; also mandates a mixture of residential types and lot sizes, including affordable housing units; includes detailed design standards and building materials requirements. This zone may be utilized in areas recommended for permanent low density by a master plan. Minimum tract size Maximum density

150 contiguous gross acres 1.3 dwelling units per gross acre

V-M: Village-Medium—Provides for a variety of residential, commercial, recreational, and employment uses within a traditional village setting surrounded by open space; mandates the following land use area categories: (1) Village Proper; (2) Village Fringe; (3) Residential Areas; (4) Village Buffer; and (5) Recreational Areas. Land use areas are arranged to allow a sense of community with linkage via a pedestrian network to a core which contains commercial, civic, community, and residential uses; also mandates a mixture of residential types and lot sizes, including affordable housing units; includes detailed design standards and building materials requirements. This zone may be utilized in areas recommended for permanent low density by a master plan. Minimum tract size Maximum density

220

300 contiguous gross acres 2.0 dwelling units per gross acre

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

COMMERCIAL ZONES C‑O: Commercial Office—Uses of a predominantly nonretail commercial nature, such as business, professional and medical offices, or related administrative services. C‑A: Ancillary Commercial—Certain small retail commercial uses, physician and dental offices, and similar professional offices that are strictly related to and supply necessities in frequent demand and daily needs of an area with a minimum of consumer travel; maximum size of zone: 3 net acres. C-1: Local Commercial, Existing—All of the uses permitted in the C‑S‑C Zone. C‑2: General Commercial, Existing—All of the uses permitted in the C‑S‑C Zone, with additions and modifications. C‑C: Community Commercial, Existing—All of the uses permitted in the C‑S‑C Zone. C‑G: General Commercial, Existing—All of the uses permitted in the C‑S‑C Zone. C‑S‑C: Commercial Shopping Center—Retail and service commercial activities generally located within shopping center facilities; size will vary according to trade area. C‑H: Highway Commercial, Existing—All of the uses permitted in the C‑M Zone. C‑M: Commercial Miscellaneous—Varied commercial uses, including office and highway‑oriented uses, which may be disruptive to the compactness and homogeneity of retail shopping centers. C‑W: Commercial Waterfront—Marine activities related to tourism, vacationing, boating and sports, water-oriented recreation, together with limited employment areas which cater to marine activities along a waterfront. C-R-C: Commercial Regional Center—Provides locations for major regional shopping malls and related uses that are consistent with the concept of an upscale mall. Minimum area for development— one hundred (100) gross continuous acres; maximum FAR— .75; maximum building height—75 ft.; maximum building coverage, excluding parking—50%; detailed site plan approval required.

INDUSTRIAL ZONES I‑1: Light Industrial—Light intensity manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution uses; 10% green area required. I‑2: Heavy Industrial—Highly intensive industrial and manufacturing uses; 10% green area required. I‑3: Planned Industrial/Employment Park—Uses that will minimize detrimental effects on residential and other adjacent areas; a mixture of industrial, research, and office uses with compatible institutional, recreational, and service uses in a manner that will retain the dominant industrial/employment character of the zone; standard minimum tract size of 25 adjoining gross acres; standard minimum lot size of two acres; conceptual and detailed site plan approval required; 25% green area required; outdoor uses restricted; warehousing and wholesaling uses limited.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

221

I‑4: Limited Intensity Industrial—Limited intensity (0.3 FAR) commercial, manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution uses; development standards extended to assure limited intensity industrial and commercial development, and compatibility with surrounding zoning and uses; 25% green area required. U-L-I: Urban Light Industrial—Designed to attract and retain a variety of small-scale light industrial uses in older, mostly developed industrial areas located close to established residential communities; establishes a flexible regulatory process with appropriate standards to promote reinvestment in, and redevelopment of, older urban industrial areas as employment centers, in a manner compatible with adjacent residential areas.

OVERLAY ZONES2 T-D-O: Transit District Overlay—Intended to ensure that development in a designated district meets the goals established in a transit district development plan. Transit districts may be designated in the vicinity of Metro stations to maximize transit ridership, serve the economic and social goals of the area, and take advantage of the unique development opportunities which mass transit provides. D-D-O: Development District Overlay—Intended to ensure that development in a designated district meets the goals established in a master plan, master plan amendment or sector plan. Development Districts may be designated for town centers, Metro areas, commercial corridors, employment centers, revitalization areas, historic areas and other special areas as identified in approved plans.

Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Overlay Zones3 I-D-O: Intense Development Overlay—To conserve and enhance fish, wildlife, and plant habitats and improve the quality of runoff that enters the Chesapeake Bay, while accommodating existing residential, commercial, or industrial land uses. To promote new residential, commercial and industrial land uses with development intensity limits. Maximum residential density is the same as the underlying zone. L-D-O: Limited Development Overlay—To maintain and/or improve the quality of runoff entering the tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay and to maintain existing areas of natural habitat, while accommodating additional low-or moderate-intensity development. Maximum residential density is the same as the underlying zone, up to 4.0 du/net acre maximum. R-C-O: Resource Conservation Overlay—To provide adequate breeding, feeding and wintering habitats for wildlife, to protect the land and water resources base necessary to support resource-oriented land uses, and to conserve existing woodland and forests for water quality benefits along the tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay. Maximum residential density—.05 du/ gross acre.

These overlay zones are superimposed over other zones, and they may modify provisions of the underlying zones concerning uses allowed and standards for development. In addition, new development is generally subject to approval of a detailed site plan by the Planning Board.

222

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Revitalization Overlay Districts4 R-O-D: Revitalization Overlay District—Intended to ensure the orderly development or redevelopment of land within a designated district. Revitalization Districts provide a mechanism for the county to delegate full authority to local municipalities to approve departures from parking, landscaping and sign standards. In addition, limited authority is also delegated for the approval of variances from building setbacks, lot coverage, yards and other dimensional requirements of existing zoning.

Architectural Overlay Districts5 A-C-O: Architectural Conservation Overlay—Intended to ensure that development and redevelopment efforts preserve and protect the architectural or design character of neighborhoods in accordance with an approved architectural conservation plan. Conservation districts may be designated in areas where the majority of properties have been developed and they exhibit distinct, unifying elements, characteristics, design or other physical features.

These overlay districts are superimposed over other zones. However, they do not modify provisions of the underlying zones concerning uses allowed and standards for development.

These overlay zones are superimposed over other zones, and they may modify provisions of the underlying zones concerning design regulations. Howver, they do not modify provisions of the underlying zones concerning allowed uses. In addition, a detailed site plan for architectural conservation shall be approved by the Planning Board prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit.

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

223

224

Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and SMA

Development District Standards Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment October 2009 Development District Overlay Zone

Development Review Checklist February 4, 2011

The Prince George’s County Planning Department The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission www.mncppc.org/pgco

INTRODUCTION The Prince George’s County Council, sitting as the District Council, approved the Port Towns Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment by Resolution No. CR-72-2009 on October 6, 2009. The vision for the Port Towns plan, which includes Bladensburg, Colmar Manor, Cottage City, and Edmonston, is to achieve green, healthy, and pedestrian-friendly communities and destinations that celebrate and build upon the area’s cultural diversity, strategic location, industrial base, and historical, recreational, and environmental assets. The sectional map amendment recommended zoning changes and established a Development District Overlay Zone (DDOZ), including four character areas, to achieve that vision. This is a checklist for development review applications in the Port Towns DDOZ and associated character areas. The 2009 Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment supersedes any and all standards found in this document should any discrepancies be contained herein. Applicants are responsible for reviewing the 2009 Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment in its entirety.

HOW TO USE THIS CHECKLIST In conjunction with the 2009 Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment: 1.

Locate the subject property on the appropriate Character Area Urban Design Plan found on pages 153-157 of the 2009 Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment to determine the applicable Building Envelope Standard (BES) frontage for the subject property.

2. In the Building and Site Standards Chapter, review the Introduction, Urban Space Standards, and Street Type Specifications found on pages 159–161. 3. Refer to Map 31: Street Types/Build-to Lines (page 162) to determine the applicable Neighborhood Street Type designation for the subject property. 4. Refer to the Neighborhood Street Type sections found on pages 163–167 to determine the required streetscape elements and dimensions. 5. Note that all properties are subject to the Building Envelope Standards for All Frontage Types (included in this checklist on pages 4–7). Review the intent of the standards on page 172 of the sector plan. 6. Refer to the applicable Building Envelope Standard for the subject property (included in this checklist, see Table of Contents). All properties are additionally subject to the following, if applicable: 1.

Architectural Standards—Signage and Awnings

2. Parking and Loading Standards 3. Streetscape Standards 4. Squares and Civic Standards

TABLE OF CONTENTS BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS FOR ALL FRONTAGE TYPES ............................................................................................................................... 4 GENERAL BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS............................................................................................................................................................. 7 STOREFRONT BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS .................................................................................................................................................... 10 TOWNHOUSE/SMALL-APARTMENT BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS ................................................................................................................. 12 WORKSHOP BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS ....................................................................................................................................................... 15 DETACHED DWELLING BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS ...................................................................................................................................... 17 KENILWORTH AVENUE (LIMITED ACCESS HIGHWAY) BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS .................................................................................. 20 ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS—SIGNAGE AND AWNINGS ...................................................................................................................................... 21 PARKING AND LOADING STANDARDS .......................................................................................................................................................................22 STREETSCAPE .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 26 SQUARES AND CIVIC GREENS .................................................................................................................................................................................... 27

KEY TERMS BES=BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS BTL=BUILD-TO LINE PTDDP=PORT TOWNS DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PLAN

BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS FOR ALL FRONTAGE TYPES Development District Standards Transitions

Comply? Yes/No N/A

Comments

Sector Plan Reference Page

1. When the BES designation shown on the PTDDP character area urban design plans changes along a property’s build-to line (BTL), that property owner has the option, for his property’s street frontage only, of applying either BES for a maximum additional distance of 50 feet in either direction. Façade Composition 1. For each block face within the urban neighborhood, façades along the BTL shall present a complete and discrete vertical façade composition (i.e., integral architectural articulation to maintain and protect a human-scale for the street-space) at an average street frontage length of no greater than 60 feet for storefront frontage sites; 75 feet for general and small apartment/townhouse frontage sites; and 100 feet for workshop and detached frontage. 2. Each façade composition shall include a functioning street entry door. This requirement may be satisfied through the use of liner shops for large floor-plate buildings. Individual infill projects on lots with frontage of less than 100 feet are exempted from the overall façade composition requirement, but shall still include a functioning street entry. 3. “Façade composition” is the arrangement and proportion of façade materials and elements (windows, doors, columns, pilasters, and bays). “Complete and discrete” is like a new façade, much as for new buildings. To achieve Paragraph 2, above, within a building frontage, a minimum of one of the items listed below and two additional items are required: a) Clearly different ground story façade composition (both framing materials and fenestration proportions). b) Window proportions (minimum difference 20 percent). c) Façade composition (clearly different ‘bay’ rhythm, e.g. “ABA”—“ABBA”— “BAAB”—“ABCBA”). d) Wall material (clearly different external wall material—color changes do not suffice). e) Change in fenestration percentage (minimum difference 12 percent; ground floor façades are not included).

172

172 172 172 172 172

BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS FOR ALL FRONTAGE TYPES Development District Standards Building Size 1. The maximum building floor-plate (footprint) for a building is 25,000 square feet; beyond that limit a departure from design standards is required in accordance with Subtitle 27, Part 3, Division 5, Subdivision 4, Departures from Design Standards. Grocery use sites designated on the PTDDP character area preferred urban design plans are exempted from this standard.

Comply? Yes/No N/A

Comments

Sector Plan Reference Page 172

Neighborhood Manners 1.

For any BES frontage except detached and small apartment/townhouse, the following rules apply: a) Where a site has a common lot line with a single-family residential property, there shall be a 40-foot setback for any structure. b) Where a site abuts a single-family residential property, a garden wall/street wall, 4 to 6 feet in height, shall be constructed within one foot of the common lot line or alley. c) Where a site is located within 50 feet of an existing single-family residential zoning district, the maximum eave or parapet height for that portion of the site shall be 32 feet. This requirement supersedes the minimum story height requirement.

172 172 173 173

Height

1. The height of all buildings is measured in stories, unless otherwise designated herein. 2. An attic story is not included as a story in the height measurement. 3. If an individual story exceeds the maximum floor-to-floor height, it shall be counted against another story, so that no individual building height may exceed the sum of all stories at their maximum height in feet per story. 4. Where a parking structure is within 40 feet of any building (constructed after approval of the PTDDP character area preferred urban design plan) that portion of the structure shall not exceed the building’s primary ridge or parapet height. 5. Mezzanines that have a floor area greater than one-third of the floor area of the story in which they are located shall count as an additional full story in the story height measurement. Siting 1. The building façade shall be built to the BTL within 30 feet of a block corner. 2. A street wall shall be required along any BTL frontage that is not otherwise occupied by a building. The street wall shall be located not more than eight inches behind the BTL.

173 173 173 173 173

173 173

BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS FOR ALL FRONTAGE TYPES Development District Standards

Comply? Yes/No N/A

Comments

Sector Plan Reference Page

3. The BTL designated on PTDDP character area urban design plans is an absolute line that incorporates an offset area (or depth) of 18 inches beyond that line (into the buildable area) allowing for jogs, façade articulation, etc., unless otherwise designated herein. 4. Buildings may only occupy that portion of the lot specified as the buildable area—the area behind the BTL as designated by the BES. 5. No part of any building may be located outside of the buildable area except overhanging eaves, awnings, or balconies. 6. There is no required setback from alleys. On lots without alley access, there shall be a minimum 25-foot setback from the rear lot line. 7. There are no side yard setbacks, except as specified in “Neighborhood Manners” (above) or in the BES. 8. The parking setback line is 30 feet behind the BTL unless otherwise indicated on the character area urban design plan. Vehicle parking shall be located behind the parking setback line, except where parking is provided below grade, on-street, or otherwise indicated on PTDDP character area preferred urban design plans. 9. Corner lots and through lots shall satisfy the requirements of these standards in accordance with the character area urban design plans for all their designated frontages, unless otherwise specified.

173

173 173 173 173 173

173

Elements

1. Fenestration is measured as a percentage of the façade between floor levels. 2. No window may face or direct views toward a common lot line within 25 feet unless: a) That view is contained within the lot (e.g., by a privacy fence or garden wall), or b) The sill is at least six feet above its finished floor level. 3. Balconies and stoops shall not project within five feet of a common lot line. 4. No part of any building except overhanging eaves, awnings, balconies, bay windows, stoops, and shopfronts as specified by the code may project beyond the BTL. 5. Privacy fences may be constructed along that portion of a common lot line not otherwise occupied by a building. Civic Use Buildings 1. When designated on the PTDDP character area preferred urban design plans, civic use buildings are exempt from the BES standards, excepting any provisions that concern adjacent single-family detached uses residential areas.

173 173 173 173 173 173 173

173

GENERAL BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS Development District Standards Height Building Height

Comply? Yes/No N/A

Comments

Sector Plan Reference Page

1. Buildings shall be at least four stories in height, but no greater than ten stories in height.

174

The average ground story finished floor elevation shall be equal to the exterior sidewalk elevation in front of the building to a maximum finished floor elevation of 18 inches above the sidewalk. 2. The ground story shall have at least 15 feet of clear interior height (floor to ceiling) contiguous to the BTL frontage for a minimum depth of 25 feet. 3. The maximum ground story height is 22 feet, measured from the sidewalk to second story floor.

174

The average finished floor elevation shall be no less than three feet above the exterior sidewalk elevation at the BTL. 2. The ground story shall have an interior clear height (floor to ceiling) of at least nine feet and a maximum sidewalk to a second story floor height of 22 feet.

174

The maximum clear height (floor to ceiling) for stories other than the ground story is 12 feet. 2. At least 80 percent of each upper story shall have an interior clear height (floor to ceiling) of at least nine feet.

174

A street wall not less than six feet in height or greater than 12 feet in height shall be required along any BTL frontage that is not otherwise occupied by a building on the lot.

174

On each lot the building façade shall be built to the BTL for at least 75 percent of the BTL length. 2. The ground floor façade, within seven feet of the block corner, may be chamfered to form a corner entry.

175

Ground Story Height: Commerce Uses

174 174

Ground Story Height: Residential Units

174

Upper Story Height

174

Street Wall Height

Siting Street Façade 1.

175

GENERAL BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS Development District Standards Buildable Area 1.

Comply? Yes/No N/A

Comments

Sector Plan Reference Page

175

Curb cuts or driveways shall be located at least 75 feet away from any block corner or another garage entry on the same block face. These requirements are not applicable along alleys. 2. Openings in the BTL for parking garage entries shall have a maximum clear height no greater than 16 feet and a clear width no greater than 22 feet.

175

1. Blank lengths of wall exceeding 20 linear feet are prohibited on all BTLs. 2. Ground story façade fenestration shall comprise between 40 and 90 percent of the façade. 3. Upper story façade fenestration shall comprise between 20 and 60 percent of the façade area per story.

176 176

Awnings shall project a minimum of six feet to a maximum of: a) Within one foot of back of curb where there are no street trees, or b) One foot into the tree lawn (where there are street trees). 2. Awnings that project over the sidewalk portion of a street-space shall maintain a clear height of at least ten feet. 3. Awnings may have supporting posts at their outer edge provided they: a) Have a minimum of eight feet clear width between the façade and the support posts or columns of the awnings, and b) Provide a continuous clear walkway at least four feet wide running adjacent and parallel to the awning columns/posts.

176 176 176 176

176

Garage and Parking 1.

175

Elements Fenestration

176

Building Projections

176 176 176

Street Walls

One vehicle entry gate no wider than 20 feet and one pedestrian entry gate no wider than five feet shall be permitted within any required street wall.

GENERAL BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS Development District Standards USE Ground Story 1.

Comply? Yes/No N/A

Comments

Sector Plan Reference Page

The ground story may only house commerce or residential uses. See height specifications above for specific requirements unique to each use.

177

The upper stories may only house residential or commerce uses. No restaurant or retail sales uses shall be allowed in upper stories except restaurant uses may be permitted in a view terminus site within the PTWF or BBRD character areas to maximize views of the Anacostia stream valley and river, or unless they are second story extensions equal to or less than the area of the ground story use. 2. No commerce use is permitted above a residential use. 3. Additional habitable space is permitted within the roof where the roof is configured as an attic story.

177

Upper Stories 1.

177 177

STOREFRONT BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS Development District Standards Height Building Height 1.

Comply? Yes/No N/A

Comments

Sector Plan Reference Page

The building shall be at least four stories in height, but no greater than ten stories in height.

178

A street wall not less than six feet in height or greater than 12 feet in height shall be required along any BTL frontage that is not otherwise occupied by a building on the lot.

178

On each lot the building façade shall be built to the BTL for at least 80 percent of the BTL length. 2. The ground floor façade may, within seven feet of the block corner, be chamfered to form a corner entry.

179

Curb cuts or driveways shall be located at least 75 feet away from any block corner or another garage entry on the same block face. These requirements are not applicable along alleys.

179

Ground Story Height 1.

178 178

Upper Story Height

178

Street Wall Height

Siting Street Façade 1.

179

Buildable Area

Garage and Parking 1.

STOREFRONT BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS Development District Standards

Comply? Yes/No N/A

Comments

Sector Plan Reference Page

2. Openings in the BTL for parking garage entries shall have a maximum clear height no greater than 16 feet and a clear width no greater than 22 feet.

179

1. Blank lengths of wall exceeding 20 linear feet are prohibited on all BTLs. 2. Ground story façade fenestration shall comprise between 60 and 90 percent of the façade. 3. Upper story façade fenestration shall comprise between 20 and 60 percent of the façade area per story.

180 180

Awnings shall project a minimum of six feet to a maximum of: a) Within one foot of back of curb where there are no street trees, or b) One foot into the tree planting area (where there are street trees). 2. Awnings that project over the sidewalk portion of a street-space shall maintain a clear height of at least ten feet. 3. Awnings may have supporting posts at their outer edge provided that they: a) Have a minimum of eight feet clear width between the façade and the support posts or columns of the awnings, and b) Provide a continuous clear walkway at least four feet wide running adjacent and parallel to the awning columns/posts.

180 180 180 180

One vehicle entry gate no wider than 20 feet and one pedestrian entry gate no wider than five feet shall be permitted within any required street wall.

180

The ground story may only house commerce uses.

181

Elements Fenestration

180

Building Projections

180 180 180

Street Walls

Use Ground Story 1.

Upper Stories 1.

The upper stories may only house residential or commerce uses. No restaurant or retail sales uses shall be allowed in upper stories except restaurant uses may be permitted in a view terminus site within the PTWF or BBRD character areas to maximize views of the Anacostia stream valley and river, or unless they are second story extensions equal to or less than the area of the ground story use. 2. Additional habitable space is permitted within the roof where the roof is configured as an attic story.

181

TOWNHOUSE/SMALL-APARTMENT BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS Development District Standards Height Building Height

Comply? Yes/No N/A

Comments

Sector Plan Reference Page

Each building shall be at least two stories in height, but no greater than four stories in height. 2. A side wing or ancillary structure shall be no higher than 18 feet, measured to its eaves or parapet.

182

The average finished floor elevation shall be no less than three feet and no more than eight feet above the exterior sidewalk elevation at the BTL. 2. At least 80 percent of the ground story shall have an interior clear height (floor to ceiling) of at least nine feet. 3. The maximum ground story floor to ceiling story height is 16 feet.

182

A street wall not less than four feet in height or greater than eight feet in height shall be required along any BTL frontage that is not otherwise occupied by a building on the lot.

182

On each lot the building façade shall be built to the BTL for at least 70 percent of the BTL length. 2. For buildings with front porches, the dooryard/clear walkway line shall serve as the BTL and the front porch shall be built to the dooryard line. For this situation only, the façade will sit behind the BTL, as determined by the required front porch depth. 3. The building façade (or as per 2 above) shall be built to the BTL within 20 feet of a block corner.

183

182

Ground Story Height

182 182

Upper Story Height

182

Street Wall Height

Siting Street Façade 1.

183

TOWNHOUSE/SMALL-APARTMENT BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS Development District Standards Buildable Area 1.

Comply? Yes/No N/A

Comments

Sector Plan Reference Page

A contiguous private open area equal to at least 20 percent of the total buildable area shall be preserved on every lot. Such contiguous open area may be located anywhere behind the parking setback, at grade.

183

Curb cuts or driveways shall be located at least 75 feet away from any block corner or another garage entry on the same block face. These requirements are not applicable along alleys. 2. Garage doors/entries shall not be permitted on the BTL/façade.

183

1. The minimum lot width is 18 feet. 2. Although there are no individual side lot setbacks, no building façade may exceed 120 feet of continuous building frontage. A gap of 10 to 20 feet is required between each such structure.

183 183

1. Blank lengths of wall exceeding 15 linear feet are prohibited on all BTLs. 2. Ground story façade fenestration shall comprise between 30 and 70 percent of the façade. 3. Upper story façade fenestration shall comprise between 20 and 60 percent of the façade. 4. No window may face or direct views toward a common lot line within 20 feet unless: a) That view is contained within the lot (e.g., by a privacy fence/garden wall) or, b) The sill is at least six feet above the finished floor level.

184 184

Garage and Parking 1.

183

Frontage Widths

Elements Fenestration

184 184 184 184

Building Projections 1.

Each lot/ground story unit shall include: a) A stoop of not more than five feet deep and six feet wide (not including steps), or b) A front porch, between eight feet and ten feet deep with a width not less than 12 feet, at the dooryard/clear walkway line behind the BTL.

184 184

Each BTL/façade ground story unit shall provide a functioning entry door with direct street access.

184

Doors/Entries 1.

TOWNHOUSE/SMALL-APARTMENT BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS Development District Standards Street Walls 1.

Comply? Yes/No N/A

Comments

Sector Plan Reference Page

One vehicle entry gate no wider than 18 feet and one pedestrian entry gate no wider than five feet shall be permitted within any required street wall.

184

185

Use Ground Story 1.

Upper Stories

1. The upper stories may only house residential uses. 2. Additional habitable space is permitted within the roof where the roof is configured as an attic story.

185 185

1. One English basement unit or one accessory unit is permitted per lot. 2. Parking and accessory unit (maximum 650 square feet) uses are permitted in the buildable area at the rear of the lot.

185 185

Accessory Unit

WORKSHOP BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS Development District Standards Height Building Height 1.

Comply? Yes/No N/A

Comments

Sector Plan Reference Page

The building shall be at least one story or 20 feet to the eaves or parapet in height, but no greater than four stories in height.

186

The average ground story finished floor elevation shall be equal to the exterior sidewalk elevation in front of the building to a maximum finished floor elevation of 18 inches above the sidewalk. 2. The ground story shall have at least 11 feet of clear interior height (floor to ceiling) contiguous to the BTL frontage for a minimum depth of at least 25 feet. 3. The maximum story height for the ground story is 25 feet.

186

The maximum floor-to-floor story height for stories other than the ground story is 12 feet. 2. At least 80 percent of each upper story shall have an interior clear height (floor to ceiling) of at least eight feet.

186

A street wall not less than six feet in height or greater than 12 feet in height shall be required along any BTL frontage that is not otherwise occupied by a building on the lot.

186

On each lot the building façade shall be built to the BTL for at least 70 percent of the BTL length. 2. The ground floor façade, within seven feet of the block corner, may be chamfered to form a corner entry.

187

No part of any building, except overhanging eaves, or awnings shall occupy the area behind the boundary line. The area may be used for loading, circulation and/or as a work yard. 2. A garden/street wall or privacy fence is allowed behind the boundary line.

187

Ground Story Height 1.

186 186

Upper Story Height

186

Street Wall Height

Siting Street Façade 1.

187

Buildable Area

187

Alleys

There is no required setback from alleys, except as provided by the boundary line. 15

WORKSHOP BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS Development District Standards Garage and Parking 1.

Comply? Yes/No N/A

Comments

Sector Plan Reference Page

Driveways shall be located at least 75 feet away from any block corner or another driveway or garage entry on the same block. This requirement does not apply along alleys.

187

1. Blank lengths of wall exceeding 35 linear feet are prohibited on all BTLs. 2. Fenestration on façades shall comprise between 20 and 70 percent of the façade.

188 188

Awnings shall project a minimum of six feet and a maximum of: a) Within one foot of back of curb where there are no street trees, or b) One foot into the tree lawn (where there are street trees). 2. Awnings that project over the sidewalk portion of a street-space shall maintain a clear height of at least ten feet.

188 188 188 188

At least one functioning pedestrian entry door shall be provided along each ground story BTL façade at intervals not greater than 80 linear feet.

188

One vehicle entry gate no wider than 25 feet and one pedestrian entry gate no wider than five feet shall be permitted within any required street wall.

188

The ground story may only house workshop or commerce uses.

189

The upper stories may only house workshop or commerce uses. No restaurant or retail uses shall be allowed in upper stories.

189

Elements Fenestration

Building Projections

Doors/Entries Street Walls 1.

Use Ground Story

Upper Stories

DETACHED DWELLING BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS Development District Standards Height Building Height

Comply? Yes/No N/A

Comments

Sector Plan Reference Page

Each building shall be at least two stories in height, but no greater than three stories in height. 2. A side wing or ancillary structure shall be no higher than 18 feet, measured to its eaves.

190

The average finished floor elevation shall be no less than 30 inches and no more than 60 inches above the exterior sidewalk elevation at the BTL. 2. At least 80 percent of the first story shall have an interior clear height (floor to ceiling) of at least nine feet. 3. The maximum ground story floor to floor height is 16 feet.

190

Ground Story Height

190 190

Upper Story Height

190

Front Yard Fence

A front yard fence is required with a minimum height of 30 inches and a maximum height of 40 inches.

Siting Street Façade 1.

On each lot the front porch shall be built to the BTL for at least 33 percent of the building width. 2. Within 20 feet of a block corner the building façade shall be eight to ten feet behind the BTL.

191

A contiguous open area equal to at least 25 percent of the total buildable area shall be preserved on every lot. Such contiguous open area may be located anywhere behind the parking setback, at grade.

191

Each lot has a minimum width at the BTL of 24 feet and a minimum depth of 90 feet. 2. Each lot has a maximum width of 75 feet or two-thirds of the width of the existing fronting lots, whichever is greater. The maximum depth is 120 feet.

191

Buildable Area

Lot Size 1.

191 17

DETACHED DWELLING BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS Development District Standards Front Yard

Comply? Yes/No N/A

Comments

Sector Plan Reference Page

The front yard/dooryard shall not be paved.

191

The minimum side lot setback is five feet or as otherwise designated on the character area urban design plan.

191

Curb cuts or driveways shall be located at least 75 feet away from any block corner or another garage entry on the same block face. These requirements are not applicable along alleys. 2. Garage doors shall not be located on the BTL/building façade.

191

Side Lot Setbacks

Garage and Parking 1.

191

Alleys

There is a three-foot required setback from alleys.

Elements Fenestration

1. Blank lengths of wall exceeding 15 linear feet are prohibited on all BTLs. 2. Fenestration on all façades shall comprise at least 25 percent, but not more than 70 percent, of the façade. 3. No window may face or direct views toward a common lot line within 20 feet unless: a) That view is contained within the lot (e.g., by a privacy fence/garden wall), or b) The sill is at least six feet above the finished floor level.

192 192

Each lot shall include a front porch at the BTL, between eight and ten feet deep with a width not less than 33 percent of the building width. 2. No part of any building except porch roof (overhanging eaves) and steps may encroach beyond the BTL.

192

At least one functioning entry door shall be provided along the ground story façade of each building.

192

1. There is no street wall requirement. 2. A front yard fence is required within one foot of the clear walkway/dooryard line parallel to the BTL. 3. A privacy fence may be constructed along a common lot line behind the BTL.

192 192

192

Building Projections

192

Doors/Entries

Street Walls and Fences

192 18

DETACHED DWELLING BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS Development District Standards Use Ground Story 1.

Comply? Yes/No N/A

Comments

Sector Plan Reference Page

The ground story may only house residential uses.

193

Upper Stories

1. The upper stories may only house residential uses. 2. Additional habitable space is permitted within the roof where the roof is configured as an attic story.

193 193

193

Accessory Uses

Parking and accessory unit (maximum 650 square feet) uses are permitted in the buildable area at the rear of the lot.

KENILWORTH AVENUE (LIMITED ACCESS HIGHWAY) BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS Development District Standards Height

Comply? Yes/No N/A

Comments

Sector Plan Reference Page

1. The height limit may be increased by 33 percent. Siting 1. The minimum build-to may be reduced to 50 percent (street wall requirements still apply).

194

1. The requirements for upper story fenestration do not apply. 2. The ground story minimum fenestration requirement may be reduced to 20 percent. Blocks/Alleys 1. There are no requirements to provide through-access along block faces via an alley, access easement, or pedestrian pathway. 2. There are no limits on curb cuts on the frontage road. Architectural Standards—Windows and Doors 1. Materials: The requirements for upper story window light transmission do not apply. 2. Configurations and Techniques: The requirements for upper story windows do not apply. Signage 1. For upper stories: a) Wall signs are allowed anywhere above the second story floor level. b) There is no limit on lettering size. c) There is no limit on the size and location of blade signs. d) Marquee signs are permitted.

194 194

194

Elements

194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194

ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS—SIGNAGE AND AWNINGS Development District Standards Signage General Design and Materials 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Comply? Yes/No N/A

Comments

Sector Plan Reference Page

Wall signs are permitted within the area between the second story floor line and the first floor ceiling, within a horizontal band not to exceed two feet in height. In no case may this band be higher than 18 feet or lower than 12 feet above the adjacent sidewalk. Letters may not exceed 18 inches in height or width and three inches in relief. Signs may not come closer than two feet to an adjacent common lot line. Company logos or names may be placed within the horizontal sign band or placed or painted within ground floor or second story office windows. Company logos or names may not be larger than a rectangle of eight square feet in size. A masonry or bronze plaque bearing an owner’s or building’s name may be placed in the building’s cornice/parapet wall or under the eaves and above the upper story windows. Any such plaque may be no larger than a rectangle of 18 square feet in size. Blade signs (not more than 18 inches vertical by three feet horizontal with a minimum nine feet clear height above the sidewalk) may be hung below the second story level, perpendicular to the build-to line or from an overhang or awning. Prohibited Signs: Billboards, free-standing pole signs, monument signs, marquees, any kind of animation, roof signs, and signs painted on the exterior walls of buildings are prohibited. No internally lit, flashing, traveling, animated, or intermittent lighting may be on the exterior of any building whether such lighting is of temporary or longterm duration. Portable or wheeled signs and advertising devices located outside any building shall not be permitted, pursuant to county regulations. Limited access highway frontage sites, as designated on the urban design concept plan, are exempted from some of the standards above (see Kenilworth Avenue [Limited Access Highway]).

196

Any overhangs shall have a minimum of ten feet clear height above the sidewalk and be a minimum of six feet deep from the building façade (maximum to curb or tree lawn, whichever is closer). Only the following materials are permitted: canvas or equivalent (no shiny or reflective materials), metal, or glass. Internal illumination through the awning/overhang shall not be permitted. Lettering on awnings shall be limited to six inches in height on the vertical face of the curb side of the awning. One-quarter cylinder configurations are not permitted.

197

196 196 196 196 196

196

Awnings/Overhangs 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

197 197 197 197 21

PARKING AND LOADING STANDARDS Development District Standards Other Applicable Regulations

Comply? Yes/No N/A

Comments

Sector Plan Reference Page

The requirements of Section 27-551, Permitted Use of Parking Lots and Loading Areas, apply to all parking and loading areas under this code. 2. The requirements of Subtitle 27, Part 11 B, Division 3, Subdivision 2, Design Standards, apply to all parking areas under this code, except that: a) Compact parking spaces shall not be permitted in surface parking lots; b) Speed bumps shall not be permitted; and c) Pervious surfaces approved by the Planning Director or designee are encouraged for surface parking lots.

198

The minimum surface parking spaces shall be 80 percent of the minimum required parking and loading as stated by Section 27-568(a) of Part 11 of the Zoning Ordinance 2. The maximum number of surface parking spaces shall be equal to the minimum required by required parking and loading as stated by Section 27-568(a) of Part 11 of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The maximum number of structured parking shall be equal to 115 percent of the minimum required parking and loading per Section 27-568(a) of the Zoning Ordinance.

198

Walking distance is measured from the primary entrance of the use to the rail platform (or in the case of an underground station, the top of the nearest elevator, stair or escalator leading to the rail platform), entrance to a public parking facility, or the nearest bus boarding location.

198

198 198 198 198

Required Parking Spaces

198 198

Bus or Trolley Transit

Measurement of Walking Distance 1.

PARKING AND LOADING STANDARDS Development District Standards Shared Parking

Comply? Yes/No N/A

Comments

Sector Plan Reference Page

1. Applicants wishing to use shared parking as a means of reducing the total number of required spaces shall submit a shared parking analysis using the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking Model (2005 edition). 2. The study shall be provided in a form established by the Planning Director or designee. 3. Reductions in the total number of required spaces for shared parking shall not be permitted unless the Planning Director or designee determines a reduction is appropriate on a case-by-case basis through the use of the ULI Shared Parking Model (2005 edition). 4. Uses providing shared parking shall have either mutually exclusive or compatibly overlapping normal hours of operation. The Planning Director or designee shall determine whether hours of operation are compatibly overlapping on a case-by-case basis through the use of the ULI Shared Parking Model (2005 edition).

198

1. The Planning Director or designee may approve a reduction in the number of spaces for a residential project or a mixed-use project with a residential component. 2. The total number of required parking spaces for residential units may be reduced where an active car-sharing program is made available to residents and where cars for the program are available on the site or within a 700-foot walking distance of the site and within the same urban neighborhood. 3. The Planning Director or designee may reduce parking requirements by up to five spaces for each car-share vehicle available.

198

199

198 198

198

Car-Sharing Program

198

199

Employer Transportation Demand Management

The Planning Director or designee may approve up to a 25 percent reduction in the number of spaces for uses that institute and commit to maintain a transportation demand management (TDM) program, considering information the applicant submits that clearly indicates the types of TDM activities and measures proposed. 2. There is no limitation on the types of TDM activities for which reductions may be granted. The following measures serve as a guide to potential transportation management activities that may be used in combination to reduce parking demand. The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Director or designee that a specific reduction shall occur.

199

PARKING AND LOADING STANDARDS Development District Standards

Comply? Yes/No N/A

Comments

Sector Plan Reference Page

3. Appropriate TDM measures by the occupant/s of the use may include: (1) appointment of an employee to act as transportation coordinator with responsibility for disseminating information on ride-sharing and other transportation options for which documentation of reduced parking needs is maintained; (2) documentation of employees that telecommute, job share, ride transit, car pool, or van pool; (3) documentation of the availability of an emergency ride home for those with family, medical, or other similar emergencies may be cause for a reduction in otherwise applicable parking requirements. The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Director or designee that a specific reduction shall occur.

199

Special Parking Standards Joint Parking 1.

Uses abutting one another shall physically connect their surface parking areas at the lot line to create connecting drive aisles where such surface parking areas lie within 50 feet of one another, provided a mutual access easement acceptable to the Planning Director or designee has been executed. The agreement shall ensure that maneuvering space for required parking spaces in both parking areas is preserved. 2. The use of joint parking does not by itself authorize a reduction in the number of required spaces. On-Street Parking 1. A parking space located on a public street may be included in the calculation of parking requirements for every 22 feet of linear space along the street edge adjacent to the building site where the use is located. 2. Each on-street parking space may only be counted for one use, except that an on-street parking space may be used to reduce the combined total parking requirement of a mixed-use project. 3. On-street parking spaces shall count toward parking requirements. 4. The parking space/tree planting pattern may be interrupted by existing or new driveways, streets, alleys, and transit stops designated in the urban design concept plans, but at no time may the spacing exceed 45 feet on center. 5. Parking spaces must be constructed in a manner that allows proper drainage (generally a “W” profile, having a gutter pan between the travel and parking lanes). 6. If on-street bicycle parking is provided forward of the dooryard area, the racks shall be located along the street tree alignment line. (The “U” rack is recommended as the standard rack.)

199

199 199 199 169 169 169 169

PARKING AND LOADING STANDARDS Development District Standards Off-Site Parking

Comply? Yes/No N/A

Comments

Sector Plan Reference Page

Off-site parking shall be located within a walking distance of 700 feet from the use served by the off-site parking. 2. The off-site parking shall be located within a Port Towns urban design character area.

199 199

Tandem Parking 1.

Tandem parking is allowed for single-family projects and multifamily projects and the residential component of mixed-use projects. 2. Two parking spaces in tandem shall have a combined minimum dimension of 9 feet in width by 36 feet in length. 3. Up to 85 percent of the total off-street parking spaces provided for residential projects may incorporate tandem parking. For residential projects, both tandem spaces shall be assigned to the same dwelling unit. Tandem parking may not be used to provide guest parking. Bicycle Parking 1. All new nonresidential development shall provide a minimum of four bicycle parking spaces (installed as two high-quality inverted “U” racks). 2. Nonresidential development providing more than 20 vehicle parking spaces shall be required to install six bicycle parking spaces per 100 vehicle parking spaces. A maximum of 24 bicycle parking spaces shall be required under this standard.

199

The edge of any surface parking lot adjacent to a single family (detached or attached) zoning district shall be planted with canopy shade trees per Section 27A-507, Tree Lists, planted at an average distance not to exceed 40 feet on center and aligned three to seven feet behind the common lot line. 2. Surface parking lot edges along a common lot line shall have a street wall or garden wall or be planted with shrubs at least two feet high at time of planting with a maximum spacing of 2½ feet on center. 3. Landscaping shall be hardy and able to withstand salt, soot and gas fumes.

200

1. Loading facilities are not required in any Port Towns urban design character area. 2. Where loading facilities are provided, they shall meet the design standards in Subtitle 27, Part 11, Division 3, Loading Facilities, except that loading facilities shall only be located to the rear and side of buildings. Loading facilities shall in no case be visible from the street space.

200 200

199 199

Surface Parking Lot Plantings New Development

200 200

Loading Facilities

STREETSCAPE Development District Standards Street Trees 1.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Comply? Yes/No N/A

Comments

Sector Plan Reference Page

Each street-space must have street trees planted along the street tree alignment line (generally 3 to 3½ feet from the back of the curb unless otherwise specified in the urban design concept plan) at an average spacing not greater than 30 feet on center (calculated per block face). Where necessary, spacing allowances may be made to accommodate curb cuts, fire hydrants, and other infrastructure elements; however, at no location may spacing exceed 45 feet on center. Tree planting soil surface area shall not be less than 90 square feet per isolated tree or 60 square feet per tree for connected (tree lawn) situations. No dimension of the tree planting soil surface area may be less than 5 1/2 feet. The requirements may be met with through the use of bridged slab, structural soil, or other techniques for the tree planting area that clearly exceed the above listed standards. Street tree planting areas shall be at grade or not greater than six inches in height above or below the sidewalk. At planting, street trees shall be at least three inches in diameter (at six feet above grade) and at least ten feet in overall height. Species must be selected from the street tree list (see Tree Lists). Any unpaved ground area shall be planted with groundcover, flowering vegetation, or climbing vines, not to exceed 12 inches in height. Street trees must be “limbed up” as they gain appropriate maturity so as to not interfere with pedestrian or truck travel (minimum seven feet clear over the sidewalk and 14 feet over the travel lanes of the street) and to maintain visibility.

168

168 168 168 168 168

Streetscape Elements 1. Street lights shall be installed on both sides of streets along the street tree alignment

168

3. 4. 5.

line and unless otherwise designated on the urban design concept plan, at intervals of not more than 80 feet, measured parallel to the street. Street lights shall be between 9 and 16 feet above ground in height. At the time of development, the developer is responsible for the installation of street lights on each side of the street-space being developed. At the time of development, the developer is required to install sidewalks as illustrated in the Street Type Specifications Section. Sidewalks not otherwise designated in the urban design concept plan or Street Type Specifications Section shall be a minimum of six feet wide and be constructed to meet all county (and ADA) specifications. Street furniture is an element of the overall streetscape design—not an afterthought. Street furnishings should be simple, functional, and durable.

168 168 169 26

SQUARES AND CIVIC GREENS Development District Standards Standards 1.

2. 3. 4. 5.

Comply? Yes/No N/A

Comments

Sector Plan Reference Page

Squares and civic greens shall have at least 60 percent of their perimeter fronting rights-of-way and both types of spaces should be surrounded by street trees. Their dimensions may be no narrower than a 1:5 ratio and no square or civic green width or breadth dimension may be less than 25 feet. Appropriate to their high (pedestrian) traffic level they must be designed with a higher percentage of paved surface area. A clear view through the square or civic green (from two to eight feet in height) is required, both for safety and urban design purposes. Squares and civic greens may not include active recreation structures such as ball fields and courts. These standards apply to those spaces that are either publicly owned or publicly accessible, if such spaces are being used to meet the minimum public space requirements of this code (see Part 3. Districts and Urban Design Concept Plans).

169

169 169 169 169

Materials and Configuration General 1. 2. 3. 4.

5. 6.

Street trees shall be planted along the street tree alignment line in accordance with Section 27A-504.B. Street Trees. They may be of a different species than the connecting street. The ground surface level elevation must be between 0 and 18 inches above the top of the adjacent curb. The maximum slope across any square or civic green may not exceed ten percent. Except for tree trunks, street lights, civic buildings, public art, or monuments, there must be a clear view between two and eight feet above grade. The foliage of newly planted trees may intrude into this area until the tree has sufficient growth to allow such a clear trunk height. Trees within a square or civic green may also be selected from the public space tree lists (see Tree List, page 171). Asphalt is prohibited within a square or civic green.

169 169 169 169

169 170

SQUARES AND CIVIC GREENS Development District Standards Squares 1.

Comply? Yes/No N/A

Comments

Sector Plan Reference Page

Appropriate to their high (pedestrian) traffic level, squares shall be designed with a higher percentage of paved surface area. Surface treatment and materials (within the area back-of-curb to back-of-curb, excluding any civic building, public art or monument footprint) shall be a minimum 20 percent and a maximum 35 percent unpaved pervious surface (turf, groundcover, gravel, soil or mulch).

170

Appropriate to their less intensive character, greens shall be designed with a lower percentage of paved surface area. Surface treatment and materials (within the area back-of-curb to back-of-curb excluding any civic building, public art, or monument footprint) shall be a minimum 50 percent unpaved pervious surface area (turf, groundcover, gravel, soil or mulch).

170

The area within a pedestrian pathway must be a public access easement or public right-of-way. The easement width for these pathways must not be less than 20 feet with a paved walkway not less than ten feet wide and must provide an unobstructed view straight through its entire length, except where otherwise specified on the urban design concept plan. 3. Where loading facilities are provided, they shall meet the design standards in Subtitle 27, Part 11, Division 3, Loading Facilities, except that loading facilities shall only be located to the rear and side of buildings. Loading facilities shall in no case be visible from the street space.

170

Civic Greens 1.

Pedestrian Pathways 1.

200

Varnum Street

e Volta Avenu

51st Street

Upshur Street 58th Avenue

oad

Spring Road

Annapolis Ro

Road

oad

500

Feet 1,000

cbe

th S

Park way ngto n

lace 56th P

nW ay

56th S treet

diso

re W ashi

dov er R

imo

55th Avenue

Lan

Balt

Newton Street Ma

Quincy Stre

Aven ue

56th Place

56th Avenue

53rd Place

eet 53rd Str

reet

52nd St

Quincy Street

Randolph Street Aven ue

polis

g Ro

in Spr

58th

Anna

Taylor Street

57th

mon

ston R

reet

54th Place

54th Street

53rd Place

erd St

53rd Ave

51st Street

Sheph

Taussig Road

ue 56th Aven

venue 55th A

Tilden Road

tree

Annapolis Road Gateway Character Area

Ter rac e

39t

38t

38t e

et Str e th

enu d Av

42n enu t Av

41s

t ree

e St enc r w a

lace

Law

ce ren

500

u ven hA

nu Ave

e Plac

37th

Stre

Av en

40t

Oak

lace hP

ve hA

et Stre

39t

ane

to New

Str ee

Roa

40t

ark New

t ree

e St

o onr

37t Bla

u ven dA 43r

ce Pla

u ven hA

Ne wt on

ce Pla

u ven hA 40t

t rof

oad

R urg nsb

37th Av enue

Wells Avenue

37th Street

36th Street

35th Street

Oti

eet Str

k Par

da Ce

Perry Street

e enu d Av

tree

dS woo

nu Ave

tre

enu t Av

et Stre

h 40t

Rho

Qui

oad

41s

ncy

nu Ave

Bunker Hill R

42n

d slan

tre

43rd

ill

rH unke

Road

Cot t

age

Shepherd Stre

Stre

Ro rny Kea

tree

S yon Ken

Feet 1,000

Bladensburg Road Gateway/Main Street Character Area

49th t

Edm ons ton Roa d

t Stree

Tilden Road

52nd Street

Upsh

Upshur Street t Stree 48th

46th Street

Baltimore Avenue

u Varn

t Stree

Varnum Street

Stree

Webster Street

t Stree ster b e W

Taussig Rd

Taylor St

54th Street

53rd Place

Taylor Street

erd St

Spring Road

53rd Ave

47th Street

51st Street

Sheph

Annapolis Road 52nd Street

Annapolis Road

Quincy Place

53rd Place

53rd Stree

48th Street

Quincy Street

i Ken rth

lwo

Newton Street

venue 54th A

500

nu Ave

Feet 1,000

Bladensburg Town Center Character Area

Maccaboy Street

ilton

46th S Deca tur St

dA ven u lan Avenu e

son S

Burli Buch

nue

Ingra

ham

Stree

Street

Farragu t Emers o

Street

nStre

anon

n Rd

Critte

nden

Stree

lace nd P

tree

reet

ngto

44th

Rho

de Is

Eme r

Stree

48th A ve

reet

venue 43rd A

42nd P

lace

Farragut St

nden

47th A venue

treet

Gallatin St

Gallatin

rson

49th A venue

Hamilton St

Critte

m St

Ham

Jeffe

Street

51st A ve

Baltimore Avenue

44th Ave

43rd Pl

43rd Avenue

42nd Place

42nd Avenue

Ingr aha

e Place Lafayett

Jefferson Street

Kennedy St 43rd Avenue

Kennedy Street

nue 47th Ave

reet Longfellow St

Taylo r Roa d

Longfello w

Buch

anon

Stree

trout Drive Charles L Armen

500

Feet 1,000

Edmonston North Workshop Character Area

51st

Ave

Taylo r Ro

ilton

g Tan Farragut S

Gallat

t St

52nd Pla

Deca tur St

Em e

rso

tre

55t

e Ave nu

Bucha

non S

treet

Crit

ten d

cha

Wind om

Road

sap

eak eS

tre

Varnum Pl

ste Web

Feet 1,000

Upshur Street Tilden Street

Edmonston Road Main Street Character Area

55th Avenue

Varnum Street 51st Street

500

Che

Str eet

tre

eet r Str

54th Street

50th A venue

Edm

ons

ton

53r dA ven u

rth

Ave nu

Avenu e

lwo

n Str eet

Ken i

Critt ende

52nd

51st P

lace

51st A venue

reet

ree t

lace

Far rag u

54t hP

n Stre

54t hA ven ue

53r dP

Emers o

in Stre

lace

treet

Stree

o lew

Ham

e riv

hA ven u

D od

Riverside Drive

Bucha

non S

treet

entrout Drive

Charles L Arm

Tanglewood Drive

m Ro

Stree

t Stree ster

49th

Web

reet

m St

u Varn

ort ilw n Ke Ti lden

reet

ur St

Upsh

n Rd

46th Street

Baltimore Avenue

Webster Street

ven hA

o Wind

Edm o

nsto

Upshur Street

Taylor Street

Shepherd Street

rg R

bu ens

Bla

500

Port Towns Waterfront Character Area

Quincy Place

48th Street

Feet 1,000

Annapolis Road

Quincy Street