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 April 6, 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; Interpreter – Leslie Bilchick I. Call to Order: Christopher Gill called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. II. Approval of Minutes: Lawrence Bleau moved to accept the minutes of March 2, 2017 after the correction on Page 4. Kate Kennedy seconded. The motion carried 6-0-0. III. Amendments to Agenda: Christopher Gill moved to hear the status report on Holiday Inn from the attorney Sullen Ferguson to before the public hearings. IV. Public Remarks on Non-Agenda Items: There were no Public Remarks on Non- Agenda Items. V. CPV-2017-01 Variance to Construct a 26-foot by 36-foot Addition Applicant: Juan Romero and Jorge Ramos Location: 9407 48th Avenue Christopher Gill explained the hearing procedures and placed witnesses under oath. Miriam Bader summarized the staff report. The applicant is requesting a variance to build a 36-foot by 26-foot addition to their house. The property is predominantly rectangular in shape with a total square footage of 11,998 square feet. The subject house was constructed in 1963. The property is improved with a one-story, single- family house with a walk-out basement, an uncovered, elevated, rear deck with a concrete patio, a concrete driveway and a second, long, asphalt driveway that leads to a detached, rear garage. When the previous property owner built the deck, there was a note on the permit that states that a “curb-cut may be necessary” but there is no permit for the curb-cut or second driveway to access the garage. The rear garage was constructed in 1980. Advisory Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 2017 – Page 2 The applicants are proposing to construct the addition over and extending 13-feet beyond the location of the current deck and then add a new 12-foot by 25-foot uncovered deck. Uncovered (without roofs) decks and porches do not count against lot coverage. However, if a patio is to be located under the deck, that would count against lot coverage. It is unclear if the applicant is proposing to put a patio under the deck. Staff recommends denial of the lot coverage variance of 9.43% or 1,131.12 square feet from the maximum allowable lot coverage of 30% or 3,599.40 square feet. Miriam Bader submitted the staff report, Exhibits 1-11 and the PowerPoint presentation into the record. James McFadden asked if the existing deck count against lot coverage? Miriam Bader stated that the ordinance states that if there is a roof, it would count as lot coverage. However, the deck that’s there does not have a roof, but the patio under it counts. Lawrence Bleau asked if the long driveway was constructed by the previous property owner? Miriam Bader stated yes in 1980. They got a permit, which did not show either driveway. Lawrence Bleau asked if the driveway on the left side of the house was existing in 1980? Miriam Bader stated that the driveway on the left is the original driveway, it was there when the house was purchased. Lawrence Bleau asked if a variance is needed for a second driveway? Terry Schum stated that a second driveway would require the approval of the Mayor and Council. It would be a variance that would only be heard by the Mayor and Council for the second curb-cut. If approved, maintenance of the curb-cut is the responsibility of the property owner. James McFadden asked if a permit is required for the deck? Miriam Bader stated yes, the permit was obtained in 1986. Jorge Ramas, applicant, testified through the interpreter, Leslie Bilchick, that he is hoping to obtain approval to build the addition. He stated that if needed, he could take the asphalt away and put the stones down. Currently, there are five persons living in the house. Lawrence Bleau asked if there are any conditions that he can address that would satisfy the hardship criteria? Advisory Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 2017 – Page 3 Jorge Ramas stated no. Kate Kennedy asked if the applicant added the porch, garage or driveway? Jorge Ramos stated that everything was there already. He made no additional exterior changes. John Rigg asked the applicant if he resides at the house? Jorge Ramos stated yes. John Rigg asked what is the reason that he wants to build the addition? Jorge Ramos stated that he wanted to have more space in his house. Rose Greene-Colby asked how many people are residing in the house? Jorge Ramos stated his brother-in-law, sister and two kids. A total of five people. Rose Greene-Colby asked how many bedrooms are in the house? Jorge Ramos stated four and one in the basement. James McFadden asked if the garage is used for storage and parking vehicles? Jorge Ramos stated that it is only used for work tools. Commissioners reviewed the criteria that need to be met before the variance can be granted and determined that: 1) The property has an exceptionally long driveway that utilizes 1,752 square feet of lot coverage. 2) Denial of the variance will prevent the property owners from building the proposed addition but this is not a peculiar or unusual practical difficulty or an undue hardship because the applicant has surplus parking area that could be removed to come into compliance with the lot coverage requirement. 3) The variance requested will substantially impair the purpose and integrity of the Master Plan by allowing the property to be over built with a detrimental impact to the intent of open space and storm water management practices. John Rigg moved to deny the variance because the request does not meet the criteria for granting the variance for the reasons stated above. Lawrence Bleau seconded. Motion carried 5-0-1, with James McFadden abstaining. Advisory Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 2017 – Page 4 VI. CPV-2017-02 Variance to Replace an Existing Driveway Applicant: Joe Bickley Location: 4709 Fordham Road Christopher Gill explained the hearing procedures and placed witnesses under oath. Miriam Bader summarized the staff report. The applicant is requesting a variance to replace an existing asphalt driveway with a concrete driveway. The property is predominantly rectangular in shape for a total square footage of 7,671 square feet. The lot is a through lot with frontage on Fordham Road and on a rear alley. The front property line, fronting Fordham Road, measures 50 feet, the rear property line, fronting the alley measures 50.23 feet, the western side property line measures 155.79 feet and the eastern side property line measures 151.05 feet. The property is improved with a 1.5-story single-family house, a asphalt driveway off Fordham Road, and a rear parking pad off an alley including a carport. There is no record of permits for the carport or parking pad. The subject house was constructed in 1923. The driveway to be replaced is over 50 years old and original to the house. Staff recommends denial of the lot coverage variance of 14.18% or 1,087.70 square feet from the maximum allowable lot coverage of 30% or 2,301.30 square feet. Miriam Bader submitted the staff report, Exhibits 1-7 and the PowerPoint presentation into the record. Christopher Gill asked when was the shed built? Joe Bickley, applicant, stated that the shed was built in 1965. John Rigg asked if the patio and sidewalk is included in the lot coverage tabulation? Miriam Bader stated that sidewalks are not included, but anything that is covered or a car can park on would be included. Rose Greene-Colby asked why is a variance needed to replace what is already existing? Miriam Bader stated because there was no permits. Susan Cook, attorney, stated that the applicant needs a variance because what is already there was not legally allowed before. Joe Bickley, applicant, testified that the improvements have been there for years. He stated that he went to the County about 30 years ago when he replaced the concrete pad and they said he did not need a permit. John Rigg asked why does he want to reconstruct the front driveway, when there is ample parking in the rear? Joe Bickley stated that all of his other neighbors have a nice concrete driveway and he would also like to clean up his yard. Advisory Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 2017 – Page 5 Kate Kennedy asked how many cars fit in the parking space in the rear? Joe Bickley stated that he parks one big truck comfortably. Lawrence Bleau asked what would be the hardship if the variance was not granted? Joe Bickley stated that he doesn’t want to take up the driveway. Lawrence Bleau asked if he thought the current condition of the driveway would be a safety hazard? Joe Bickley stated that anyone walking across it could trip and fall. Commissioners reviewed the criteria that need to be met before the variance can be granted and determined that: 1) The property has an exceptional situation in that the applicant wants to repair the existing, original driveway that is over 50 years old. He is not seeking to enlarge the driveway but simply resurface it from asphalt to concrete, its original material. 2) Denial will prevent the property owners from replacing his driveway but this is not a peculiar or unusual practical difficulty or an undue hardship since there is another driveway/parking pad off the alley where the property owner regularly parks his vehicles. 3) The intent of the lot coverage requirement is to prevent a lot from being overbuilt to ensure adequate storm water management, to ensure a certain level of aesthetics, an appropriate density and reasonable massing. The applicant is seeking a variance to exceed lot coverage by 14.18%, an amount that could substantially impair the intent, purpose and integrity of the Plan. John Rigg moved to deny the variance because the request does not meet the criteria for granting the variance for the reasons stated above. Kate Kennedy seconded. Motion carried 4-2-0, with Lawrence Bleau and James McFadden voting nay. VII. Report on Status of CPD-2017-01 (Holiday Inn Express) Suellen Ferguson stated that the Mayor and Council discussed this item on Tuesday, April 4th at their worksession. Since it was a tied vote no recommendation was made so the Council has two options. They could hear the case at their level based on the record that the APC made, or they could remand it back to the APC. After discussion, the Council determined that the case will be remanded back to the APC. The case will be scheduled for the May 4, 2017 agenda for discussion. During this time, any member not present at the March 2, 2017 meeting may ask questions, if needed, for clarification. The transcript, staff report and exhibits of the hearing will be provided to you for review before the May 4th meeting. Advisory Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 2017 – Page 6 VIII. Update on Development Activity Greenbelt Station (FBI) – There is a Detailed Site Plan application pending before the County Planning Board for infrastructure, having to do with the construction of Greenbelt Station Parkway. It’s under an expedited Transit Oriented Development review. Staff received the plans a week ago and the public hearing is on April 27th and the City Council will take it up on April 18th. There is a committee in North College Park that’s been formed to review the application. Staff will be meeting with the developer on April 7th and the North College Park Citizens Association on April 13th . Shaban Property – The Planning Board approved the rezoning for the property from Open Space (OS) to Commercial Shopping Center (CSC). Chick-Fil-A – The proposed location is at the Northeast corner of Route 1 and Greenbelt Road. The property is under contract. The developer is proposing a two story-restaurant with a drive-thru at the location. Detailed Site Plans have not been filed and the developer is also looking at other sites. IX. Other Business: There was no Other Business. Rose Green-Colby suggests that the County Planning Department or City staff do a review and presentation to the Commissioners on the Route 1 Corridor Sector Plan and the Zoning Rewrite. X. Adjourn: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. Minutes prepared by Theresheia Williams