Advisory Planning Commission

CITY OF COLLEGE PARK ADVISORY ADVISORY PLANNINGPLANNING COMMISSIONCOMMISSION 4500 KNOX ROAD COLLEGE PARK, MARYLAND 20740 TELEPHONE: (240) 487-3538  FACSIMILE: (301) 887-0558 ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION Approved Minutes of Meeting March 2, 2017 – 7:30 P.M. City Hall – Council Chambers Members Present Absent Lawrence Bleau x James McFadden x Rose Greene Colby x Christopher Gill, Chair x Kate Kennedy, Vice Chair x John Rigg x Denise Mitchell x Also Present: Planning Staff – Terry Schum, Miriam Bader and Theresheia Williams; Attorney Susan Cook. I. Call to Order: Christopher Gill called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. II. Approval of Minutes: Kate Kennedy moved to adopt the minutes of February 2, 2017. Denise Mitchell seconded. The motion carried 4-0-0. III. Amendments to Agenda: Christopher Gill move to hear item VI, Holiday Inn Express, before Item VII because the applicant has a scheduling issue. IV. Public Remarks on Non-Agenda Items: There were no Public Remarks on Non- Agenda Items. V. CPD-2017-02 Departure from Sign Design Standards under the US 1 Corridor Sector Plan to permit a freestanding sign Applicant: Shri Paramhans Services, Inc. Location: 8505 Baltimore Avenue Christopher Gill explained the hearing procedures and placed witnesses under oath. Miriam Bader summarized the staff report. The applicant is requesting a departure to keep an existing free-standing sign that was erected prior to obtaining a building permit. The property is located on the east side of Baltimore Avenue between Quebec Street and Berwyn Road. The property is approximately 77 feet wide by 140 feet deep. The building is setback 84 feet from the front property line. The free-standing sign is located approximately 80 feet from the street. The property is located in the College Park US 1 Corridor Sector Plan Infill area. The Sector plan does not permit free-standing signs. Advisory Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 2017 – Page 2 Although free standing signs are not permitted in the Overlay District, the sign is small, not lighted and not unsightly. The sign conforms to the Sector Plan in terms of material and height. Since the proposed sign is small and set back over 80 feet from the road, the sign does not contribute to sign clutter. The proposed sign is adequate to identify and advertise in a manner that is compatible with land uses in the district. Staff recommends approval of the requested departure to permit the existing free- standing, wood, painted sign. Miriam Bader submitted the staff report, Exhibits 1-9 and the PowerPoint presentation into the record. Kate Kennedy asked why aren’t free standing signs permitted on Route 1? Miriam Bader stated that on Route 1 there is an Overlay District that prohibits free- standing signs, because it causes a cluttered appearance. Terry Schum stated that the reason the Sector Plan was first adopted in 2002 was to set in motion guidelines and recommendations and standards to transform Route 1 from a strip commercial corridor to a mixed-use boulevard with compact nodes of development that are walkable. Lawrence Bleau asked if monument signs are permissible by the Sector Plan? Miriam Bader stated that monument signs are considered a free-standing sign. Amit K. Sharma, member of the temple, testified that the staff presentation was excellent. He stated that they meet at the temple once a week and occasionally they get calls from visitors that can’t find the temple. Without the sign it would be hard to locate the building because there is no building number or street address visible. Bill Clark, member of the temple, testified that he and his wife purchased the building beside the applicants. He stated that the prior owner did no upgrades on the building. He has been working with the temple to keep the property clean and keep the overgrowth maintained. Mr. Clark submitted photos of the condition of the property before it was purchased by the church. The photos were entered into the record as Exhibit 10. Commissioners reviewed the criteria that need to be met before the departure can be granted. Lawrence Bleau moved to recommend approval for departure request CPD- 2017-02 because the request meets the criteria for granting the variance for the reasons stated above. Kate Kennedy seconded. Motion carried 4-0-0. Advisory Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 2017 – Page 3 VI. CPD-2017-01 Departure from Sign Design Standards under the US 1 Corridor Sector Plan to permit a freestanding sign Applicant: Holiday Inn Express Location: 9020 Baltimore Avenue Christopher Gill explained the hearing procedures and placed witnesses under oath. Miriam Bader summarized the staff report. The applicant is requesting a departure to remove an existing free-standing sign and erect a smaller and lower sign at the location. The property is located on the west side of Baltimore Avenue between University Boulevard and Metzerott Road. The Comfort Inn was recently sold to Holiday Inn Express. As part of the rebranding process, the Comfort Inn building signs were removed and replaced with Holiday Inn Express building signs. The request is not considered a “re-facing” because the applicant is requesting to remove the existing sign and construct a new sign in its place. Holiday Inn Express has erected 3 building signs adequately identifying the property from the north, south and east frontages. The addition of a fourth sign will add to the proliferation of signs and detracts from the character of a revitalized Route 1. The visibility of the current free-standing sign is blocked by on-site mature landscaping. The proposed smaller and shorter sign will be even less visible. Currently, a temporary banner covers the free-standing sign. Staff recommends denial of the requested departure to permit a free-standing, internally-lit cabinet sign. Re-facing the existing free-standing sign is permitted but not recommended since the sign is superfluous, contributes to sign clutter, impacts the environmental quality of the site and does not comply with the Sector Plan. Miriam Bader submitted the staff report, Exhibits 1-9 and the PowerPoint presentation into the record. Matthew Tedesco, attorney for applicant, testified that as part of the applicant’s rebranding process, the applicant is proposing to replace the existing freestanding sign with a new and more attractive sign, which will be in the same location as the existing sign. The sign has been there for 30 or more years and refaced several times. The sign is 152 square feet and 26 feet tall. If the departure is denied, the sign will remain and will be refaced. He stated that this project is just a rebranding of a hotel, so it is exempt from the Sector Plan District Standards. The proposed sign will be more attractive and slightly smaller in size than the existing outdated sign. All new materials will be manufactured to match the finishes of the hotel and the Holiday Inn Express brand. Mr. Tedesco stated that he doesn’t think that leaving the existing sign there and re-facing it is in the best interest of the hotel, property, City or the patrons that will come there. He stated that denial of this request sends a message that the City wants the proliferation to continue. He stated that the hotel’s proposal to replace and improve the existing sign with a new Holiday Inn Express sign is in keeping with the Development District Standards, in that the sign otherwise complies with setbacks and other dimensional requirements. Mr. Tedesco stated that the proposed design of the new sign is standard for Holiday Inn Express hotels and does not impede the implementation of the Sector Plan. Advisory Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 2017 – Page 4 Without the approval of the departure, the applicant will be forced to leave the old and outdated sign as is, which will be more impactful to the Sector Plan than if the requested departure is granted. Mr. Tedesco stated that he feels that the applicant has met the required findings of Section 27-239.01(b)(8)(A) and Section 190-9 B(8) of the City Code, and therefore, requests that the departure to permit a new free-standing sign in place of the existing sign be granted. Mr. Tedesco submitted the following Exhibits into the record, which were entered as follows:  Exhibit 10 – Photo packet of interior and exterior improvements.  Exhibit 11 – Aerial photograph showing the location where the photos were taken from Route 1  Exhibit 12 – photos of the property from north and south bound on Route 1 Denise Mitchell asked if the proposed sign was considered a reface? Miriam Bader stated that Exhibit 7 in the staff report shows an example of re-facing where they are changing one panel of the sign. Terry Schum stated that a reface is when you keep the existing sign structure including the existing sign cabinet. You take out a panel and insert a new panel. There are lights inside the cabinet that provide the illumination. It’s a very inexpensive way to just change the sign if businesses come and go. You utilize the existing structure and the cabinet that contains the sign and just switch out a panel. However, the applicant is proposing a new structure. Kate Kennedy asked what is the vision of the Sector Plan and is there a study on the safety aspect of the right-hand turn into the hotel? Terry Schum stated that the vision for the sector plan is stated in the staff report indicating what type of sign is desirable and the type of sign not recommended. There is no data on file showing the safety of the right turn into the hotel. Denise Mitchell stated that if you miss the hotel turn and have to make a sharp right it can be a bottle neck in that area sometimes. Traffic accidents have occurred while people are trying to locate the hotel. Denise asked if there is a correlation between the signage at the Best Western and the Clarion? Terry Schum stated that there is no correlation. The Best Western was a redevelopment; it replaced the existing motel, which had a free-standing sign with a building sign. The Clarion has an existing free-standing sign, which will go away because Lidl Grocery will be occupying that site and they will not have a free-standing sign. Commissioners reviewed the criteria that need to be met before the departure can be granted. Denise Mitchell moved to recommend approval for variance CPD-2017-01. Lawrence Bleau seconded. Motion failed 2-2-0, with Christopher Gill and Kate Kennedy voting nay. Advisory Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 2017 – Page 5 VII. CPD-2017-03 Departure from Sign Design Standards under the US 1 Corridor Sector Plan to permit a an internally- lit box sign Applicant: Cherry Fagbemi – Print Shop Location: 9205 Baltimore Avenue Christopher Gill explained the hearing procedures and placed witnesses under oath. Miriam Bader summarized the staff report. The applicant is requesting a departure to permit an internally-lit, plastic, box sign that was erected prior to obtaining a sign permit. The property is located on the east side of Baltimore Avenue between Delaware Street and Erie Street. The Print Shop is one of two businesses located in a one-story building. The property is located in the College Park US 1 Corridor Sector Plan, Corridor Infill area. The Sector Plan prohibits internally-lit plastic signs because they are considered unsightly and are “designed for the strip” rather than a pedestrian oriented main street.” Staff recommends disapproval of the requested departure to permit the existing internally-lit box sign. The City offers matching grants to business owners to upgrade their signs which could help to defray the cost for conforming the sign. Miriam Bader submitted the staff report, Exhibits 1-8 and the PowerPoint presentation into the record. Cherry Fagbemi, applicant, testified that the Print Shop is a very small business with just one employee. She stated that she has been at this site for 3 years and just had the sign installed last year. She stated that when she installed the sign, she had no idea that she needed a permit because her landlord had a sign at his building which is located next door. When she went to Prince George’s County to get the permit, they informed her that she had to apply for a departure. She stated that since she installed the sign, her business has improved Christopher Gill asked how much more would it cost for a channel sign? Terry Schum stated that it would probably be double the cost of the sign the applicant purchased. Commissioners reviewed the criteria that need to be met before the departure can be granted. Lawrence Bleau moved to deny the departure request for CPD-2017-03. Denise Mitchell seconded. Motion carried 4-0-0. Miriam Bader stated that the applicant is also requesting a “Financial Hardship Waiver” for the $2,000 Departure Application fee. The City Code states “A reduction in the fee may be permitted by the Commission when it finds that payment will cause undue hardship upon the applicant.” Ms. Fagbemi stated that she does not have $2,000 for the application fee. She stated that she paid $1,700 for the sign, which was a little expensive for her, but she wanted to bring in more business. Lawrence Bleau asked what are the annual revenues for the business? Advisory Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 2017 – Page 6 Cherry Fagbemi stated that the income is between $40,000 and $50,000 before expenses. Lawrence Bleau moved to approve the financial hardship waiver. Kate Kennedy seconded. Motion carried 4-0-0. VIII. Update on Development Activity #1 Liquor – There was a Press Release on March 2nd from the University and Vigilante Coffee indicating that the coffee shop will be opening in the site of #1 Liquor in the near future. IX. Other Business: There was no Other Business. X. Adjourn: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. Minutes prepared by Theresheia Williams